www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church

Right. Right.

I have no idea what my first sin (my orginal sin) was. I do not remember it. None of use remember our first sin. And no one knows what the first sin of the first human was - but it was not adam and the woman eating from a tree (we can debate that later)... the origin of sin is spiritual (in our depths) and it is definitly ...

... a turning away from God-Providence to our own self-providence.

I have to read the rest of what you say .. later. Got to run to work.

-ray

Ray,

I thought this article from New Advent/Catholic Encyclopedia on the "Power of the Keys" was interesting, especially the intro and the section on the fathers:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

I'm curious what your exegesis has yielded in two weeks time, although, with all due respect, I doubt it will completely upend two thousand years of tradition.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Dear Todd and Ray,

Forgive me if I pull this thread off course.
All of the other questions I posed aside,
I would like to try to convey my thoughts on "original sin" and see if they are reconcilible with what either of you are saying. Consider this more a question than a statement, but this is what I think, I think.

Not being a theologian in any sense of the word am I wrong to conclude by my own sense of logic and reason, that all sin being hypostatic reality, (personal to the individual), is a result of the original sin or fault of Adam. The reason we are prone to personal sin lies in this original sin or fault being inherited, or maybe better put inherent, to all men. This would make sin part of human nature, which I don't think Todd will accept.

If this original sin or fault of Adam is not inherent to all men and because of this sin is not a part of human nature, only personal,(i.e., our individual choice), why then are we baptized and in need of Christ's salvation? I am not saying that human nature is evil, but it is deficient in that sin has entered the world because of the original sin of Adam, and therefore we are in need of salvation.

Again this is more a question than it is a statement.

And if Ray thinks his posts are convoluted... does this make any sense to anyone??

In Christ,
Bill

[quote=ebed melechI'm curious what your exegesis has yielded in two weeks time, although, with all due respect, I doubt it will completely upend two thousand years of tradition.

In ICXC,

Gordo [/quote]

Right ... my personal study will change nothing but it will give me, myself, a context.

My study revolves around two things.

1) what is 'infalibility'?
2) Matthew 16 with a focus on the keys.

Keeping in mind that I am not a teacher nor teaching anything to anyone. Most people can not make heads nor tails out of what I write - anyways

I should only speak just a bit now, because, I have not really yet confirmed my 'discovery' to the point of having total confidence in it. It is also very possible that someone else has come up with similar findings to my own.

There are a few things which opened the door for me.

1) the keys 'shall' be given (future tense) making it really possibility that the keys are not give in Matthew 16 ... but later.

2) the keys both open/close the city gates - and free/inprison slaves (in other words the key has the ability to make a slave - into a free man). But notice the Greek ... what can be freed on earth - must already be free in heaven. The key does not initiate the act and heaven follow it ... but rather follows the act already done in heaven. In Revelation - the keys to hades and death - do not 'free' them to ravage the world (they are already ravaging the world) but rather lock them down. Inprison them. Sin lets them 'out' and Jesus locks them into prison. Jesus makes slaves (slaves to sin) into free men. Jesus is not caprcious (sp) like the gods of Grrek myth. One should not think that just because the keys have the ability ti open/cllllsle the lock - that Jesus himself wants to inprison slaves - or open the door and let death out to roam freely. Man's own will lets sin into the world. Doing the Will of God puts sin back into the underworld. Enough said.

2) Jesus does give a definition of �keys� and I will talk about that when I post my study. Keys are also in Revelation. Jesus was always very consistant in his use of terms. Anytime we read the term 'death' - Jesus' own definition of that term meant - spiritual death - the absencne of 'life in God'. Life and God ... were the same thing to him. Anytime he talked about his 'coming' he was refering to his crucifixtion and resurrection. Anytime he talked about either the Temple of the Church - he was refering to himself. Jesus realy (only when entirely frustrated with the disciples) did he come-down to our level and talk in a 'pratical' way in which he used the conventional meaning of terms. He ALWAYS used terms by his own definitions. Very consistant in that.

3) Much later than the time of Matthew 16 - the mother of James and John goads her sons into asking Jesus to appoint one of them to the right hand, and one to the left had. This, most definitely ! is referring to the position of the Davdic Prime Minister - whose place near the king when in Council - was at the �right hand� of the King. The throne of the Queen Mother - was always to the left of the king - while the PM stood on the right of the king. But since she did not attend Council (no place for a woman) I am not certain who sat to the left of the king (one of the positions John and James were asking for).

Now ALL the disciples believed that Jesus was going to restore the physical kingdom of Israel (all tribes united) to Davidic unity. When David fought Saul (Saul died fighting Philistines) the north split off (10 tribes) and declared loyalty to Saul�s House - while 2 tribes went with David. But David eventually fought and unified all 12 tribes. But that fell apart when Absalom (sp) the crown-prince (that would be the PM office) revolted (I think that was the occasion). In any event - they split towards the end of David or after David died. Not sure yet. But they divided again.

The point being - that all disciples believed that Jesus would restore Israel to its former Davidic glory - and Jesus (the Son of David - bloodline) would overthrow Herod and ascend the throne in a popular uprising - supported by Exodus like miracles.

THIS - would definitely include the Davidic form of national government. And so we can see what the Mother of James and John was egar to have her sons appointed to high political position. One at the right hand (a - Prime Minister) and one at the left hand (a - ???). I am guessing that the left hand was the minister of the military - just guessing.

Now, assuming that James and John were already aware that Peter had been given the PM officie - it makes no sense what they were asking. That would mean Jesus would have to demote Peter! To give the PM office to one of the brother.

Do you See?
It is without a doubt in my mind - that James and John were asking to be appointed to the Prime Minister office. No doubt in my mind what-so-ever. They were asking for the earthy office.

Have we misunderstood Matthew 16??

Yes.

Exactly how � I am on the trail of that. I believe I do know what was happening there. But I can not speak about it yet. One of the keys is that scripture flows - usually in a pattern of three. What I mean is that a theme is taken up and expressed - and that theme is usually repeated three times. Three events which on the surface seem isolated and as if they can be taken separately - but in reality there is an underplaying continuity of theme going on. Note that six days later is the transfiguration and who is present? Peter, James, and John. That is all I can say for right now. IT is no use to guess what I am getting at.

But the way things are shaping up is that - we have misunderstood Matthew 16.

Does that shake up the world? No � but it does remove Matthew 16 as a foundation for the current RCC position of Peter being given the Prime Minister�s office - in Matthew 16. We should assume nothing further than that.

The second most interesting thing I am looking at is Infallibility. There is an inconsistency between the logic of the position on Papal Infallibility - and another statement as to why the reader (who is reading/listening to the infallible declaration) has no guarantee of understanding it infallibly. This is very interesting. If you apply the reasoning of one item to the other item - they cancel the other out. Interesting. I will post that short study in logic and word definition also. It will give the conditions under which an infallible statement - can be (and can not be) considered infallible. It includes the item of divine intervention also. Interesting.

There are two things which allow me to investigate and post my opinions � the first is my conscience. As the CCC says ��A person must follow the clear judgments of his conscience� � that trumps all else .. In all matters. The second is that we Catholics are allowed to question and debate. Hans Kung debated against the current form of Infallibility - even after Vatican I (he wrote a book on his objections) yet he was still elevated to Cardinal. He was exploring - and not teaching - in his book.

IF - I were a priest or teacher - I would not be able to speak freely. But I am not. I am no body. I present only opinion.

The end results of my study allows one to think of Infallibility and a type of Primacy of Peter - in a new way. Perhaps it is actually the old way J . A voluntary judicial role - but in a way which - confirms - and solidifies - doctrines already held by the church. The churches as a confederation with Peter as a - sign of its voluntary unity. Enough said.

Understanding Matthew 16 - in the way I now understand it � blows my mind. Many more pieces to the puzzle cascade into place. AND - it appears - right. It fits which what I already know about Genesis and John�s Revelation and this and that etc..

I am searching for a study on the form of Davidic government. SOMEONE MUST have done research on that! Who sat on the left??? Believe me - I already know about the Prime Minister�s role - and his keys to the kingdom (a key pinned onto a sash which he wore over the shoulder). The office was often filled by the crown-prince. But not always. �Minister of the Palace� was sometimes an alternative title. I know what the keys represented in that role. I know what authority they gave - and to do what. I am pretty sure (but not positive) that Absalom held that office. But there are things I am not dead sure of.

Besides I might find something soon which crashes this whole thing (in my mind) so more study is needed ... and a bit more time to digest and be real sure before I open my mouth too far.

Peace to you and to all churches.
-ray

What I mean by theme of three - is for example .. the parable of the sower is followed by the parable of the light that we do not put under the couch and next it goes onto the hill so all can see by it. All three are united by the underlaying theme of the light which shines in our conscience.

We recieve it in our conscience (on the path), we should use it for our own lives (in our own house, and we should not be afraid to live it publicly (on the hill).

I already know the connection between Jesus speaking to Peter - and six days later the transfiguration ... I have not yet looked at the third event to see what it is and if it joined in a set in the same way.

... rather I am following the trail of the keys - first. And that will take some time.

I think I have said too much. I want to be able to put this cat back into the bag if it is the wrong cat.

-ray

Here - - - look at this.

In the first event (of the three that are themed together) ... God the father says to Peter ... Jesus is my Son ... and Jesus carried on a bit and ends by telling tem 'tell no one'.

Q: Tell no-one what?
A: Tell no one that Jesus is the son of God.
Q: Why should they tell no one?
A: .......

In the second event of the triad (three together) James, John, and Peter are told "This is my Son" and Jesus closes with "Tell no one".

Q: Tell no-one what?
A: Tell no one that Jesus is the son of God.
Q: Why should they tell no one?
A: .......

The third event of the triad appears to be the cured boy. He is freed from slavery (loosed) - does that remind you of the power of the 'keys' - it should. Can a man have faith and move mountains? Not unless it has already been 'moved' in heaven. God does not let us run his world in the way we think it should be run. He runs his world in the way he thinks it should be run - we can cooperate with that if we want to. But he is not going to change things based upon the way we humans think things should be run ... back to the 'keys' only being able to do what has already been done in heaven.

In the third event of the triad ... (the boy freed from demonic slavery - and the demons lock away to trouble him no more) ... we have the answer to go back and fill in the unanswered question of "Why should they tell no one?"...

Q: Why should they tell no one?
A: Because - their faith is as yet too small.

Only after the crucifixion and resurrection - will everyone's faith be big enough to handle the fact that Jesus is the son of God ... public and disciples included.

Get it?

The underlying theme appears (at this stage) to be the same but
I have to go to a good transliteration of the Greek to make real sure.

Pretty confusing - the way I research - huh? Well - I have learned a few principles from my study of Genesis - that really seem to hold up throughout scriptures. For example pretty much most prophetic literature is based upon a quatrain format. Four items of which the fourth is really the first of the next quatrain. Ahh.. to hard to explain. But one had to take the basic view that even if scripture is divinely inspired - the ink and words remain human language - human literature - following all the conventions for that type of literature within the culture it was written. The people who wrote this stuff - WANTED to be fully understood. So they followed conventions. Writing religious or philosophical stuff in a quatrain format we pretty much standard throughout the area - for this type of literature. Quatrains were (at times) further divided into larger divisions (large quatrains consisting of four smaller quatrains). It is really a simple method. Ahhhhh � to hard to describe without showing you examples.

Anyway � It works for me.

-ray

Ah ha!

Look at this!

I showed you how the third event of the triad - dovetails with the other two. The looseing of the boy and the closing of the gate on the demons. Jesus used the keys - right there! The boy is freed and the demons shut up. I already showed you the answer to the questions "Why - not tell anyone?"

Now I asked myself - where is the revelation that Jesus is the messiah?? (like in event 1 with Peter, and 2 with Peter, James, and John ... and it just dawned on me the progression ...

You see - the public miracle of curing the boy - is - according to tradition - something only the messiah could do! Make the blind see, cure the sick, cast out demons - only things that can be attributed to the messiah alone.

And that makes the third event a public disply of "This is my Son." Do you see that?

There is a progression here...

First Peter ...
Next Peter, James, and John ...
Next - a public event ...

... in which the Father gives evidence that Jesus is his Son! Really what amounts to a public announcement.

Do you see the progression there? All three events have an underlying same theme.

A. God the father announcing that Jesus is his Son.
B. The keys that can free the slaves and bind the demons.
C. Don't tell anyone yet - because faith is yet too small - until I resurrect at which time faith will be huge!

Now it is a little more complicated than that. I have shoown it in a simple way. It is far more tied together than I present here.

Well - that pretty much nails it for me. I know what the keys are and I know when they are given and to whom they are given.

Now just to find the time to write it up in a readable way. Plus - a few days to let this simmer in my mind just in case something pops up to smash the whole thing.

-ray

It makes perfect sense to me why the mothers of James and John were asking this. Remember that at that point, Peter does not exercise yet that authority given to him; it will only be evident in Acts, not in the Gospels. So there is perfect reason that John and James' mothers would still want to catch the last train, so to speak, in the hopes that their sons might at the very least share in this office. This is to some expounded in a passage in the Gospels; yet as St. Cyprian has affirmed, a primacy was given to Peter. So is there a misunderstanding then? As someone said, if there is a misunderstanding, it would certainly upend 2,000 years of understanding on this issue, from the early Fathers onwards.

[quote=Milliardo yet as St. Cyprian has affirmed, a primacy was given to Peter. So is there a misunderstanding then? As someone said, if there is a misunderstanding, it would certainly upend 2,000 years of understanding on this issue, from the early Fathers onwards. [/quote]

Yes... I do not doubt a primacy ... so many early fathers noted it. But the Eastern�s claim it was a Primacy of Honor was given. I now tend to lean towards that.

I have had to rebuild two computers here at home and so I have not had time to write this up in a more readable way.

But if you are interested ... look up in Luke "keys" and you will see that the keys are a type of knowledge. An intuitive - understanding. Jesus was very consistent in what terms meant to his mind. In Luke he is talking to the scribes, lawyers (experts in the Law - scriptures!). They HAVE the keys of knowledge (they are experts at scriptures) but they do not use them (they do not enter into the spirit of the law) and so they teach only the shell - preventing others from entering. Having knowledge (of scriptures in this case) is not necessarily the same thing as - understanding.

And then think about the second item of the triad (the event of the transformation) ... were are the keys in this event?? I had shown you the keys in the two other events (Jesus speaking about keys - the boy released from demons and the demons shackeled never to bother the biy again). Demons=bound and boy=loosed. The function of the keys.

Right there - standing next to Jesus � Moses (the books of the Torah) and the prophet Elijah (the books of the prophets). These two figures were given the keys (they wrote Jewish scripture!). Jewish scripture is divided into three parts .. the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings of the Prophets. And so it is really two parts - the Law (Moses) and the application of the Law (the prophets). Moses - and Elijah. Jesus gave them the keys that can bind the demons and free the captives to sin. In fact - what is he doing there (Jesus) in that time warp? He is giving to Moses and Elijah - understanding!! He is giving them - the keys! It is not a chat � they are not enlighten Jesus - Jesus is enlightening them. He is giving them the keys (understanding) and they will write scriptures - and scribes will study scriptures - but the scribes do not enter in (real understanding) and teach only the shell - preventing others from entering in.

I do not doubt a Primacy for Peter - I just do not see it in Matthew 16.

As far as James and John ... if they witnessed Jesus give Peter the Prime Minister's office - just only 6 days before (that is the way I figure it (consult a parallel bible) .. than - it was great audacity to ask Jesus to dump Peter and re-assign the PM office to one of them. And so - again - I doubt that Matthew 16 was such an assignment of PM office.

I, myself, would not assume that I have overturned centuries of interpretation. It is mostly the RCC that has interpreted Mathew 16 as appointment to a Prime Minister�s office. And only that since the 1700�s. I would say I am re-focusing Matthew 16.

Please look again at the Greek (look it up yourself) Jesus says � I SHALL give you�� meaning not yet - not now - but in the future�. When I write it all up I will tell you -when- the keys are given. And I will show you what the results of it are (bind demons and release captives).


Peace to you and do not let my comments disturb your faith in anything.
-ray

Remember that it was not James and John who asked for it, but their mothers. I don't think the Apostles themselves would boldly do such a thing, but I can certainly imagine their mothers doing something like that.


We forget that there were instances in early Church history that showed the Pope's role as not merely in the primacy by honour, but by reality itself through his actions.

The way I see it, and I mean no disrespect to Orthodoxy, as I have great love for it, but that it stems to political rather than theological concerns. I think the fault, in part, can be traced to Constantine the Great. When he built Constantinople, he invariably split the Empire with two competing cities. The downfall of the Empire can be seen with that act, as from that time it can no longer properly defend itself without stretching its resources. But more than that, in time we now have two bishops who would exercise and wield the same influence and power. On the one hand we have Rome, ancient center of the Empire. On the other is the new center, Constantinople. This will only heighten with the fall of Rome and the rise of Constantinople. Now, as I read it, the bishop of Constantinople began to see himself as equal, if not more than, the bishop of Rome. Note that before Constantinople came, virtually every Church Father deferred to Rome and gave its bishop not only honour, but actual power. With Constantinople, and with Rome's fall, the bishop was then influenced by secular political power. The Byzantine Emperors more than once tried or even succeeded in entering Church politics, playing off favourites. Meanwhile in the West, the Church found itself in a rather unique position--it was virtually the only institution left standing after the barbarian invasions of Rome. So two cities, two bishops competing for dominance. It's not hard to imagine that later on, situations would come to a head. Still, in 536, the bishop of Rome went to Constantinople to personally depose its heretical bishop and then install a bishop that's more favourable, and consequently force that bishop to agree. I have looked everywhere for any other Patriarch from Constantinople, Antioch or Alexandria who has deposed any bishop of Rome; I cannot find any. But Rome has more than once exercised its authority beyond its jurisdiction.

I think it is a primacy of honor too, not primacy of power.

I think the fathers illustrate that.

-- John

I think it was already effectively split between a Latin West and a Greek East, along cultural and economic lines. However, that split was greatly widened and made political by the reforms of the (preceding) Emperor, Diocletian.



The fall of Rome is a topic that can be discussed in more than a single cause or sentence . . . However, I do not think that Diocletian's splitting of the empire hastened the fall of Rome. Instead, I think it preserved it by consolidating the resources of the empire into its respective halves: allowing abler response to threats to each respective half. Later, especially when Constantine moved his capitol to Constantinople, the empire was further preserved by centering and consolidating itself in the East: where the money was, and the people were, and the capitol was defensible.



Yes . . .



That is debatable. Certainly, the bishops in the Western half (the Latin half) of the Roman Empire gave real deference and some power to the Patriarch of Rome as their leading bishop. However, the extent of that deference is (to my mind) uncertain and undefined and evolving during that period. Also, the Eastern Patriarchs (especially of Alexandria, Antioch and, later, Constantinople and Jerusalem) gave the papacy a deference of honor, but not of jurisdiction or power over their sees.



I would say, instead, that Christian bishops increasingly became political offices (as well as spiritual offices) after the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, and made (in effect) Christianity into the imperial religion, and dominated Christianity (e.g. by patronage and by the Council of Nicea).



After the fall of the Western Empire, I think that the Bishop of Rome was much more occupied with simple survival of himself, his church and his people than with dominating the Eastern Empire . . . at least (with possible exceptions in popes Gregory the Great and John VIII) until the eleventh century.



. . . with the permission of the Emperor Justinian. Later attempts by Roman patriarchs to exercise authority over Eastern patriarchs were less than fully successful . . .

-- John

I read a rather interesting response to Domine Iesus, which was printed in the Orthodox Observer and Greek News(http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7180).
It is rather hard line and its author was the former ecumenical officer of the Greek archdiocese and, for that reason, is worth reading. It sounds like the Phanar and the Vatican are reading from the same play book one in Greek, the other in latin. I post it here to show how those of us on the Orthodox side of the street reacted to Benedict's comments. These words are the opinion of father Miltiades and may or may not be those of the Greek Archdiocese.

Commentaries: Which is the Oldest Church?
Posted on Monday, July 23 @ 16:26:05 EDT by greek_news

Commentaries Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou
Note: This is a historical response to the recent declaration of Pope Benedict XVI who, in reference to his 2000 document �Dominus Iesus� written when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that Christian denominations were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities. Pope Benedict referred to the Orthodox churches as having �many elements of sanctification and of truth� but were �wounded� because they did not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry. If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American Colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606. If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as the Founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1623. If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774. If you are Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York in 1829. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are Christian Scientist, you look to the year 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and look to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder. If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as the �Church of the Nazarene,� �Pentecostal Gospel,� Holiness Church,� or �Jehovah�s Witnesses,� your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.

However, if you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium these two churches were one in the same. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). He created this break by tampering with the original Creed of the Church, thereby making the pope infallible. The idea of infallibility became a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century at Vatican I Council, thus separating the Church from the tenets of early Christendom.

It is not enough to claim that your church began with the Apostles. The catholicity of your church, be it Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Methodist, Mormon, or Christian Scientist, must truly identify with �Catholic.� This word is a Greek word used in the Creeds which means that your church identifies with those early communities of Antioch, Corinth, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Rome that existed more than 2000 years ago. It must include the adherence to orthodox doctrine and belief that those early communities held, and formulated later in Councils. This then should be the format for all meaningful ecumenical dialogue, in the spirit of He, who once said �that they may be one� (John 17:21).

About the Author: Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou is a retired priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdioceses of North and South America. He is a protopresybter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. He served as Ecumenical Officer for SCOBA (Standing Conference of the Orthodox Bishops in America) and was co-convener of the �Catholic/Orthodox Metropolitan Dialogue of NY and NJ.� He holds a PhD. in Medieval History. mefthimiou@optonline.net

Thanks for that post.

Peace to you my friend.
-ray