OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 09:07:18 PM *
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 2806 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 29,383



« 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

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
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: 29,383



« 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

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
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
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: 37,124



« 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
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,454


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: 29,383



« 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

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« 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
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,454


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: 29,383



« 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

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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: 29,383



« 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

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
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 0.118 seconds with 48 queries.