The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
EasternChristian19, James OConnor, biblicalhope, Ishmael, bluecollardpink
6,161 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (EastCatholic), 451 guests, and 84 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,528
Members6,161
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
I think it's nearly impossible to make a statement like any church is the "one true" church.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 107
Originally Posted by Father Anthony
Melkiteman,Can you kindly change your tone of address in your posts. The appearance gives one the impression that you are condescending towards other posters.In IC XC,
Father Anthony+Adminstrator
No offense intended. Sorry to all who are offended.

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E Offline
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by AMM
I think it's nearly impossible to make a statement like any church is the "one true" church.
AMM,

While I am inclined to agree with you, it must be conceded that it is still the official teaching of both the Catholic and Orthodox communions that they are the "one true" Church.

The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as united with them "in an imperfect way," while the Orthodox Churches generally regard the Catholic Church as "heterodox."


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
F
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
F Offline
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Yes that but the Catholic Church is not all Roman. There are also Melkites. Ukranian Catholics etc .All in Communion with Rome.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
F
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
F Offline
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
I have always had a considerable love for the Holy Orthodox Church. My Roman Catholicism has not been influenced by either Ultra Montanism or secular philosopical syestems. Nor influences on Doctrine from the Middle Ages. I believe this to be a perfectly acceptable stand for a Roman Catholic to take hence an unusual one and henece my great love and repect for Eastern Christianity.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
F
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
F Offline
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
It is important to note that I spoke of the Roman Catholic Church. You spoke of the Catholic Church. Note all the true Church is Latin Rite as you as a melkite will know. Hence Latin Rite catholics cannot claim and would not claim to be the one true church in itself.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
F
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
F Offline
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Correction. For note please read not. Sorry about my bad typing!

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
F
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
F Offline
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
By Roman Catholic I understand Catholics of the Roman Rite. Other Catholics are fully the Church but of other rites such as Melkite or Maronite.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Father Garry, welcome to the forum! smile

Joe

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
The One True Catholic Church subsists in the Roman Cathloic Church and those Sister Churched in communion with her.
Stephanos I

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
The Orthodox Church of course believes the opposite. That will certainly be a tough nut to crack, since neither side believes it lacks anything.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 6
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Likes: 6
One wonders whether the nut is worth cracking? He who breaks something to see what it is made of has left the path of wisdom.

Alexxandr

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
F
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
Raphael OSB Obl
Junior Member
F Offline
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Thank you Joe .It is good to be 'on board'. I enjoy the Forum very much.

Last edited by Father Gary; 10/26/07 06:13 PM.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by JohnRussell
It seems to me that the tense of the passage has no bearing on how we are to understand the Petrine primacy. The point is that Peter and Heaven are in accord.

No.

Peter is in accord with heaven ... heaven is not in accord with Peter. Peter is not the origin. Heaven (God) is the origin. The two are not equal. Peter has come into accord with Heaven - Heaven enlightens Peter - Peter does not enlighten Heaven. Heaven is eternal and unchanging and uncreated.

Sorry John ... I had not notices you reply before. I am not here consistently. I pop in every now and then.

I do not see anything in the verse that makes what Christ said ... to Peter ... to apply exclusive to Peter and Peter only.

If I were to say to you "John... in the future you will die." this does not make death exclusive to John only. I have singled you out to tell you what will happen to you - but you remain one of a group (all humans) and physical death will come to us all. My telling you about it - does not make it exclusive to you only. I have not bestowed death upon you only.

Peter - needed more help and encouragement than any other apostle. Peter was always jumping the gun. Trying to lead the way. He needed more guidance than the others. Peter was always trying to be the leader and Jesus was always pulling him back. In this particular case Peter needed more support (by way of Jesus explaining before hand some good that the apostles would receive later). Jesus often spoke to the apostles one-on-one ... but that did not mean that what he said applied exclusive to that apostle he was speaking to. Christ 'loved' John - there was a definite human affinity of freinship there - but does that mean his love was exclusive to John and he did not love the others?? I think not. When John was given to Mary as her son (Jesus did this on the cross) should we take this literally and to exclude all the other apostles?? I think not. John's bloodline did not change. Mary is the Mother of us all - what Jesus said to John alone - is extended to us all.

Peter was the 'first' apostle... yes ... but not in the way of the best or of a higher authority. He was the first one called. The first among equals. Andrew was the second one called. So Peter had a human type of seniority ... (like a man hired before you has seniority) but that seniority does not automatically authorize him to be your manager. Someday you might be appointed manager over someone who was actually hired before you were.

Saint Augustine said it this way ... that the rock upon which the church is to be built is Christ himself (Jesus is the rock, the cornerstone, etc..) and the name given to Simon should be understood as "rocky" ... in the same way as the name "Christian" is given to someone who is a disciple of Christ. Rocky is rocky because of his likeness to the the origin Rock (which is Christ) ... Rocky is built upon the Rock (Christ).

Think of how many time Jesus identified himself with the Temple. This Temple (built upon what they called 'the Rock') and think what the Temple represented (the seat of governing for Israel). Christ is saying that he will build himself (his church) - upon - himself (his Son of God-ness). But notice that he really does not explain here (in this verse) how he will do that. Except (and here it comes) he does go on to talk about his crucifixion.

Let us see what Agustine said about the 'rock'.

Quote
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church; because you are Peter. Peter comes from petra, meaning a rock. Peter, �Rocky�, from �rock�; not �rock� from �Rocky�. Peter comes from the word for a rock in exactly the same way as the name Christian comes from Christ.

Agustine

"I will build my church" ... and Augustine ends that thought there. He does not combine "build the church on Peter" with it.

The church is not built upon Peter - it is built upon the rock which is Christ himself. Upon myself - I will build my church.

There are several early fathers who read this in the same way as Augustine did.

Despite arguments to the contrary (side distractions) - the Greek tense is definitely future and it is faithfully translated in several other translations and transliterations (as I have noted). It is only recent (some time after Jerome) that it is being mis-translated as both the 'rocky' and the 'rock' as both being ... Peter.

Now as regards the keys ... the keys of David (as held by the Prime Minister) were symbolic of something spiritual. The keys are a type. A temporal symbol of a higher and spiritual reality.

Look to Christ for what the keys of David represented. He raise the keys to a spiritual meaning. I see no reason to drag them back down to the temporal and the literal. David's kingdom was not the end all - it was symbolic of heavenly things.

In the entire OT we look forward to Christ - to understand the types of the OT. But in this case we look back to David (???) in order to understand Christ??? Understanding the OT ... is perfected in the person of Christ. But for this one item we shold forget Christ and go back to the literal of David?? I think not.

When Jesus speaks about the scribes (those trained in the details of the Law) he chides them for withholding the 'keys' from others. The 'keys' represent knowledge. A spiritual understanding as opposed to the literal understanding. The literal understanding (of the senses) is a shell (as far as Jesus was concerned) ... so while the scribes knew every jot of the law (scriptures) they did not enter into the real meaning of scriptures ... and thereby (because they were teachers) thy prevent others from entering into the real meaning of the law also. They HAVE the keys to the kingdom (they have the scriptures) but they do not enter the kingdom themselves and they prevent others from entering.

The keys are spiritual insight into the realities of heaven. This is not a legalistic thing - this is an experiential event. Now that that thought and join this thought to what happened to Peter just minutes before... Peter had a moment of enlightenment ... he was allowed to peek 'into heaven' and Jesus said about this moment of enlightenment ... 'My father has told you this'. We could call this a moment of epiphany. A moment of con-knowledge (the person knows what God knows - together with God). The keys of the kingdom. The door was unlocked so Peter could see into heaven. Enlightenment.

It is this knowledge (of the reality behind the shell of the senses) which frees the shackles of those who are bound (as prisoners cast into prison until the last farthing is paid) ... and binds the demons or throws them into the lake of fire (Revelation).

Most precisely this spiritual gift has come down inside the church as the sacrament of Confession. But it is also evident in a somewhat more spectacular way, on occasion, in some of the mystical saints. A prime example of this is the Confessional of Padre Pio (I am assuming you have read about his occasional ability to know the sins of some people without being told by before hand by the person).

Miiracles are not something that we (even if saints) .. do ... they are rather a moment in which we become aligned with the already existing will of God. It was not Jesus the Son who raised Lazareth ... it was God the Father. The unique thing about Jesus (at that moment) was that he already KNEW that the father was going to raise Lazareth in order to give public proof of his son.

Jesus did not convince his father to raise Lazareth - Jesus knew what already WAS in heaven.

'I do - what I see my father doing' (paraphrased).

These 'keys' are given to anyone who is being enlightened by God. But it is a mistake to believe that they are a sign of an appointment to management. Or authority.

Let me be clear. The things of the senses (words, written or spoken) are of the senses ... and of impermanence. Change. They can not contain what is permanent and infallible. Only the mental meaning of the words can even approach infallibility. But yet even that mental meaning (an event of the psychological mind) falls short of true infallibility. The mental meaning points towards and eternal reality just as the written of spoken words point towards a mental meaning.

Infallibility is ... God ...
and God only. Exclusively. No more than I could give ... life .. to someone else. For us humans ... we can experience someone of it (an experience of union with God). But it is something that is not ours in any way and we can not impart it to anyone. Words, phrases, and the such can not contain it nor impart it to someone else.

It is fact. An 'Infallible' statement is understood and misunderstood by many people in many ways. What then (if it can be so) is infallible about it?? if it can be fallibly misunderstood. Obviously - the infallibility is not in the statement itself. It is in the intended meaning of the statement. Which intended meaning is not infallibility imparted. It is then ... latent infallibility with no operative infallibility. A sun that does not shine. A star which we can not see. Music which we can not hear.

Wouldn't we like something in the material world of the senses to be ... infallible. ? Yes we would. But it is not to be and never will be.

The Orthodox church counters Papal Infallibility with its own concept of a type of wide infallibility. Unfortunately - that infallibility does not exist either. But don't lose heart because because the lack of infallibility on the part of the human nature of the church does not hinder Christ in his work. The church (its human aspects) do not produce Christ and can not produce Christ - Christ produces the church (which means that the human nature of the church members ois always being perfected - ongoing).

Infallibility (church wise doctrine) be it Roman Catholic or Orthodox ... can point to something Infallible (point to a reality that exists in God) but can not itself be that infallibility which belongs to God alone. That which is infallible IS God ... it is part of the nature of God ... it is not of the nature of anything in the created world. God has nothing in common with anything of sense perceptions. God's nature does not come down to the material world of the senses and incarnate in infallible statements or pronouncements.

So we should examine what is presented to us as Infallible ... but ... in the final ... we are required to use the clear judgments of our own conscience.


Just because I do believe that the current form of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has error - that does not mean that I toss the entire Roman Catholic church out. Nor is it heretical.

Peace be to you John, and to your church.
-ray



Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 140
J
Member
Member
J Offline
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 140
Ray,

You begin your reply with "No," but then you fail to contradict anything I wrote. I don't understand what you mean by "No."

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Peter has come into accord with Heaven - Heaven enlightens Peter - Peter does not enlighten Heaven. Heaven is eternal and unchanging and uncreated.

The point is that Peter and Heaven are in accord, as I wrote - to which you replied "No." Do you think that there are people who believe that Peter enlightens Heaven? I have never heard a Catholic teach such an absurdity.

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Peter was the 'first' apostle... yes ... but not in the way of the best or of a higher authority. He was the first one called. The first among equals.

In other words, the tense of the passage has no bearing on how we are to understand the Petrine primacy (as I wrote - to which you replied, "No") because the Petrine primacy is not based on the tense of the passage. It is based on other things - such as what you point out here.

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Let me be clear. The things of the senses (words, written or spoken) are of the senses ... and of impermanence. Change. They can not contain what is permanent and infallible.

Dear me. I believe God has become Man. The womb of the Theotokos is the space of the spaceless God. How's that for "containing the permanent and infallible?"

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Infallibility is ... God ...
and God only. Exclusively. No more than I could give ... life .. to someone else. For us humans ... we can experience someone of it (an experience of union with God). But it is something that is not ours in any way and we can not impart it to anyone. Words, phrases, and the such can not contain it nor impart it to someone else.

I suppose the evangelists were wasting a lot of time writing all those Gospels. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, you say? Surely not! The Holy Spirit wouldn't do a thing like that! He knows we can't experience Him through words on a page!

And Jesus shouldn't have bothered to become human (He must have had to give up His infallibility, after all). And why preach? That Sermon on the Mount certainly is a waste of air - I mean, really, its made up of words! - and we all know how worthless they are.

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
An 'Infallible' statement is understood and misunderstood by many people in many ways. What then (if it can be so) is infallible about it?? if it can be fallibly misunderstood. Obviously - the infallibility is not in the statement itself. It is in the intended meaning of the statement.

I'm with you so far...

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Which intended meaning is not infallibility imparted. It is then ... latent infallibility with no operative infallibility. A sun that does not shine. A star which we can not see. Music which we can not hear.

Wouldn't we like something in the material world of the senses to be ... infallible. ? Yes we would. But it is not to be and never will be.

...you lost me. Again, it sounds like you're forgetting OLGS Jesus Christ. There is indeed something in the material world of the senses which is infallible. His name is Jesus Christ. His Body and Blood are in every Catholic and Orthodox Church of the world. He dunked my son in the waters of Baptism, anointed him with oil, gave him His own Body to eat, His own Blood to drink. His hands touch us in every sacrament we receive. These are the material things of the senses - they are also infallible. They are Truth Himself.

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
The Orthodox church counters Papal Infallibility with its own concept of a type of wide infallibility. Unfortunately - that infallibility does not exist either. But don't lose heart because because the lack of infallibility on the part of the human nature of the church does not hinder Christ in his work.

The church (its human aspects) do not produce Christ and can not produce Christ - Christ produces the church (which means that the human nature of the church members ois always being perfected - ongoing).

The Church and Christ are one. They are bride and groom. Christ is the Truth. Christ teaches us that the Church is His Body. The Church is the Truth.

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Infallibility (church wise doctrine) be it Roman Catholic or Orthodox ... can point to something Infallible (point to a reality that exists in God) but can not itself be that infallibility which belongs to God alone. That which is infallible IS God ... it is part of the nature of God ... it is not of the nature of anything in the created world.

Man is become part of God through the Incarnation.

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
God has nothing in common with anything of sense perceptions. God's nature does not come down to the material world of the senses and incarnate in infallible statements or pronouncements.

God became Man. Jesus is God and Man. He has all the senses. He is like us in all things but sin. The Church is His Mystical Body.

God's nature came down to the material world of the senses and is incarnate in His infallible statements and pronouncements. The Holy Spirit inspires the Church through Scripture and Tradition. Her statements are one with Christ's.

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
So we should examine what is presented to us as Infallible ... but ... in the final ... we are required to use the clear judgments of our own conscience.

Allow me, for once, to wholeheartedly agree. Certainly, not everything somebody claims is infallible is actually infallible and we must follow the dictates of our conscience.

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Just because I do believe that the current form of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility has error - that does not mean that I toss the entire Roman Catholic church out. Nor is it heretical.

Hold on, what? I thought you said that words don't communicate anything? How is it possible for you to agree or disagree with a doctrine? How is it possible for you to deem anything heretical or orthodox?

Originally Posted by Ray Kaliss
Peace be to you John, and to your church.
-ray

And with you, Ray. Glory be to Jesus Christ!

-John

Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0