www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Where's the Catholic Church?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Friends,

I'm sorry to have to post on this, I really am. I've been resisting the temptation to comment, but this latest one takes the cake. I apologise for any offence that this causes and for the tone, which will be less than eirenical.

Originally posted by AlexiusComnenus:
I'm just a simple Latin / Petrine / Roman Catholic. I love the Pope.

Good grief, will you stop using that horrible adjective "Petrine" in conjunction with "Catholic"? It's entirely senseless. Latin =/= Roman =/= Petrine! In case you didn't know, we love the Pope too - he's a good man and possibly one of the best Popes. Pope Shenounda III of Alexandria's a pretty good one too!

I couldn't imagine having a religion without the Pope; he's my link to Christ.

Gosh, with all those scholastics imagining and debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, you can't imagine a religion without the Pope? The idea that the Pope being one's only link to Christ is one that I don't like - and there are plenty here who feel the same way. When Protestants used to attack me for being RC in the past, saying "Can't you have a direct relationship with the Lord?", I never understood their point till now. While the Papacy is important for the Church, we must never become Papolatrists.

I believe that Peter is the Rock that Christ built His Church upon and that the Pope is the successor to St Peter

You are welcome to your belief, but don't rub it in our faces please. The Fathers of the Church state that the Rock that Christ built His Church upon is not the person of St Peter, but the faith of Peter. There are plenty of references already and I'm sure Stuart, Robert and all the other regulars who are far more knowledgeable about these things can provide more and exact references to the Fathers. Besides, we can't always trust the Patristic texts that the West uses and quotes. St Thomas Aquinas built his ideas about the Papacy and Papal Jurisdiction around invented quotes from an anthology of Patristic quotes that were about as real as Louis Vuitton luggage from Thailand. St Mark of Ephesus was quite right to refuse to accept the tampered quotes produced by the Latins at Florence.

While the Pope is a successor of St Peter in the capacity of Bishop of Rome, many other bishops (most notably the Patriarch of Antioch) are also successors to St Peter who founded their sees. In that larger sense, every bishop who holds the Orthodox faith undefiled, without addition or subtraction, is the successor of St Peter. Christ's admonition to feed His sheep was surely not directed to the Popes of Rome alone, but to all bishops everywhere and throughout all time.

and that he is the Vicar of Christ and the Voice of God upon the earth.

While the chief Patriarch and First among Bishops, the Pope of Rome is one Vicar of Christ among plenty - each bishop or country priest is a Vicar of Christ too!

Voice of God upon the earth is pushing it a little, no?

Was it the Voice of God speaking when Pope Boniface VIII said, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - which we know is a lie.

Was it the Voice of God speaking when John XXII burned the poorest of Christ's poor and died the richest of men in the world?

Was it the Voice of God speaking to establish the presumed superiority of Latin liturgical usages, famously formulated in the Praestantia ritus latini of Benedict XIV's brief Etsi pastoralis?

Next you'll be telling us it was the Foot of God that placed itself on the head of Patriarch Gregory Joseph after Vatican I.

Be very careful of making any cleric a demi-god, even if he is the Pope of Rome. This "Voice of God" idea is unworthy of Christian belief, as no one man on his own may speak for God. If you want an infallible oracle that works as the mouthpiece of the divine, I suggest you go to Delphi, sit over the Omphale and chew laurel leaves - the position of Sibyll has been vacant for some years now.

One last thing - why on earth do you use a nick of the Comnenoi when you're a Latin who believes that everything Latin is best?

Yours in Domino,

Edward
(who can't wait to exchange his Latin papers)


[This message has been edited by Edward Yong (edited 08-17-2001).]

The fullness of the Petrine Primacy as understood in todays terms (supremacy) is not essential for salvation, never has been.
JoeS

Your comment (appended below) is a good one, Dr. John.

A couple Sundays ago there was the reading from St. Paul (and y'all have to excuse me, I can't cite it, but it will surely ring a bell for the well-versed). St. Paul was addressing Christians squabbling among themselves and saying things like "I follow Peter" or "I follow Paul." Unless I totally missed the point, I took away from that reading that St. Paul wished to remind us all that we are the followers of Christ first and foremost.

Lawyer?! ;-) and Sinner,
missus p



[This message has been edited by missus_p (edited 08-17-2001).]

[This message has been edited by missus_p (edited 08-17-2001).]

[This message has been edited by missus_p (edited 08-17-2001).]

[This message has been edited by missus_p (edited 08-17-2001).]

Who is "yipping and yapping"? I haven't seen anyone insult or condemn another in this thread because they disagree with their views. Instead, there has been an honest airing of differing beliefs. Are we to "shunt" aside the fact that we are not in agreement in several areas and pretend everything is hunkey-dorey? That is not very honest in my opinion.

Quote

Christ said: Love God. And: love your neighbor as yourself. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

The exact same sentiments I've seen expressed in this this thread by Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. Acknowledging that we have differences and disagreements or discussing them does not mean one "shunts to the side Christ's teaching". Notice I said discussing and not proselytizing.

Quote

When we get caught up in the 'canonical' and 'theological' stuff, we tend to totally ignore the whole and primary reason we are followers of Christ and not followers of the American Bar Association, i.e, "Lawyerites".

Excellent point. Yet I haven't seen what you are critiquing in this thread. An honest airing of differences is nowhere near what you are criticizing.

Pax Christi,
John

This must be some of that "yipping and yapping" you were referring to. Let me amend my last post: I haven't seen any of this until yours began the roll downhill into the muck. Tis a shame too after the very good posts from Two Lungs...

If you don't like someone else's views or believe they are wrong, then tell them and explain why you think differently. Why resort to this kind of nonsense? Are insults or ridiculing another's faith really that necessary?

Pax Christi,
John

Well this very quickly can plunge into a deep theological and possibly philisophical discussion, which I lack the desire to do on this at the current time. Nevertheless, I will say simply that your soul and that of everyone else belongs to God and is "disposed" of as He judges.
The Primacy is essential in the Church, but your salvation comes from God.

Pax Christi,
John

Dear Two Lungs,

Amen!

The question will always be do they know that we are Christians by our love? I wonder about the lurkers who are reading the back and forth in this thread.

We are in Christ, no matter whom our bishop is. It is with Him that we commune. ISTM that the Church unity question will be answered once we all are humble enough to ask Him to show us where He would have us be.

When we listen to hear His answer in the cry of the poor and naked and the sick, rather than yelling our own, perhaps we can begin to recognize our communion as His Body in loving our brothers and sisters as He has loved us. Then we can ask the Spirit to show us how to work out the details to institutionalize that union.

Please do not permit the written expression impede the meaning or the love!

JOY!

You go, inawe, GO GET 'EM!

That is PRECISELY the issue. It is the scripture statement: "See how they love one another" that makes the most sense.

One can 'apologetics' from now till doomsday, but the fact is: we bring people to the Church (and hopefully thereby) to Christ because people feel that the Christian community is a great and loving place to be.

ONe doesn't make 'converts' by using scripture quotes or arguments to convince people that they should be part of the Christian community (of whatever jurisdiction). It's the sense of love, warmth, accepting-ness, and transcendence that brings folks in the door and induces them to remain.

Blessings!

Members of the Church in western Europe already were known as �Catholic� and those of the Church of the eastern Roman Empire (Greeks... they didn�t call themselves �Byzantine�) �Orthodox� before the schism, and I don�t have much of a problem with that long-entrenched usage continuing after a reunion. (I like being Orthodox.) But what should the universal Church then be called? �Catholic� would be good but the Roman Church has an historical and common-usage lock on that word. Ditto the Byzantine-rite Churches and �Orthodox�. Officially this shouldn�t be a problem according to Catholicism since it says the official name of the universal Church is �Catholic Church� and what is commonly called that is simply the �Latin Church� (and not the �Roman Catholic Church�).

Hmm. If black Americans could relatively easily be renamed over the years (colored, Negro, African-American... though I say let�s stick to �black�) then might it be possible for English-speakers to get used to saying �Roman Church� and �Romans�, reserving �Catholic� for what truly refers to the universal Church? (�Latin Church� and �Latins�, while technically OK, would be too confusing, being associated today exclusively with the Hispanic world and besides nobody in that Church speaks Latin as a first language... even the Vatican speaks Italian.)

In my experience, though, Roman Catholic erstwhile acquaintances have been insulted to hear their Church referred to as �the Roman Church�, etc., because 1) they at least subconsciously think their Church equals the universal or Catholic Church (which is wrong) and/or 2) Episcopalians and some Catholic dissenters have used �Roman� as a label to try to �prove� their brands of heresy are really as Catholic as Roman Catholicism. Here, good Roman Catholics� revulsion to being called �the Romans� is understandable. Sigh.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 08-20-2001).]

OK Serge,

Then we'll call it the Italian Catholic Church!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Dear Edward Yong,

Regarding your post on the Pope...

With all due respect - I have not read every father of the Church, but I have read several and widely in the fathers. I have never run across the statement you just expressed as a majority consensus. I have never run across it at all � but I would not be too surprised if it was held by some of the fathers. I also have noted that disagreement on issues and things did exist in those we commonly call �the fathers�. They often freely gave their opinions while not all of their opinions agree or even made it into the official teachings of the Church in official Councils. I believe the first recorded dispute of the apostles themselves was the issue of the necessity of following Jewish customs. So while their opinions and sayings and writings are to be respected � these are not definitive in themselves. The results of proper Councils are.

While the opinions of the fathers can fill in the humanness of these great men and shed context on the first centuries, many of their opinions were certainly wrong or considered to be wrong later. We should consider some of them as wrong and some of them as immature and undeveloped according to present understanding, but appropriate for the time.

The arguments and disagreements between Augustine and Jerome � were famous. Origen was a darling - until after his death. Evangirus was alternatively loved and despised as a heretic. To be a father of the early church does not equate with being right on all things. Climacus was astoundingly insightful into the human mind for his time and in his context, today his environment could be considered sensory deprivation and is not really recommended. Misunderstandings abounded between Alexandria and Antioch. Not only were the fathers of the church the great frontiersmen as yet so near to Christ�s time of humanity but the other side of the coin is that they themselves were the cause to need councils (!) were belief and teaching were settled (and of course we Catholics believe ratified by the Pope of Rome).

From my knowledge of the Hebrew culture of the time, and examining the Greek text (�upon this rock��) it appears Jesus was fulfilling a long-standing Jewish tradition of the Jewish Kings of the line of David to appoint a Prime Minister from among all the other ministers of his 'governing cabinet' (to make a Western comparison). Isaiah refers to the �keys of the kingdom� as being worn pinned upon a sash over the schoulder during the time of King David. The Prime Minister was properly one son of the king selected out of all sons of the king as representing the king himself in the king�s absence.

The Greek of the gospel breaks down to ..

"You are rock" (masculine)
"and upon this rock" (feminine)
�I will build my ecclesia.� (governing body)

Between �You are rock� and �upon this rock I will build my ecclesia.� there is the Greek sign which is not properly translated as �and� it is �but� and used in the sense to indicate the presence of a contrary (on the one hand this� on the other hand that).

Without all the details, what Jesus is saying breaks down into this�.

�You are hard-headed��
today we might say �numb-skull� or �thick-head�, but these modern similes would not convey the affection involved in this nick-name.

�but - upon your rock-solid will�
and the idea is a huge, massive, rock solid and firm stone like and stubborn - will.

�I will build my government.�
which is very difficult to express in English for in the Hebrew it combined the modern meanings of church, government, governing assembly, and was also the name of the mountain on which the Temple stood (the Rock). Think of the current �Dome of the Rock�

A direct transliteration from Hebrew to English (ignoring context) would be like this�

�You are rock, but upon this rock, I will build my rock.�

There is a three-way play on words involved between the nick name of �hard-headed� and �immovable-will�, and the mountain upon which the Temple stood. Any Jew would have been aware of this right off the bat, immediately. The gospel was obviously first written by a Hebrew in Hebrew for Hebrews to read, and later translated into Greek so Jews in dispersion (who no longer read Hebrew well but spoke and read Greek fine) could read it too. Luke�s gospel (a Greek) was the probably the only one originally written in Greek for it was directly intended to be read by Theophilus (a Greek aristocrat).

Not withstanding the Greek, Jews aware of their own Jewish/Hebrew culture would have immediately understood the three-fold play on the word �rock� and the full implication of the keys of the kingdom officiating the role of Prime Minister of a Jewish Davidic King and kingdom.

In the final, to compare a modern sense of these lines would be to have Jesus address Simon like this�

�You are a knuckle-head! � but �. upon your rock-solid stubbornness of will, I shall build my government of my church.�

Which makes us wonder through out the gospel of Mark (Peter�s gospel) at Simon�s love and use of the nick-name that Jesus gave him. The very first and start of a long standing Orthodox monastic tradition of calling oneself by nick-names of humility.

This is my own considered opinion after personal study.

Brother Kalliss presents a very interesting perspective. I'll have to dig out the Nestle-Almand to see the "and/but" controversy.

The only thing that sounded an alarm was the statement the:

"The gospel was obviously first written by a Hebrew in Hebrew for Hebrews to read, and later translated into Greek so Jews in dispersion (who no longer read Hebrew well but spoke and read Greek fine) could read it too. Luke�s gospel (a Greek) was the probably the only one originally written in Greek for it was directly intended to be read by Theophilus (a Greek aristocrat)."

Not so sure about that. It's pretty clear that the vernacular of the day was Aramaic, and to suppose that Jesus was thinking in Hebrew and that 3 of the Gospels were originally composed in Hebrew (although I would understand the concept of Aramaic prior to Greek renditions) is beyond me.

Is there any linguistic evidence for the Hebrew origins?

Blessings!

>>>Is there any linguistic evidence for the Hebrew origins?<<<

No, but there are a lot of underlying Aramaisms, particularly in Matthew. I believe that the poster was paraphrasing the second century Church historian Papias, who said that Matthew wrote the first complete account of the Lord's life in the language of the Hebrews, and the others copied this as best they could. Of course, the language of the Hebrews in the first century was Aramaic.

The Church held to the Matthean primacy for many centuries, and though the Mark-first hypothesis now holds sway, a case for the independent and early composition (but not final redaction) of Matthew is gaining ground among biblical scholars.

Dear Stuart and Dr. John,

Archaeologists have recently uncovered a copy of the Gospel of Matthew in India written in Hebrew. The article suggested that this find will rewrite theories of scriptural development.

I'll have to do some digging to find it.

Alex

"Digging to find it ... archaeologists ..." You've been sniffing too much of the Wite-Out.

And I'll bet that the Indian Hebrew document will have a little bitty, teeny tiny "Kinko's" in the lower corner.

Blessings!