www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church

It is hihgly unlikely that Pope Gregory meant that Peter exalted Rome in the sense that he merely turned it into an apostolic see. If that were the case he would've said that he exalted all three of them, rather than make distinctions as he did.First of all, the Ecumenical Councils in Gregory's time had already assigned Rome a primacy over the other Churches. Secondly, Paul had already established Rome as an apostolic see before Peter arrived. So, what was the purpose of Peter going there? It had to be for a reason. When Peter arrived he exalted Rome, by making it his newly adopted see and therefore made it the seat of christendom. It was important to Christ and his Apostles that Rome (Babylon) as the center of the secular world, become the center of Christendom in which the Church would be built on Peter's bones (the rock). So, therefore both the literal and spiritual sense of the Scripture Matt. 16:18 was fullfilled.

May God bless you

Hey, that's pretty cool - I never thought of it like that .

Ray,

It doesn't matter who presides over councils. Peter and his successors can certainly let others preside. However, what Peter said, in the manner that he said it, clearly proves that he had a Primacy over the other apostles. Remember, God revealed to Peter in a vision that the Mosaic Laws (especially the dietary laws) were no longer binding (cf. Acts 10:9-16). Then Peter taught and expressed that fact by saying in effect that gentiles are no longer to be considered profane or unclean (cf. Acts 10:28). Now, here is Peter's speech at the council of Jerusalem and the council's reaction to it:


This clearly shows how Peter exercised his authority over the other apostles, and the other apostles obeyed. Notice how there was much debate taking place at the council. They didn't know what to do until Peter got up and spoke. Then James explained further what Peter said in more detail and put the teaching into practice.

May God bless you

Dear searching east �

May I offer a better understanding of conscience. You have touched a subject close to my heart. I have spent a lot of time trying to understand my own conscience. I offer my opinon and what I think. Take what you think may be good.

(here I go - step into the breach once more!)

My posts are often confusing and boring and odd. Feel free to skip over it.

Also .. when I write "you" do not take it personally as I am speaking in general - everyone including me.

-----------

Conscience (from the Latin) means {together-knowledge}. Knowing something together. God and you - sharing the same knowledge. God does not need your conscience to know about you. You need your conscience to know about God. It is where God holds conversation with you.

The knowledge that God has is not the results of his reasoning nor analytics. It is experiential knowledge. It is immediate and an intimate understanding. Existential and ontological reality.

Knowledge gained by reasoning or by analytics is not the same knowledge as experiential knowledge. The two can not be joined nor shared. They can not be - together and the same. The type of knowledge that can be con-science must be the same type of knowledge.

In the Temple design there is the outer court (representing our sensate nature - this was called the Court of the Gentiles). Next was the inner court in which Jews could go but Gentiles could not go I believe the name of this was the Court of Israel. In the second court is where the sacrifices took place. Gentiles could not enter the Court of Israel. This court represents our spiritual nature (our psychological mind). And the last court was the Holy of Holiness where only the High Priest may enter and only on the day of Atonement. This court is where one was face to face with God�s presence.

The Holy of Holies represents � our conscience a function of what philosophers call - person.

The division is like this �

Person
Psychological mind (created spirit or psyche)
Sense of body (created animal nature or soma)

Pretty neat if you ask me � how the construction of the Temple reflected our own divisions of human nature.

In the Mosaic arrangement: the Holy of Holies was where God spoke from � to his people.

All kings (at the time) sat on a throne and inside a hollow in the throne was the covenant between the king (and his gods) � and the people. The word Ark means �container�. The throne was the �container� of the covenant. The throne of the King of Israel contained the tables (the Law and a few other items). The tables (The Law and the covenant) was called �the Word� because it was considers as having been spoken by God � to the people (the governed).

The Law was written on tables by the finger of God. On top of the Ark (the seat where a human king would sit) cradled in the wings of the cherubim (those who hold the flaming sword which guards the path to back to Eden) was the invisible presence of God. Called the Shekinah Light (light here means knowledge). The same which went before them (it lead and they followed) out of Egypt.

Notice the symbolism. The spiritual meaning. Look at the literal meaning but raise to the spiritual meaning.

With the messiah (Jesus) the symolism begins to drop away � �In those days I will write with my finger in their hearts�. The �heart� of a man was his conscience (in our terms).

(I am assuming you are a bit familiar with these scriptural quotes)

That which was of a created nature (the physical Holy of Holies, the physical tablets of the Law written by the finger of God) are now replaced with what they had represented - conscience.

On the other hand � we humans have (create for ourselves) a set of mental (psychological) rules and laws by which we try to live by. We are near constantly adjusting these rules. Fine tuning them. (Example: Ray says something stupid and someone complains and Ray says mentally �Well .. I have to remember not to say that again!�). These rules are like a set if formula by which we expect certain results. If we do not get the expected results - we adjust the formula.

We use our reason to adjust these mental sets of rules � which we often call �conscience� but is not conscience. We all have this function and a form of this function is necessary for us to function at all. I say mental sets (plural) because we hold many of them and they are conflicting. And so we are also trying to find the belief that will tie them all together (unify and integrate them). They are that which � �My name is Legion� � for there are 100 of us � the number of a Roman Legion .. Simply representing �a great number� and not specifically and exactly 100.

We experience these as different personalities which live in our psychological mind. We are one person (one way) with our employer (perhaps submissive and hold back our real thoughts) and we are another personality with someone else. I am totally honest with my wife and with my employer I play the necessary politics. I am one personality around a group of Republicans and I am another personality around a group of Democrats. We are another person with our priest (kind and do not swear - smiling and all is well) and we are a different person with our close friends (the job is horrible and life sucks) - etc.. etc.. � we are Legion. We are the man of the Gadarenes. (Thank you Arch Bishop Sheen).

Our problem is (and this is where we mistake this mental set of rules for our conscience) � we are always adjusting the rule set and trying to find just the right formula - in fact we tweak it everyday. We are trying to get it right - the right formula. The right mix of ingredients. During Medieval Europe this was called Alchemy and the search for the �Philosophers Stone � (which would turn lead into gold) and sometimes it was called untying the �Gordian Knot� (unwinding chaos to find truth).

In any event � the psychological set of rules is located in our created spiritual nature (our psychological mind). It is a creation of our reasoning. It is often called �moral conscience� but that is a mis-application of the word according to its real definition. This set of rules is mostly a social set of �laws� for how we are to socially interact (just as the Mosaic laws were social law). That social interaction can be with other people or with our concept of God. So it can be said that �our conscience must be well informed� and that is can be in error or can misjudge.

We often in-form this set of rules along the lines of our religion. We create or re-create for ourselves an image of God (formed by a specific set of rules). We call this ethics and morals. This function is necessary for us humans to function socially. The tools we use to form any mind set of rules is our reason. WE reason our way to truth or we have faith in some set of rules. This �conscience� assumes (and can only function) in a world that is considered as mechanical, fixed, and pre-determined. We place these rules as our master (our god or gods) and we are the servant (they guide or command us what to do and how to act). Our gods may be economics, politics, religion, music, any number of human activities of senses or mind.

This set of psychological rules (conscious and subconscious) are modeled upon conscience and its function - but these rules sets are not inn themselves - conscience.

They are a necessary (what do I want to say??) refection of our conscience - but within the psychological mind. But neither moral conscience nor social conscience fit the definition of con-science. I, myself, would not call this �wrong� and a huge mistake � but I would rather say these names (moral and social conscience) are nearly right for practical purposes. But for someone really trying to understand conscience and its importance we should really be more precise.

Conscience (however) is not the same as this psychological set of rules. Conscience can never be wrong. As conscience {con-together} + {science-knowledgenowing} � � God can not have false knowledge (let us get away from the words �right and wrong� which have to do with the set of psychological rules I was talking about). If something we know is misguided, unreality, and false - God can know about it but he does not know it in a direct and experiential way (which is the way God knows things). He knows about false unreality in us - as a lack of himself � in us.

God does not share any un-reality we may have in our mind. God does not know or share any misguided or false knowledge. God only knows what is real. Existentially real. Ontologically real. Which type of knowledge is really an intimate experience of himself.

Therefore: The only knowledge that you and God can share together - has to be the knowledge that God knows. Con-science. What God knows - you know. This knowledge is what Jesus had called � �The will of my father.� The will of God. Its seat of human experience is in what theology calls �essential union� and that seat is the same as conscience.

If that knowledge (conscience) can be false, un-real, off base, mistaken, ill-informed � than God does not know it and it is not - a knowledge you and He can share. It is not con-science.

Do you see?

God only - can in-form our conscience. We can not in--form our own conscience. Once we do that (in-form it ourselves) it is no longer con-science. We say we can � but what we are referring to when we say we can � is our psychological set of rules (moral or social). We are mistaking the set of psychological rules - for real conscience.

The problem we have is � we take our gaze off of conscience. We place our in-forming gaze at our sensations or at our physiological mind (especial at the set of rules we substitute for conscience).

The nature at which we place our in-forming gaze � is the nature which � in-forms our personality. Our personality can be in-formed by conscience (by God) � or by the created natures of psychological mind or senses. We have the liberty to choose the direction of our in-forming gaze � only constrained by habit (subconscious and automatic tendency) and other considerations of human nature which it is no value to mention now.

There is absolutely no way we are capable of analyzing our conscience. We can examine (with the tool of reason) our set of mental rules � but true conscience is a higher function (its seat is in what philosophy calls �the person�) than the faculty of reason which has it seat in the powers of the physiological mind.

Our �person� � the foundation of our be-ing � is not an object � it is an action - an act. More like mind is an act and not an object. But person is the source and origin of the act of psychological mind. A faculty can not be turned and used upon its origin. Reason and analytics can not be used upon conscience. Conscience and only be known in an experiential way � else � what we are reasoning on is not conscience.

I am really sorry. I can not say things simply. I know I can be very confusing to people. There is not much I can do about it. Believe me - I do not talk much at parties.

The Bottom line �.
Conscience has its seat in �person� (philosophical definition) and as such can not be in-formed by our own efforts in any way, shape, or form. We can pay attention to it � or ignore it � or create a psychological based substitute for it � and we can call (and often do call) that set of rules - God - and call it right or wrong (as compared to what we think is fixed truth and reality which we think we can analyze).

Conscience � if we pay attention to it and sit with the existential experience of it (and remove all mental obstacles which block a pristine experience of it) � can never be �wrong� or ill-formed or misguiding - in any way. And can not be the converse either �right. And paying attention to it can become a habit carried over to more active life.

Reason takes its proper place when it is a tool of charity. Directed and guided by charity. A friendship type of love. Because charity arises from one place only - conscience. Charity can not arise, act, or be gotten and lived from any other source.

May peace of conscience be with us all.
-ray

Hi Ray. While it is true that in Biblical Hebrew, the "waw" plays many roles--as a conjunction, a disjunction, alternatively ("but"), as an accompaniment ("with"), comparatively, emphatically, etc, etc--Koine Greek's "kai" does not have that flexibility. It serves two functions: (1) as a conjunction to join words, thoughts, clauses, etc, and (2) as an emphatic ("also", "even"). I'd say that in the verse under consideration, it is functioning as an emphatic, as "kagw" ("and I") heads the sentence.

Yes... so I used to believe also. But I am not sure right now (which does not mean I have tossed the whole thing out).

You are right to combine it with the revelation of the dietary laws. I forgot that was Peter.

I have also noted in the past that Peter said "You all know that it is by my mouth that the gospel should be announced" or something to that effect .. and no one there seemed to take him to task for such a bold statement.

Without a fuller context (fly on the wall to tell us more) it remains circumstantial evidence. But do not let me throw you. Most civil trials convict on mostly circumstantial evidence that together - becomes overwhelming.

Again - it seems to me that Peter had some type of Primacy ... be it Honor or Christ-appointed (Prime Ministerial) I am nor sure or clear on yet. It is far too easy to mistake one for the other. And the Orthodox do not deny a Primacy (but they say Honor - voluntary and not judicial but confirmatory).

There is also circumstantial evidence for their beliefs on the subject.

The funny thing is - I really do not have to decide - it is not like the Pope calls me on the phone and tells me what to do. Papal Primacy is really quite remote to the ordinary Catholic. Only the fundamentalists of any church latch onto what they really do not understand and ram it down the throats of everybody they meet. The rest of us wait until we think we really do understand - but we still do not ram it down anyones throat or use it as a club to beat 'wrong' people.

My posts of last year defended Infallibility and such and this year I defend the Orthodox position. Is there some middle ground where both are right? What are we missing here? It is driving me nuts looking for it. But I do know that we have to look - in not the usual places. It is being over looked. Or some minor point is being misinterpreted by someone (ahhh.. Quit trying for tonight Ray!)

May I �tip my hat� to you for the way you have conducted yourself Roman Army. You are a fine example of the Roman church. From your choice of name I was expecting someone a little more militant and funndamentalist. I am gald you represent my church .. here.

I may, personally, be irritated by such RC statements as implying that Orthodox churches are �wounded� and have �less� Christ .. (paraphrased) .. But it is good to remind that such statements are not Infallible statements themselves. These can be corrected if need be. �Better understood� is the political phrase.

But it seems to me that both churches are in a �I am right and you are not right� .. fight .. And this intellectual right fight is not something Our Lord wants. I really don�t think �right� and �wrong� applies. What is this ? High school? Some one will always be more right than someone else - and that makes that someone else - wrong. A sure receipt for division - and further division - and still further division. Endless because someone will always be more �right� than the last �right�.

We are looking thorough the wrong goggles.

I know for sure that the �right� goggles are Providence and conscience and charity.

But no one is going to give up the wrong goggles until they know why the goggles are wrong.

I hope you understand or at least tolerate my odd ways.

Peace to your church which is also my church.
-ray

Melkiteman,

I think you missed the good Father's point. He didn't suggest anything contrary to what you write. He did not say that the Catholic Church is part of the one true Church. He said that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the one true Church and that other churches (such as the Melkite Church) are also part of the one true Church.

Ray,
Thanks for the lengthy reply. I am going to need to read it a handful of times. It actually deals with some ideas I have been struggling a bit with as of late in figuring out why my mind seems so divided and knowing where God fits in to it all.

My only problem is that it seems to be dealing with my understanding or misuse of the word conscience instead of what you probably knew what I meant by the comment. Or maybe you are defending why your original statment made perfect sense?

If I could re-word my reply, I think it would be that sometimes following what we personally believe to be true (therfore perhaps not conscience, but simply what we perceive to be right or wrong socially, psychologically or otherwise) can be dangerous if we are not aware of the proper facts in making a decision. Perhaps our conscience never is wrong, but if we never spend time learning the truths that are possible to know than we will be misguided and make poor decisions from some part of our psychological self.
But I would think you would agree that it is important that in order to live from our conscience it would be easier the more we understand truth, or the more we fight the lack of truths within us. If I accept a lie as truth and allow myself to be fully convinced, than the truth my conscience knows (or could have led me to) will be held mute because I am no longer interested in it and have traded it for something else on a given matter.
thanks,
Brian

reading your original post, now I think i understand why the contradiction or problem I found to be in your statement was not there, and why living from one's conscience properly understood could not possibly be misinformed or right or wrong. So I now see you were clarifying how I might better understand your statement.
Still, we both might agree with the earlier post that in order to have unity, we will still need unity of the mind.
And I still would remind you that whether or not we need to redefine it, infallibility is a doctrine of the church that is declared now as a dogma. You may seek to understand it in new light or hope for a re-developed understanding of it, but it is not optional, but forever declared a part of the Catholic faith. To be fully Catholic one needs to accept that if the Pope makes statements ex-cathedra (and this of course rarely happens) that they are infallible. We believe that he alone maintains this special gift. It may be the church as a whole that is infallible, and he may need all the Bishops for full truth and authority, but he is the only person in our church that maintains this privilege of infallibility in these special circumstances without a council. We believe no other Bishop is able to as an individual (if need be) make a definitive and infallible statement on faith or morals to be held as dogma from that point on (though in councils perhaps they do share this privilege, I do not fully understand).
I know that we need to strive toward unity on this issue, and I do not expect the Orthodox to go along with it as it is now, and I respect them for the light and concerns they shed on the issue, but you seem to be questioning it or seeking to undermine it as a Roman Catholic in some ways instead of defending the position as it is traditionally understood from our perspective.
Of course, you are entitled to your thoughts, but I just do not know how far you are willing to question them before you are following your own private interpretation and are no longer Orthodox or Catholic in your views.
If you are looking for a new way to see or understand things, maybe that is ok, but if you are suggesting an alternative teaching or concept than what exists, then I personally can not feel safe with that. You can not be fully Catholic and deny that infallibility is an infallible doctrine. You can see we misunderstand what it really means, but you can not offer any meanings that contradict with what we do understand about it. Honestly, I am not acusing you of anything because I do not entirely understand where you are coming from, but you seem to say that you are no longer defending infallibility this year as much as the Orthodox perspective and that this is one aspect of the church that you do not like, and other statements that I feel concerned with.

Ray,

Have you read much of Kant? You might find the Critique of Practical Reason and the Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morals to be pertinent to your thinking.

Joe

Laka Ya Rabb,

If you are saying that either 1) there are multiple versions of Catholicism that can or should co-exist within the Catholic Church, or 2) that Catholicism could only speak authoritiatively in the first millenium but not the second millenium, I don't think either of these proposals can be supported from any reading of normative Catholic teaching.

The 1998 apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem addresses church authority and includes authoritative amendments to the Code of Canons for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Best to all,
Robster

It all may be quibbling about words and terminology.
Roman Catholic Church (RC) could mean the Catholic Church as commonly expressed.
Roman Catholic Church could also mean what used to be called the Roman or Latin Rite i.e. the Latin Church.
The Roman Church could refer to the actual diocese of Rome.
I notice that you referred to the Melkite Church but didn't call it the Melkite Catholic Church which would be the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church as you used it. Thus lies the problem.

Perhaps as you said what the good Father meant was that the Latin Church is part of the Catholic Church the same as the Melkite Church is part of the Catholic Church.

I assume perhaps incorrectly that the name of this thread refers to the Catholic Church as commonly but inaccurately called the Roman Catholic (RC) Church

I vigorously disagree that conscience can't be formed and informed. Conscience can also be right or wrong and also deadened.
I suggest reading the CCC 1749-1802 on morality and conscience
starting at section 1749 on morality
starting at section 1776 on conscience.
Section 1783 etc deals with the formation of conscience.
1790 discusses the ignorance and errors of conscience
section 1865 discusses how sin creates a proclivity to sin. Sin begets sin. It deadens our conscience.

Conscience must be be informed and maintained.

I do believe this is a difference in terms only. I now have no idea what you're trying to say.

When I wrote "The Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church," I meant that Church also known as the Latin Church is not the one true Church. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church, it is only part of the Catholic Church. My finger is not my hand. My lung is not my body. It is inaccurate to call the Catholic Church the "Roman Catholic Church."

The Catholic Church is the one true Church. It is made up of many Churches.

Thank you for clarifying. My last post was just trying to clarify what we are talking about. My previous post was probably an error in understanding on my part.
Yes, it appears to be a confusion of terms.

Roman Catholic church is not a good term for the diocesan Church of Rome, The Latin Church nor the Catholic Church. Most non-Catholics incorrectly refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics. Thus the confusion.
I believe the term Roman Catholic is a pejorative invented by the Anglican church to distinguish Catholics from Anglicans