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."
Pope St. Leo the Great was the first Pope who championed papal supremacy. He was rebuked. But the popes continued to acquire more and more jurisdictional authority in the centuries that followed. External as well as internal changes and divisions within the Church that longer understood the other half, Imperial power often used to curb papal independence and defiance, drove the popes to Franks who were all to happy to become the protectors of the pontiff and to give the pope more power that the church ever envisioned.
I've read the ALEXANDRE KALOMIROS paper, and I have to say, while he quotes various teachings of the early fathers frequently, he shows little or no familiarity with the theology of the Apostle Paul especially in the book of Romans. What he (literally) calls evil pagan Western Theolgy has much of its root right there...in Holy Scripture.
In utterly condemning Western theology, and recommending Eastern..not once does he cite the most thoroughly theological book in scripture, Romans, nor does he ever attempt to describe a New Testament theology, of Paul or anyone else there. Theological speculation proported to be supported by mystical quotes by the Fathers (none of which quotes I find fault with) about light and dark really doesn't prove his points.
His points about atheism too are not correct. Buddism--about as a non-Western religion/philosophy as one can get is also (in various forms) atheistic. Scripture says "the fool has said in his heart there is no God." Fools can be found all over the world--and do not radiate simply from that awful pagan Western theology....
Kalomiros' gospel and Paul's (and Augustine's too) gospel are entirely at odds. If Roman Catholics are semi-Pelagian, and Kolomiros is representative of Eastern Orthodox theology, then EO is super-semi-Pelagian. If this is how Eastern Christians think about Western Christians from AD 400 onwards...no wonder the breech is so wide.
Actually the author of this article is not defending Eastern Orthodoxy, he's actually a Reformed (Calvinist) scholar, but I'm sure most EO would agree with his reasons....that patristic Church tradition does not support obesience to one Pope in Rome.
Please explain.
"Pope" is actually a word for "father." The word evolved from a token of respect into a title...given to the chief bishops of the early Church's major cities, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome.
St. Paul wrote the book of Romans to Rome(before Paul had visited there)...evidently before there was any bishop--as no mention is made of an apostolic leader there, and it would have been rude, to say the least, for Paul not to acknowledge a fellow Apostle there. St. Peter may well have (later) been the first bishop of Rome (though the evidence is against that he founded the Church there) --or even the first Apostle to live (and die) there, though St. Paul lived and was executed there as well.
The first center of the early chruch though was Jerusalem...naturally, as its where the eucharist was instated by our Lord, where Jesus was crucified and resurrected, where Pentacost occured and was the center of the Jewish world--and first generation Christians were mostly Jewish. Please read Acts 15....and it appears St. James was the senior Apostle, not Peter--though the rest of Acts shows Peter was a very important leader. In any event their decisions at that council were made in unanimity without any hint of hierarchy.
The passage you cite, of course Matthew 16:18-20 is difficult to understand...however in light of the biblical book of Acts history of the Church, the idea that Peter was to be a supreme Pope leader in the infant church seems hard to maintain. The definition of proof-texting too is when major doctrines (take pacifism for example, in say Mennonite or Quaker churches--based on just a couple verses taken in isolation) are based on one or two verses. Dangerous...as if an alternative interpretation is proved best, the major doctrine will fall flat. That's why I bring up Acts. Peter's leadership in the Church looks entirely un-pope-like there, throughout the whole book, not just with a couple of verses...
As to the "keys of the kingdom" it appears they were given to the Apostles present...and just what were those "keys" spoken of in verse 19? Belief that Jesus is the Christ, according to Jesus Himself in v. 20.
So the keys were (and are) the gospel, first witnessed to by Peter specifically yes, but given to the Apostles generally to (later) spread throughout the world.
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. (Matt. 18:16-20)
That's a good answer, thank you for your thoughtfulness. I know the Church greatly suffered under the boot of Communism in the East. Just as Christians (and Jews) died in the much shorter (but very intense) persecutions by the atheist Nazi's in Germany (as many as 20 million civilians died by them....). Still millions of other Germans...many calling themselves Christian, followed and did the bidding of the Nazi serpents. One reason I think, was the arid, biblically empty nature of the Lutheran church in 20th Century Germany--making them fully unprepared to face a demonic ideology. European higher critical (unbelieving) biblical scholarship though is an aberation of Western Theology....having more in common with the secular Enlightenment than the faith of the first millenium Church. Another "fruit" of Western Theology, for all of its problems and evil, is America, THE most thoroughly Christian place in the developed Western world. All I'm trying to say is that I don't see how Western Theology is the source of all that's evil and wrong in the world...on the contrary--the modern world's good things are (almost) all based in progress in the West, enabled and spurred on by Western Theology.
read later
The way the Protestant Reformers knew it...and arguably (since they were great admirers, readers, and students of the early Church Fathers) that of the first millennia Church, was that the scriptures, in Old and New Testament, were the SUPREME authority, but NOT the ONLY authorities. The creeds, writings of the fathers, Church tradition, advice from bishops and popes, etc. ALL had weight....but the greatest weight and FINAL authority rested in the trustworthy testimony of the first Apostles, the scriptures--that which all Christians are bound to submit to.
For a variety of reasons most American Evangelicals think sola scriptura means one believes in the authority of scripture alone. This of course is easily and logically refuted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike. The Reformers Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, et als though, ALL honored the ecumenical creeds, they all drew up confessions for their Church bodies (which in those early days agreed on about 95% of doctrine) and greatly encouraged scholarship of ancient other-than-biblical literature, rightly acknowledging the relative weight and authority of various sources. The early Protestant Bibles (except Luther's) included the Apocrypha too--not that they saw it with the same supreme authority as Scripture, but that it was useful to help understand the culture and mindset of the ancient Hebrews, who wrote the OT scriptures.
For some reason in the last 200 years, the meaning of sola scriptura changed from "only the Bible is fully authoritative" into "only the Bible is authoritative AT ALL... (so throw the rest out the window)." The 2nd mindset devolved into hyper-individualistic interpretation and thinking, denominationalism, factionalism...and many times into an antinomian (NO authority...) way of thinking.
If more understood the original definition of sola scriptura, more would accept it as the best way of understanding godly authority. The Bible is the written-down gift of the Holy Spirit, all Christians of every authority, are bound to obey God. Saying that doesn't deny there are many lesser authorities to which individual Christians should submit.
Oh Darn take all the fun out of it. Just kidding.
No, the SINGLE procession was defined at Nicea in terms of the formulation of the creed. I was wondering if the dual procession was defined infallibly. I know the Catechism teaches it, following Aquinas, but this is not necessarily the same as infallible statement from the pope.
Also note that the West does not necessarily view the creed as infallible, but rather as a statement that informs the faithful in the way most consonant with the temporal pastoral needs.
I'd have to ban you, then rapture you first.
No one, I think, argues that the granting of the keys is sufficient to properly define the exercise of the Office, but it sure defines the existence of the Office.
Just recently I was told that the keys were loaned, like a family sedan, to Peter and returned; or that they were also given St. John the Theologian and St. Paul. I am waiting for the next hypothesis, that in Greek "to give the keys" really means something derogatory, not unlike the recently discovered "you Peter, satanic pebble..." scripture.
As to the "keys of the kingdom" it appears they were given to the Apostles present" (post 65)
I am going to bed. Frankly, my dear Scarlet, I don't give a key.
Seriously, if there was a point to your bit about biblewonk in heaven—hey, at least you granted him that much, eh?—meeting up with your "saints," please clarify it.
And kindly consider pinging any (read-only, in this case) FReepers whom you post about.
I would guess that means that the Eastern concept of Grace is what I thought it was.
Thank you.
"I would guess that means that the Eastern concept of Grace is what I thought it was."
Well now I'm curious. What did you think it was? :)
Sorry for not pinging biblewonk. I saw that he was pinged once to the thread.
48 was a joke, responding to another joke, in 47, about Biblewonk having been raptured. The point of the joke was that Biblewonk used to bug everybody with questions where various things, including the saints, were in the Bible. Hence the joke.
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.