OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 26, 2014, 03:59:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: St. Peter the Procrastinator?  (Read 2876 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« on: February 08, 2011, 06:51:39 PM »

Supposing the Catholic claims about St. Peter and Roman primacy are true, why then did St. Peter wait so long to go to Rome? Why didn't he go immediately, instead of waiting decades?


EDIT--I added a "St." in front of the name Peter, so as to avoid being given an official warning...  angel
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 07:00:21 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2011, 06:57:15 PM »

Perhaps he first imagined that the primacy would reside in Antioch.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2011, 07:25:11 PM »

Or, maybe it didn't matter where he went. If he haded ended his ministry, and been martyred along with Paul in Antioch, that is where the primacy would reside. The same would be true if he had ended up in Abu Dabi, Amsterdam, or Albquerque.  Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2011, 07:29:37 PM »

Or, maybe it didn't matter where he went. If he haded ended his ministry, and been martyred along with Paul in Antioch, that is where the primacy would reside. The same would be true if he had ended up in Abu Dabi, Amsterdam, or Albquerque.  Cheesy

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2011, 07:36:36 PM »

Or, maybe it didn't matter where he went. If he haded ended his ministry, and been martyred along with Paul in Antioch, that is where the primacy would reside. The same would be true if he had ended up in Abu Dabi, Amsterdam, or Albquerque.  Cheesy

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Why would he know that he would he would end his ministry in Rome? Why would he have to groom a particlur See? I don't follow? The Popes now days don't normally know who their successor is going to be, so they can't really "groom" this person.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 07:38:29 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2011, 07:41:47 PM »

I'm not talking about him knowing what would happen. I am saying it would only make sense for him to have worked to secure one particular city as his seat and that of his successors.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2011, 07:46:04 PM »

So even though the entire future of the Church was riding on him, St. Peter just sort of wandered from place to place? Hmm, that does sound like something God would do...  Cheesy
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2011, 07:47:29 PM »

So even though the entire future of the Church was riding on him, St. Peter just sort of wandered from place to place? Hmm, that does sound like something God would do...  Cheesy
The future of the entire Church was riding on all the Apostles, and their ability to transmit the Gospels, and they went all over the place, not just Rome. Do you think that they all knew exactly where they were going to end up?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2011, 07:53:33 PM »

Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2011, 07:59:24 PM »

Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... Smiley
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2011, 08:06:07 PM »

The objection is... Rome is... Rome!  angel Isn't it? Some of the arguments for the primacy of Rome seem to have to do with it being the most important city in the (so-called) known world. Even a Council accepted by Orthodox as Ecumenical* says as much. You seem to be saying that it could just have been the Church centered in Podunk, if that happened to be where Peter ended up? Also, what of the question of deusveritasest in his last post?

*I don't know if Roman Catholics accept that particular canon...?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2011, 08:14:46 PM »

The objection is... Rome is... Rome!  angel Isn't it? Some of the arguments for the primacy of Rome seem to have to do with it being the most important city in the (so-called) known world. Even a Council accepted by Orthodox as Ecumenical* says as much. You seem to be saying that it could just have been the Church centered in Podunk, if that happened to be where Peter ended up? Also, what of the question of deusveritasest in his last post?

*I don't know if Roman Catholics accept that particular canon...?
Well, it seems that we are coming from different premises on this question. We Roman Catholics do not believe that it had to be Rome qua Rome that was selected as the See for the Papacy. Perhaps some of the Byzantines of the Early Church emphasized this for political reasons in order to elevate the See of Constantinople, but that has never been our reason for the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Rather, it has to do primarily with St. Peter (and in a subordiante way, St. Paul) and the authority granted him by Jesus. We can see this in the writings of Iraneaus, Maximos, Gregory the Great, etc. Was it a good thing that Rome ended up being where St. Peter handed on his Papacy? Probably. Was it providential? Most likely. Was it necessary? No.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,170


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2011, 10:47:40 PM »

So if St. Peter was martyred say in Ephesus, Ephesus would have been a primary see?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2011, 11:45:42 PM »

I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2011, 01:56:57 AM »

The future of the entire Church was riding on all the Apostles, and their ability to transmit the Gospels, and they went all over the place, not just Rome. Do you think that they all knew exactly where they were going to end up?

The status of Peter and the other Apostles in the context of your doctrine of Petrine primacy is not appropriate. In either your doctrinal system or in ours, it doesn't particular matter for any one of the other Apostles to establish any particular See as theirs. We apply this same principle to Peter. Your Petrine primacy doesn't allow for that to be true of Peter, however. Peter had to establish a See as his, and one particular See at that, and he had to make such clear. And if you hold that Peter held to this Petrine doctrine, he should have been aware of this necessity. So it would seem that for a while that Peter was probably imagining that Antioch would be this See. However, eventually he transferred to Rome. I think the significant question here is why he didn't stick with Antioch and moved on to Rome?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2011, 01:58:49 AM »

I used to procrastinate all the time, but now I leave it until tomorrow.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2011, 02:03:26 AM »

I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2011, 02:15:06 AM »

I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
Yes, they never explained if they brought the relics of St. Peter to Avignon, and if they didn't, how could the "true successor of St. Peter" be there?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2011, 02:20:35 AM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2011, 02:21:58 AM »

The objection is... Rome is... Rome!  angel Isn't it? Some of the arguments for the primacy of Rome seem to have to do with it being the most important city in the (so-called) known world. Even a Council accepted by Orthodox as Ecumenical* says as much. You seem to be saying that it could just have been the Church centered in Podunk, if that happened to be where Peter ended up? Also, what of the question of deusveritasest in his last post?

*I don't know if Roman Catholics accept that particular canon...?
Well, it seems that we are coming from different premises on this question. We Roman Catholics do not believe that it had to be Rome qua Rome that was selected as the See for the Papacy. Perhaps some of the Byzantines of the Early Church emphasized this for political reasons in order to elevate the See of Constantinople, but that has never been our reason for the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Rather, it has to do primarily with St. Peter (and in a subordiante way, St. Paul) and the authority granted him by Jesus. We can see this in the writings of Iraneaus, Maximos, Gregory the Great, etc. Was it a good thing that Rome ended up being where St. Peter handed on his Papacy? Probably. Was it providential? Most likely. Was it necessary? No.
No, you see it in St. Irenaeus etc., whether you can or not. Bp. Victor never claimed any special authority from St. Peter, and the first bishop of Rome we know who did, St. Stephen nearly a century later, he was rebuked on that point.

"Byzantines" are a "renaissance" invention, created over a thousand years after the founding of Constantinople.  Where did the bishop of Rome get that title "pontifex maximus" from again?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2011, 02:24:01 AM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
Ah yes, the ever development of doctrine. so much for the Faith delievered once and for all to the Saints.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2011, 02:26:08 AM »

Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... Smiley
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Isn't that attributed to a pin headed doctor who is claimed to be angelic?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2011, 02:33:02 AM »

Or, maybe it didn't matter where he went. If he haded ended his ministry, and been martyred along with Paul in Antioch, that is where the primacy would reside. The same would be true if he had ended up in Abu Dabi, Amsterdam, or Albquerque.  Cheesy

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Why would he know that he would he would end his ministry in Rome? Why would he have to groom a particlur See? I don't follow? The Popes now days don't normally know who their successor is going to be, so they can't really "groom" this person.
LOL. Oh really?
Quote
On 2 January 2005, Time magazine quoted unnamed Vatican sources as saying that Ratzinger was a front runner to succeed John Paul II should the pope die or become too ill to continue as pope. On the death of John Paul II, the Financial Times gave the odds of Ratzinger becoming pope as 7–1, the lead position, but close to his rivals on the liberal wing of the church. In April 2005, before his election as pope, he was identified as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. While Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger repeatedly stated he would like to retire to his house in the Bavarian village of Pentling near Regensburg and dedicate himself to writing books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Joseph_Ratzinger#Prediction
I do recall Card. Ratzinger trying to retire, but Pope John Paul II refusing and keeping him on.

and many of their predecessors, despite the canons against it, appointed their successor. In fact, because of such an appointment, a validly elected pope is now seen as the antipope Dioscoros.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2011, 02:35:01 AM »

Supposing the Catholic claims about St. Peter and Roman primacy are true, why then did St. Peter wait so long to go to Rome? Why didn't he go immediately, instead of waiting decades?


EDIT--I added a "St." in front of the name Peter, so as to avoid being given an official warning...  angel
Yeah, what's with all the hanging around at Jerusalem, and then pracitcally no trace of him there remaining.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2011, 03:28:49 AM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.

The idea of a man having such a high degree of primacy as you attribute to him and not even being aware of it sounds pretty absurd.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2011, 09:31:30 AM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.

And perhaps the power and influence attributed to the "Holy See" did as well?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2011, 12:51:44 PM »

So if St. Peter was martyred say in Ephesus, Ephesus would have been a primary see?
I believe so.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2011, 12:52:57 PM »

I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
No, it has to do with where St. Peter was martyred, not wheter the current Pope dies. His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, not Newark. You are guys are really reaching now.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2011, 12:54:21 PM »

Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 12:54:39 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2011, 12:57:44 PM »

I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
That is an excellent question, and I suppose that to some degree it has to do with the Fathers constantly mentioning the twin martyrdoms of Peter and Paul when praising the Apostolic See. Also, it seems only logical, as Peter did function in other Sees, but it's Rome where he ends as martyr, and Rome which is seen as the See with Primacy in the early Church.  St. Iraneaus begins this, as do other Fathers. The political arguement about Rome being the head of the empire doesn't seem to be used until Constantinople begins trying to elevate itself. I will provide some Catholic sources on this matter tonight.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,170


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2011, 01:34:56 PM »

Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... Smiley
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I want to address this point.  Christ may have not known the "day nor the hour" but He certainly knew Who He is.

I just want to be clear are you saying that St. Peter didn't know he was a primate among the Apostles, or that he just didn't know it was going to be Rome where he dies?

Also, if you have any reading resources that fully and best defends the RC position, I'd be interested in that resource.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 01:35:45 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2011, 01:39:11 PM »

Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... Smiley
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I want to address this point.  Christ may have not known the "day nor the hour" but He certainly knew Who He is.

I just want to be clear are you saying that St. Peter didn't know he was a primate among the Apostles, or that he just didn't know it was going to be Rome where he dies?

Also, if you have any reading resources that fully and best defends the RC position, I'd be interested in that resource.
Peter knew who he was and that had primacy. I don't think he knew that he would end up in Rome all along.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2011, 04:09:24 PM »

Well, God did see fit to tell St. Paul (Acts 16:6-10) and St. Peter (Acts 10:20) where to go at times... he couldn't have slipped a quick memo to Peter about Rome as well? I admit I'm playing devil's advocate here, just trying to understand the Petrine primacy thing from all angles... Smiley
I guess I am having trouble understanding the objection. I mean, Jesus didn't know "the day nor the hour". Couldn't the Father have sent him a quick memo? We can all come up with "what ifs" til the cows come home. Why didn't God give the Pope super powers so that people would obey him? Why didn't God give St. Peter the ability to see the future so that he could stay one step ahead the Romans? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I want to address this point.  Christ may have not known the "day nor the hour" but He certainly knew Who He is.

I just want to be clear are you saying that St. Peter didn't know he was a primate among the Apostles, or that he just didn't know it was going to be Rome where he dies?

Also, if you have any reading resources that fully and best defends the RC position, I'd be interested in that resource.
Peter knew who he was and that had primacy. I don't think he knew that he would end up in Rome all along.

Which leads me back to wondering about this:

The future of the entire Church was riding on all the Apostles, and their ability to transmit the Gospels, and they went all over the place, not just Rome. Do you think that they all knew exactly where they were going to end up?

The status of Peter and the other Apostles in the context of your doctrine of Petrine primacy is not appropriate. In either your doctrinal system or in ours, it doesn't particular matter for any one of the other Apostles to establish any particular See as theirs. We apply this same principle to Peter. Your Petrine primacy doesn't allow for that to be true of Peter, however. Peter had to establish a See as his, and one particular See at that, and he had to make such clear. And if you hold that Peter held to this Petrine doctrine, he should have been aware of this necessity. So it would seem that for a while that Peter was probably imagining that Antioch would be this See. However, eventually he transferred to Rome. I think the significant question here is why he didn't stick with Antioch and moved on to Rome?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2011, 04:11:48 PM »

I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
That is an excellent question, and I suppose that to some degree it has to do with the Fathers constantly mentioning the twin martyrdoms of Peter and Paul when praising the Apostolic See. Also, it seems only logical, as Peter did function in other Sees, but it's Rome where he ends as martyr, and Rome which is seen as the See with Primacy in the early Church.  St. Iraneaus begins this, as do other Fathers. The political arguement about Rome being the head of the empire doesn't seem to be used until Constantinople begins trying to elevate itself. I will provide some Catholic sources on this matter tonight.

Some of the Fathers, however, did identify Antioch primarily as the See of Peter rather than Rome, and on top of that is the theory that Peter didn't spend enough time in Rome to really have been an overseer of the city at all like he was at Antioch (popularized in that essay by HH Pope Shenouda III, I'll post it if you don't know what I'm talking about).
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:12:06 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2011, 04:21:45 PM »

Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:22:49 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2011, 04:23:48 PM »

I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
No, it has to do with where St. Peter was martyred, not wheter the current Pope dies. His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, not Newark. You are guys are really reaching now.
What about when he was the Bishop of Avignon?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2011, 04:26:26 PM »

Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that your way of communicating is overly antagonistic.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2011, 04:29:51 PM »

I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
That is an excellent question, and I suppose that to some degree it has to do with the Fathers constantly mentioning the twin martyrdoms of Peter and Paul when praising the Apostolic See. Also, it seems only logical, as Peter did function in other Sees, but it's Rome where he ends as martyr, and Rome which is seen as the See with Primacy in the early Church.  St. Iraneaus begins this, as do other Fathers. The political arguement about Rome being the head of the empire doesn't seem to be used until Constantinople begins trying to elevate itself. I will provide some Catholic sources on this matter tonight.
You do that. While you are at it, do provide some sources of how St. Paul drops out of the picture, or do you have Catholic sources on this matter where St. Peter is mentioned without St. Paul as founding the see of Rome?

Also, do you have Catholic sources on how St. Peter functioned in Antioch, so much that Rome celebrates his chair there, but his functioning at Jerusalem leaves no trace?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2011, 04:47:52 PM »

Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that your way of communicating is overly antagonistic.
Are you saying that Papist can dish it out, but can't take it?

Your supposition would be more likely if he did manage once to answer objections raised.  For instance:
I brought this up in another thread not sure I ever got an answer. If St Peter is Christ's vicar and the primacy falls on Rome because that is where he was martyred then if Pope Benedict XVI is Christ's vicar and is martyred in Newark, NJ than it must mean that Newark is the new seat of the Papacy because that is where he was martyred. I don't see how a principle can cease to stop working when convenient for us. If it doesn't work that way for the current pope's martyrdom then it wouldn't work for St Peter's Martyrdom.
No, it has to do with where St. Peter was martyred, not wheter the current Pope dies. His Holiness is the Bishop of Rome, not Newark. You are guys are really reaching now.
He has yet to substantiate that where St. Peter was martyred marked the spot where the pontificate was to abide (and then there's that problem of Avignon). He just begs that question, as he begs the question of the successors to the pontificate, and in doing so ignores the importance his supreme pontiffs themselves have put on the point that ICXCNIKA raises:
Quote
In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s.v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common... Clement V decreed that the conclave must take place in the diocese in which the pope dies (Ne Romani, 1310...
Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm
ICXCNIKA is only reaching for an issue that Papist's supreme pontiffs and his magisterium raised.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:49:47 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2011, 04:49:10 PM »

I have another question for you, Christopher, that I think might be significant to this discussion. You seem to have assumed that it is the location of the martyrdom of Peter which defines the See that received the primacy. I haven't in the past received such a strong affirmation of this opinion before. Could you explain why you assume it is the location of Saint Peter's martyrdom which defines the See with his primacy rather than some other attribute of relationship to the given city?
That is an excellent question, and I suppose that to some degree it has to do with the Fathers constantly mentioning the twin martyrdoms of Peter and Paul when praising the Apostolic See. Also, it seems only logical, as Peter did function in other Sees, but it's Rome where he ends as martyr, and Rome which is seen as the See with Primacy in the early Church.  St. Iraneaus begins this, as do other Fathers. The political arguement about Rome being the head of the empire doesn't seem to be used until Constantinople begins trying to elevate itself. I will provide some Catholic sources on this matter tonight.

Some of the Fathers, however, did identify Antioch primarily as the See of Peter rather than Rome, and on top of that is the theory that Peter didn't spend enough time in Rome to really have been an overseer of the city at all like he was at Antioch (popularized in that essay by HH Pope Shenouda III, I'll post it if you don't know what I'm talking about).
Post it anyway. It would be nice to quote a real Pope.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2011, 06:31:37 PM »

Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that your way of communicating is overly antagonistic.
bingo
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2011, 09:54:31 PM »

Bp. Victor never claimed any special authority from St. Peter, and the first bishop of Rome we know who did, St. Stephen nearly a century later, he was rebuked on that point.

How many Popes before Pope Stephen I, besides Popes Victor and Callixtus, do we have writings from?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2011, 10:46:43 PM »

Just to let everyone in this thread know, I will respond to any question raised by anyone but Izzy or Fr. Ambrose. I am simply will not go down  the rabbit hole of the games that they play.
In other words, Papist doesn't want further exposure of a lack of answers on the Vatican's part.

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that your way of communicating is overly antagonistic.
bingo
LOL. Freudian slip?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2011, 10:51:18 PM »

Bp. Victor never claimed any special authority from St. Peter, and the first bishop of Rome we know who did, St. Stephen nearly a century later, he was rebuked on that point.

How many Popes before Pope Stephen I, besides Popes Victor and Callixtus, do we have writings from?
St. Peter.
St. Clement.
St. Soter
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2011, 11:08:51 PM »

So of the six, half of them may or may not have held to papal primacy in some form or other (Clement, Victor, Stephen), two didn't really write enough (or have enough extant) that we can really argue either way (Soter, Callixtus), and one you would have hoped would have written on the subject (St. Peter), but who we only have one, or at best two, small letters from.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #45 on: February 09, 2011, 11:13:58 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 11:27:49 PM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #46 on: February 10, 2011, 01:19:01 AM »

Also, do you have Catholic sources on how St. Peter functioned in Antioch, so much that Rome celebrates his chair there, but his functioning at Jerusalem leaves no trace?

This doesn't give an exact answer to your question (actually I think it raises/solidifies some questions), but it's an interesting passage nonetheless...

"And if any should say, 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 01:19:44 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #47 on: February 10, 2011, 04:56:05 AM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #48 on: February 10, 2011, 09:35:52 AM »

does this idea of 'doctrinal development' have any foundation in the writings of the ECF's?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #49 on: February 10, 2011, 09:48:58 AM »

does this idea of 'doctrinal development' have any foundation in the writings of the ECF's?

Sts. Gregory the Theologian (d. ~390), Vincent of Lerins (d. ~440), and Gregory the Dialogist (d. 604) all speak of some type of development or progression of understanding, though I'm not sure that they are talking about what Cardinal Newman was. Then again, maybe there were.



Quote
With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets

-- St. Gregory the Great, [Commentary on Ezekiel]

Quote
To this I may compare the case of Theology except that it proceeds the reverse way. For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions. For the matter stands thus. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.

For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues. And indeed it is little by little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority. Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name. He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send, then again, I will send,—His own dignity. Then shall come, the authority of the Spirit. You see lights breaking upon us, gradually; and the order of Theology, which it is better for us to keep, neither proclaiming things too suddenly, nor yet keeping them hidden to the end. For the former course would be unscientific, the latter atheistical; and the former would be calculated to startle outsiders, the latter to alienate our own people.

--St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31.26-27

Quote
But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant’s limbs are small, a young man’s large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.

In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church’s field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of corn, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result,—there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind—wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.
Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God’s Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.

For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God’s mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,—if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,—this, and nothing else,—she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name

--St. Vincent of Lerins, The Commonitory, 23
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2011, 08:33:46 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2011, 01:19:02 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
It is obvious that a Papacy with complete jurisdictional power would only become necessary once the Church gets very massive. A tiny, primitive, early Church would not need a Papacy because the Apostles who all personally knew Christ when He was on Earth and knew His views/teachings were still alive.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2011, 11:10:03 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
It is obvious that a Papacy with complete jurisdictional power would only become necessary once the Church gets very massive. A tiny, primitive, early Church would not need a Papacy because the Apostles who all personally knew Christ when He was on Earth and knew His views/teachings were still alive.

This is using a rather secular perspective of governance, I believe...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2011, 11:20:20 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
It is obvious that a Papacy with complete jurisdictional power would only become necessary once the Church gets very massive. A tiny, primitive, early Church would not need a Papacy because the Apostles who all personally knew Christ when He was on Earth and knew His views/teachings were still alive.
Yeah, like Judas.

From within the days of the Apostles, the Church was wide spread.  And she didn't need a supreme pontiff then, nor did she develop the need.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,170


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2011, 11:26:03 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
It is obvious that a Papacy with complete jurisdictional power would only become necessary once the Church gets very massive. A tiny, primitive, early Church would not need a Papacy because the Apostles who all personally knew Christ when He was on Earth and knew His views/teachings were still alive.

Doesn't that prove that the papacy is a theologemenoun?  The fact that the early Church hasn't established it would show that the "infallibility" is entrusted to every bishop with valid Apostolic authority, not just one bishop of Petrine succession on behalf of the whole Church.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 11:26:32 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2011, 01:58:18 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
It is obvious that a Papacy with complete jurisdictional power would only become necessary once the Church gets very massive. A tiny, primitive, early Church would not need a Papacy because the Apostles who all personally knew Christ when He was on Earth and knew His views/teachings were still alive.

Doesn't that prove that the papacy is a theologemenoun?  The fact that the early Church hasn't established it would show that the "infallibility" is entrusted to every bishop with valid Apostolic authority, not just one bishop of Petrine succession on behalf of the whole Church.
I think, if anything, it proves that the way the infallibility of the Church is exercised adapted as the Church grew. Obviously no visible head was needed when the Church was still a relatively small group of people in the middle east. Yet, after it became a universal organization.....
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #56 on: March 10, 2011, 12:55:17 AM »

does this idea of 'doctrinal development' have any foundation in the writings of the ECF's?

Any thoughts on the quotes in the post above from Church Fathers? I'm not sure what to think... did the doctrine of the development of doctrine develop?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #57 on: March 10, 2011, 01:16:36 AM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
It is obvious that a Papacy with complete jurisdictional power would only become necessary once the Church gets very massive. A tiny, primitive, early Church would not need a Papacy because the Apostles who all personally knew Christ when He was on Earth and knew His views/teachings were still alive.
The problem is that the Vatican claims a papacy c. 63-c. 95 and thereafter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #58 on: March 10, 2011, 02:11:38 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
It is obvious that a Papacy with complete jurisdictional power would only become necessary once the Church gets very massive. A tiny, primitive, early Church would not need a Papacy because the Apostles who all personally knew Christ when He was on Earth and knew His views/teachings were still alive.
The problem is that the Vatican claims a papacy c. 63-c. 95 and thereafter.
I didn't claim that the Papacy didn't exist in the beginning. I said its role changed and grew as the Church did.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,170


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 10, 2011, 05:30:44 PM »

Sure, but that doesn't entirely answer the question. If Peter was truly aware of having this primacy and that he would pass it on to a particular episcopal successor of his, don't you think that logically this would require him being intentional about grooming a particular city (See) to fit the role? And if so, then, wouldn't it appear that at first it seemed he was going with Antioch?
Who says he had to have been aware of it. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. It is quite possible that the understanding of the implications of primacy grew as the Church did.
So then under your premise it is also possible that the Holy Spirit is continuing to lead latins to understand the true nature of primacy/episcopacy until they do away with the papacy.
Why would we move backwards in time?
I don't know but you are asserting that the Holy Spirit can lead us to develop an institution unknown even to its first claimant never mind his fellow Apostles. So I don't see why the Holy Spirit cannot abolish it when he chooses and why couldn't it's current claimant be equally unawares?
It is obvious that a Papacy with complete jurisdictional power would only become necessary once the Church gets very massive. A tiny, primitive, early Church would not need a Papacy because the Apostles who all personally knew Christ when He was on Earth and knew His views/teachings were still alive.

Doesn't that prove that the papacy is a theologemenoun?  The fact that the early Church hasn't established it would show that the "infallibility" is entrusted to every bishop with valid Apostolic authority, not just one bishop of Petrine succession on behalf of the whole Church.
I think, if anything, it proves that the way the infallibility of the Church is exercised adapted as the Church grew. Obviously no visible head was needed when the Church was still a relatively small group of people in the middle east. Yet, after it became a universal organization.....

The argument made is that if there was no visible head at the very beginning of the Church, then surely there's no need to dogmatically require it of today's churches in unity with the Roman Catholic Church.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #60 on: March 10, 2011, 05:36:35 PM »

I didn't claim that the Papacy didn't exist in the beginning. I said its role changed and grew as the Church did.

Is this official Catholic teaching, or your personal understanding? Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #61 on: March 10, 2011, 05:59:40 PM »

I didn't claim that the Papacy didn't exist in the beginning. I said its role changed and grew as the Church did.

Is this official Catholic teaching, or your personal understanding? Smiley
I am pretty sure it is Catholic teaching. I have not heard any Catholic claim that the role of the Pope in the Early Church was identical to how it is now. Of course, for us, we do not have a problem with that since we are honest about and have no problem with admitting development occurs.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #62 on: March 10, 2011, 06:13:00 PM »

I didn't claim that the Papacy didn't exist in the beginning. I said its role changed and grew as the Church did.

Is this official Catholic teaching, or your personal understanding? Smiley
I am pretty sure it is Catholic teaching. I have not heard any Catholic claim that the role of the Pope in the Early Church was identical to how it is now. Of course, for us, we do not have a problem with that since we are honest about and have no problem with admitting development occurs.
Ya'll don't admit it, you advocate it,as you have a problem with finding your dogmas in the historical record.

No Catholic claims that the role of the pope of Rome in the early Church was identical to how it isi now, but plenty of followers of the Vatican do.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #63 on: March 12, 2011, 12:43:00 AM »

I didn't claim that the Papacy didn't exist in the beginning. I said its role changed and grew as the Church did.

Is this official Catholic teaching, or your personal understanding? Smiley
I am pretty sure it is Catholic teaching. I have not heard any Catholic claim that the role of the Pope in the Early Church was identical to how it is now. Of course, for us, we do not have a problem with that since we are honest about and have no problem with admitting development occurs.
Ya'll don't admit it, you advocate it,as you have a problem with finding your dogmas in the historical record.

No Catholic claims that the role of the pope of Rome in the early Church was identical to how it isi now, but plenty of followers of the Vatican do.
You all have had developments too, it is just inconvenient to admit it, plus a lot easier to brush under the rug since you haven't had an Ecumenical Council in so, so long.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #64 on: March 12, 2011, 12:57:24 AM »

I didn't claim that the Papacy didn't exist in the beginning. I said its role changed and grew as the Church did.

Is this official Catholic teaching, or your personal understanding? Smiley
I am pretty sure it is Catholic teaching. I have not heard any Catholic claim that the role of the Pope in the Early Church was identical to how it is now. Of course, for us, we do not have a problem with that since we are honest about and have no problem with admitting development occurs.
Ya'll don't admit it, you advocate it,as you have a problem with finding your dogmas in the historical record.

No Catholic claims that the role of the pope of Rome in the early Church was identical to how it isi now, but plenty of followers of the Vatican do.
You all have had developments too, it is just inconvenient to admit it, plus a lot easier to brush under the rug since you haven't had an Ecumenical Council in so, so long.
Just because it has been so long since we have had heresy rise up among us that we had to expel it.

As for developments, we have grown, but we haven't grown two heads.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #65 on: March 27, 2011, 09:36:18 PM »

I didn't claim that the Papacy didn't exist in the beginning. I said its role changed and grew as the Church did.

Is this official Catholic teaching, or your personal understanding? Smiley
I am pretty sure it is Catholic teaching. I have not heard any Catholic claim that the role of the Pope in the Early Church was identical to how it is now. Of course, for us, we do not have a problem with that since we are honest about and have no problem with admitting development occurs.

Ok, fair enough, thanks Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.235 seconds with 93 queries.