At the very same time that the Apostles are thus arguing, it is Peter that Christ turns to and expresses His will that Peter will "confirm his brethren" in the faith.
Again, neither of us are denying the Primacy of Saint Peter; what I’m denying is that the current Roman Papal claims are the manner in which the Almighty God intends to organize His Church. You can point to St. Peter until we’re purple, and unless we accept your claim that the contemporary Roman Papacy is that, we’re completely talking past each other.
True gnosis can only be had if we approach God with folded hands, willing to submit to whatever He wills, knowing that it is good by virtue of His willing it.
Agreed. Obviously, we both think we’re doing that.
I sense that your reluctance to accept the Church's teaching on this point is rather an opinion fueled by doubt planted by the Enemy, a personal judgment that should be taken away (Acts 8:33).
In my case at least, it’s certainly not some personal judgment. It’s that the rejection of Papism is enshrined within the Lives of the Orthodox Saints.
The Orthodox - myself included - have considered the existing evidence, and have found those Papal claims lacking in Holy Traditional foundation. As far as we’ve seen, there’s no “objective, absolute proof” either way, and no existing evidences outside of our specific Traditional rejections of said Claims, are free from being subject to inescapable confirmation bias. We both see the same evidence, and conclude that it confirms our respective Traditions. What’s more, as I said; rejection of Papism is itself enshrined within Orthodoxy, with mountains of Scriptural and Patristic exegesis and the Lives of many Saints supporting it.
A man is absolutely obliged in any case to confront the competing claims, weighing them against each other, and decide which claims he believes, and which ones he does not. I found the Orthodox claims to ring more truly, and I proceeded thusly. Similarly, the Papal claims seemed truer to you, and you proceeded that way.
There’s literally zero point arguing about it. By this point, Papal spirituality has diverged so far from Orthodoxy, that they’re now entirely different religions. They share a thousand years of history, but they’re completely dissimilar in terms of focus and emphasis.
One's responsibility when faced with such doubt is to empty oneself and one's ego and listen to what the Church doctors and saints have to say, and certainly not let blossom seeds planted by heretical children of Satan, like Seventh Day Adventists.
It’s like, I’d say virtually the same thing to an Orthodox Christian if they start feeling the pull of Papism.
If Protestants and the East are united in this point, and bybuniting in this point their diverse heresies are made possible, and we know that most of them are guilty of heresy, why accept such a point, contra the saints?
What a skeevy thing to say, that Protestantism and “the East” are “united on this point” ! Trying to impugn the Church of the Holy Fathers and the Nine Ecumenical Councils with such a thing ... Protestants aren’t united about anything, and most couldn’t care less whether St. Peter was even a Bishop! And for what, to score points in a pointless argument? The very chutzpah of the thing.
Again, neither of us are denying the Primacy of Saint Peter; what I’m denying is that the current Roman Papal claims are the manner in which the Almighty God intends to organize His Church. You can point to St. Peter until we’re purple, and unless we accept your claim that the contemporary Roman Papacy is that, we’re completely talking past each other.
Please recall that we are having parallel conversations. While you have admitted the primacy of Peter, I'm not sure Chiro has. And even your admission of even this much has been tenuous, since you were so sympathetic to Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology.
As for your (and his) denial that the current papacy is somehow a violation of God's intention (whether the primacy of Peter is accepted or not) I would appreciate specifics. More than likely neither of you understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this point - and again, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is notoriously misunderstood by non-Catholics everywhere. It's like Archbishop Sheen said: there are millions of people who hate what they think the Catholic Church is, but far fewer who hate Her for what she actually is.
So in what ways do either of you think the current teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy differs from Christ's intention, and on what grounds and by what authority do you object? If you are going to object to the current teaching you are going to need to cite earlier teachings from the Tradition before I take you seriously. Your own impressions won't cut it; I won't stake my salvation on your impressions or my own.
It’s that the rejection of Papism is enshrined within the Lives of the Orthodox Saints.
Which saints, and in what ways? I'm tired of these generalities. What saints, during what time periods, said what against the papacy? What is the measure of their holiness or sanctity (and by what authority were they canonized?)? How do their alleged words on the papacy compare to the words of the saints prior to the schism? Are we forgetting the primacy of tradition when its convenient?
There’s literally zero point arguing about it. By this point, Papal spirituality has diverged so far from Orthodoxy, that they’re now entirely different religions. They share a thousand years of history, but they’re completely dissimilar in terms of focus and emphasis.
I think this kind of claim bespeaks ignorance of the Catholic saints.
It’s like, I’d say virtually the same thing to an Orthodox Christian if they start feeling the pull of Papism.
What one would say is irrelevant; what the Tradition teaches is what counts. There is an hermeneutic continuity from the days of our shared Tradition to the Catholic modern day, and there is an hermeneutic rupture from that same starting point to the Orthodox modern day. The early saints spoke of Peter's primacy with reference to his living successor. Modern Orthodox speak of his living successor without recognizing this primacy. That is a rupture - a schism.
What a skeevy thing to say, that Protestantism and “the East” are “united on this point” ! Trying to impugn the Church of the Holy Fathers and the Nine Ecumenical Councils with such a thing ... Protestants aren’t united about anything, and most couldn’t care less whether St. Peter was even a Bishop! And for what, to score points in a pointless argument? The very chutzpah of the thing.
I am merely pointing out the reality of this agreement, and the consequences of affirming what in this case is agreed upon. My reference to the diverse heresies was meant to apply only to the Protestants. The fact is that this agreement is factual; whether modern Protestants spend time thinking about the Pope or nor is not relevant; the point is that their heresy could not have gained momentum without men like Luther or Calvin first denying Rome - and my argument is that, while the East is only guilty of schism, not heresy, this schism is enabled by the same rejection that enabled the Protestant heresies, and so on those grounds I feel it is relevant to point this out.
And I am not here to score points; I am here to save souls. But this is not possible unless the Holy Spirit work through me, and those listening be receptive to grace. This has nothing to do with me, KOWA.
Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology.
No, no, no. Not a reduction, except insofar as any token image/concept in literary form is a reduction! If Christ is an eternal part of the triune Godhead, then His depiction in written text is a type. The entire notion of a Jewish messiah is a type. Wisdom literature is what establishes types, and the Bible as revealed text wouldn't be much good if it didn't do that! It's not a condescension or a reduction, but a nod to the Hebraic form of the literature and its effectiveness at transmitting Christ's message to man.
Peter is great, but he is great BECAUSE his firstborn example of redemption in faith and true knowledge of Christ is so powerful that Christ could MAKE IT a type to lead all other sheep to salvation.
We can't hope to be like Christ substantively, who was NEVER IN NEED OF REDEMPTION, but we can hope to be like Peter who is made perfect in Christ, and inasmuch as we realize that hope, we become the Church.
We can't hope to be like Christ substantively, who was NEVER IN NEED OF REDEMPTION, but we can hope to be like Peter who is made perfect in Christ, and inasmuch as we realize that hope, we become the Church.
That is true, but it does not change the reality of the office Christ established for Peter, as affirmed and taught by Tradition Christ even gave him keys!
Please recall that we are having parallel conversations. While you have admitted the primacy of Peter, I'm not sure Chiro has. And even your admission of even this much has been tenuous, since you were so sympathetic to Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology.
Hey, I’m fairly certain St. Peter actually was the Bishop of Rome at some point. The fact that Chiro’s writing on this topic was some of the finest I’ve seen, doesn’t mean I agree with every point. That said, it’s really nice seeing such a well-thought-out challenge to Papal Supremacy, coming from an “outside” source, an “objective” observer, so to speak. It would never even occur to me to have attempted such a task.
As for your (and his) denial that the current papacy is somehow a violation of God's intention (whether the primacy of Peter is accepted or not) I would appreciate specifics. More than likely neither of you understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this point - and again, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is notoriously misunderstood by non-Catholics everywhere. It's like Archbishop Sheen said: there are millions of people who hate what they think the Catholic Church is, but far fewer who hate Her for what she actually is.
So in what ways do either of you think the current teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy differs from Christ's intention, and on what grounds and by what authority do you object? If you are going to object to the current teaching you are going to need to cite earlier teachings from the Tradition before I take you seriously. Your own impressions won't cut it; I won't stake my salvation on your impressions or my own.
There has been more ink shed on this one subject than most others, and I simply don’t have the time to recast the whole thing, here. I’ll just copy-paste this extremely brief summary of the “Papal Problem”:
In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued “Unam Sanctam,” perhaps the most famous summary of papal claims made during the Middle Ages. Boniface not only demanded spiritual obedience to the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church, but claimed authority over all secular governments. Boniface wrote, “We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” In the centuries that followed, the Popes successfully defeated every effort to limit their growing power and emerged supreme, beyond the authority of any earthly power, including an ecumenical council. The expansion of papal authority reached its climax in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, which proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility and anathematized, that is, cast out of the Church, all who refused to recognize papal supremacy. -Fr. John Morris, Antiochian Priest, Oct. 2007
Apparently Pope Benedict XVI in a 2007 publication admitted the possibility that salvation exists outside the Papal Church, for some reason, but that the Orthodox are defective-at-best for failing to commemorate the Bishop of Rome. And this current “pope” (who is an obvious open heretic, and thus, no Pope at all) thinks we might as well all be Hindus for all the difference it makes.
The Orthodox reject the Papal claims on principal, and have been doing so for nearly a thousand years. There’s an expansive body of literature on the subject, wherein you can find all sorts of highlights, even involving Orthodox Saints, wouldn’t you know.
Which saints, and in what ways? I'm tired of these generalities. What saints, during what time periods, said what against the papacy? What is the measure of their holiness or sanctity (and by what authority were they canonized?)? How do their alleged words on the papacy compare to the words of the saints prior to the schism? Are we forgetting the primacy of tradition when its convenient?
I’m just not going to have the time or the desire to accept this invitation, to spell out the differences between the post-Schism Orthodox and Papal Saints. Their works exist all over the place online, and in many books, if you’re interested. Thanks but no thanks - especially not in this context of arguing over Papal Supremacy.
And I am not here to score points; I am here to save souls. But this is not possible unless the Holy Spirit work through me, and those listening be receptive to grace. This has nothing to do with me, KOWA.
I’m aware of that, and thinking the same thing.
(post is archived)