Christ the Universal High Priest
:)
Posted on 02/06/2006 10:11:00 AM PST by AnalogReigns
Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
Cyprian (200-258 A.D.)
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" [Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian"]. As James White points out, the clergy in Rome were addressing letters to Cyprian, "Pope Cyprian." It simply meant "father."
The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.)
In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. [Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles"] The Council of Chalcedon, in Canon 28, declares that Rome's rank was based on its political significance rather than any spiritual superiority.
St. Jerome (342-420 A.D.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."
Gregory I (540-604)
"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others" and compares the man who chooses the title "universal bishop" to Satan. [Gregory I of Rome, Book V, Epistle 18, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, 12:166]
The Roman Catholic Council of Trent
As the gavel came down to close the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563, Rome had officially and, according to her own commitment down to the present moment, irreversably, declared the preaching of the Gospel in the Reformation "anathema." The most relevant Canons are the following:
Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone...let him be anathema.
Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins...or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.
Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ's sake...let him be anathema.
Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life...let him be anathema.
. . .
Where Do We Stand Today?
There was a popular slogan in the middle ages, "God will not deny his grace to those who do what lies within their power." A modern equivalent might be, "God helps those who help themselves." According to recent surveys, 87% of today's evangelical Protestants affirm this view of salvation, with 77% agreeing with the statement that "man is basically good by nature." Not even at the Council of Trent did Rome tolerate this essentially Pelagian concept, and yet it is affirmed by the clear majority of the supposed heirs of the Reformation.
Therefore, this is not an exercise in bigotry, nor an attempt to renew ancient hostilities; it is a battle for the Gospel in the face of any--whether pope or evangelist, who would allow this doctrine to be hidden from those who even today will be passing from this world to face the judgment of our God and of his Christ.
Bearing the nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Church, Sacramentum Mundi is a modern encyclopedia of Roman doctrine. In its article on Justification we read that justification "implies a relation with a judgment rather than a mode of being." The term for Paul "always has a certain forensic flavour which prevents its becoming a mere synonym of regeneration or re-creation. In later theology, however, this sense is often lost, and justification comes to mean nothing more than the infusion of grace (D 799). Now when St. Paul applies the juridical terminology to the new Christian reality, it acquires an entirely new meaning. It refers now not to the future but to the past (Rom.5:9), not to the just man but the sinner (Rom.4:5). And so the basis of justification must also be different. It can no longer be observance of the law. It must be Christ, whom God has made our righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1 Cor.1:30), which is the same thing as saying that we are justified by faith in Christ (Rom.3:28)." [ by Ricardo Franco, pp. 239-240]
Furthermore, arguably the two most widely respected Roman Catholic biblical scholars, J. A. Fitzmyer and Raymond Brown, have recognized that justification is understood in the biblical text to mean legal acquittal and not a process of growth in inherent righteousness. "Justification in the Old Testament," writes Fitzmyer, "denotes one who stood acquitted or vindicated before a judge's tribunal...This uprightness (righteousness) does not belong to human beings (Rom. 10:3), and is not something that they produced or merited; it is an alien uprightness, one belonging to another (Christ) and attributed to them because of what that other had done for them...This justification comes about by grace and through faith" (Romans, AB 33, pp.116-19).
And yet, Roman Catholic theologian Johann Baptist Metz calls for a second Reformation precisely because he sees the immediate relevance: "The question is said to belong to another, noncontemporary world," he writes. "I do not share this position at all. The heart of the Reformation's question--How can we attain to grace? --is absolutely central to our most pressing concerns. Just look for a moment at the human person of today: a part of this late bourgeois world of ours, stretched between doubt and commitment, between apathy and a meager kind of love, between ruthless self-assertion and a weak form of solidarity, confused and more uncertain of himself than he was even a few generations ago...And we are asked to believe that this person cannot understand the cry for grace, the pressing question as to whether and how grace can come to us? I do not accept that for a moment. This second Reformation concerns all Christians, is coming upon all of us, upon the two great churches of our Christianity."
So is good and evil (as old as the church). What is the point you're making? Because it's an old argument one should pass over it?
In a simplistic view, it was Truth that was sacrificed on the Cross (I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life).
Are we to continue to sacrifice Truth or defend it? To deny it or affirm it? To lose faith in it (or it's existence) or to believe in it?
Truth exists and has NEVER failed...look for it. Hint: It is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8).
No, in fact the complaints began in earnest after the split over the filioque in 1054, and especially when the West, under assault from the neo-iconoclast anticlerical Protestants developed an assertive style of papacy, understandably unpalatable to the East, but indispensable in the West. Prior to 1054 there has been remarkably little controversy regarding papal primacy, if you discount off-the-cliff heretics, of course.
I can see where people would get the anti-Catholic thing (though its not like he was Jack Chick or anything) but racist??? I never read anything he posted that was racist.
"(I will confess to never seeing any scholarly articles on the concept of Grace within the Eastern traditions though)"
Read +Gregory Palamas and his writings on created vs uncreated grace (energies).
"(I will confess to never seeing any scholarly articles on the concept of Grace within the Eastern traditions though)"
Read +Gregory Palamas and his writings on created vs uncreated grace (energies).
I don't recall anything racist, and although I think he was obnoxious, there was no reason to ban him. I am surprised he was, I thought he disappeared tired of his one-trick-pony routine.
Maybe he got raptured?
Poor thing. Imagine going through Heavens like this:
St. Agness. Pleased to meet you. Biblewonk. Where are you in the Bible?
St Anselm. Pleased to meet you. Biblewonk. Where are you in the Bible?
...
"I do not think the dual procession of the Holy Ghost has been defined infallibly."
Sure it was, at Nicea, Alex. But that doesn't end the discussion, AMHN. Where the problem has been for the past 1000 years or so has been with the West's own, often theological and hierarchial if not papal, attempts to justify filioque with novel theology. The understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit in the East has always been as stated by +Gregory Palamas in the 13th century:
"The Spirit of the supreme Logos is a kind of ineffable yet intense longing or 'eros' experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter; but the Logos possesses this love by virtue of the fact that it comes from the Father in the very act through which He comes from the Father, and it resides co-naturally in Him.
It is from the Logos's discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit's distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says 'the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father' (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Yet the Spirit belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos. For Truth and Wisdom constitute a Logos that befits His Begetter, a Logos that rejoices with the Father as the Father rejoices in Him.
This accords with the words that He spoke through Solomon:'I was She who rejoiced together with Him' (Prov. 8:30). Solomon did not say simply 'rejoiced' but 'rejoiced together with'. This pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. Our intellect, because created in God's image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it."
So far as I know, and I base this on the comments of the Roman and Orthodox theologians who together came up with an agreed statement on the Creed, this is the precise and correct meaning of the filioque for Roman Catholicism. Thus the Roman Church has apparently agreed that the Creed without the filioque is "normative" and should be what is used for translations and catechesis.
The filioque started out as an attempt to counter Arianism. Its imposition on the Church by Rome was at a minimum misguided and I think, AMHN, you may be right that it at least in part lies at the base of medieval claims of papal supremacy. Remember that in the False Union of Florence, Orthodoxy was not required to accept the filioque. By the time of the Reformation, Rome had reason to harden its positions about papal supremacy, but they weren't cvoming from the East.
Frankly, AMHN, the filioque is only an issue if Rome insists on a dual procession of the HS...and if it really ever did, it doesn't now.
so who was the first Pope?
To whom did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom? (And yes, it's in the Bible!)
"The author of this article doesn't mention the Orthodox Church. But this looks like a defense of Orthodoxy."
Do you really think so? If so, its a rather simplistic one. Even if I hadn't looked at where it came from, I'd have assumed it was from a Protestant source.
"so who was the first Pope?
To whom did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom? (And yes, it's in the Bible!)"
Just a brief caveat on that bible/keys business. I think you'll find that at least as among the Latins and the Orthodox theologians at the ongoing discussions on the proper exercise of the Petrine Office, this has been left aside on the theory that if they wait around for biblical exegetes to decide the issue, it will be at least another 1000 years before it can be resolved.
Christ the Universal High Priest
:)
"Remember that in the False Union of Florence, Orthodoxy was not required to accept the filioque."
I'm not sure that the False Union of Florence did not include many false precepts as well, i.e. that of not requiring the Orthodox to accept the filioque. Remember, Constantinople fell to the Muslims within 20 years of this false, and unholy union; and it remains so today. I believe God knows the hearts of men...which are not always revealed in their documents. I fear that the modern form of Florence, i.e. the Ecumenical movement toward pan-Christianity, pan-religion, and ultimately humanism (the true under current of the superficial healing between Rome and Orthodoxy) will have similar, if not even more disastrous, effects
I'm not sure that I agree with you concerning whether or not Rome ever insisted in the issue of the dual procession. But that could be a discussion itself.
I do agree that Nicea and Constantinople defined infallibly the issue of the precession of the Holy Spirit. I would also add that it did so as One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church guided in all Truth by the Holy Spirit.
I would be careful from an ecumenical standpoint to lessen the historical and theological implications of these great heresies (as many of our Saints have categorized Rome’s theology). To do so trivializes the impact this theology has had on the Body of Christ and the complete Protestant fragmentation we’ve seen since the Great Schism.
"it will be at least another 1000 years before it can be resolved."
Maybe not...
I was referring to the quotes in the first part of the article.
"I fear that the modern form of Florence, i.e. the Ecumenical movement toward pan-Christianity, pan-religion, and ultimately humanism (the true under current of the superficial healing between Rome and Orthodoxy) will have similar, if not even more disastrous, effects.
Well, if what you believe, that the undercurrent of the ongoing discussions between canonical Orthodoxy and Rome is "...the Ecumenical movement toward pan-Christianity, pan-religion, and ultimately humanism", is really true, then indeed we have a problem. Knowing some of the players, I sincerely doubt this is even remotely true, but tell me why you think it is.
" Remember, Constantinople fell to the Muslims within 20 years of this false, and unholy union; and it remains so today."
I know. I had an ancestor die on the walls with Constantine XI Paleologus.
"To do so trivializes the impact this theology has had on the Body of Christ and the complete Protestant fragmentation we’ve seen since the Great Schism."
I doubt anyone Latin or Orthodox would for a moment trivialize the impact the filioque had on The Church. On the other hand, there is no point, in fact it is likely sinful, to fail to move past what happened then and ignore what is believed and professed now. In any event, should an agreement on the proper role of the pope be reached, an Ecumenical Council can set these matters right with the AXIOS of the people.
"I was referring to the quotes in the first part of the article."
Oh, I know, and there are more where those came from and others, from the same eras, which seem to support papal supremacy. If the question were as simple as a few quotes, the schism probably would have been over a long time ago.
Ya I miss Biblewonk. Didn't know he was band. Did the band of Marymen finally silence him?
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.