|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,604
Members6,169
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
The notion that the acts of the Pope should be infallible and binding was first proposed by the Franciscan spiritualists who were concerned that, though their practices had been legitimized by the Pope, they could be delegitimized by some future Pope. The purpose was to make a Pope's decisions binding on his successors, and of course, no Pope was going to abide with that.
Afterwards, the notion of infallibility faded away, until resurrected in the 19th century as a response to the rise of the secular nation-state, which some elements of the Catholic Church saw as a lethal threat to its authority, which only establishing the Pope as a single, indefectible arbiter of truth could rectify. Fortunately, the Ultramontanes did not get their way, but excessive centralization resulted nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24 |
Don't invoke the historians. We generally have some very disappointing discoveries. Unless you want revisionist. To add to the fray, James the brother of our Lord and First bishop of Jerusalem, presided over the first Apostolic council. Does it negate what Christ said to Peter? No. But it does support Turabians style, one of the most widely accepted methods in history.
And the question would arise, If Peter is the First then why is it James that presides?
Do I have the evidence to back up my thesis, either way.
And finally answering the question; so what?
The third is the kicker, especially here; how is it that you will convince the Roman Catholics of the Orthodox position and vise verse? I suggest that you read Chapter 15 of Acts more carefully. There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests that James, brother of the Lord, presided at this gathering of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem. He may have presided over the church in Jerusalem, but the gathering is not a gathering of the Jerusalem church. Peter is at this gathering and is the first to speak after there has been some debate. He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak. James comes in next supporting what Peter has said and adds a couple of restrictions he feels are essentials of Mosaic law. I don't think any of us on the forum, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise, need try to convince the other of our positions. We just need to state as truthfully, clearly and as accurately as possible what we believe. As an old man I get immense pleasure from reading the posts from time to time, and hope that, at least some, may obtain enlightenment from what I write. ἐγὼ [St. James] κρίνω: " I judge..." 15:9 If St. Peter "is the first to speak after there has been some debate," he was not the first to speak. He is not the last to speak. That is St. James. "He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak." And they listen to SS. Sials and Paul during that "silence." The Definition sent to Antioch records St. James' judgement, not St. Peter's testimony. I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that the text of Acts, chapter 15 gives no evidence of who, if anyone, presided at this gathering in Jerusalem. The chapter certainly continues to exhibit the prominent role played by St Peter from the very first chapters of that Book. Besides that one pericope, (13-21), James doesn't appear at all in Acts as far as I can remember.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Don't invoke the historians. We generally have some very disappointing discoveries. Unless you want revisionist. To add to the fray, James the brother of our Lord and First bishop of Jerusalem, presided over the first Apostolic council. Does it negate what Christ said to Peter? No. But it does support Turabians style, one of the most widely accepted methods in history.
And the question would arise, If Peter is the First then why is it James that presides?
Do I have the evidence to back up my thesis, either way.
And finally answering the question; so what?
The third is the kicker, especially here; how is it that you will convince the Roman Catholics of the Orthodox position and vise verse? I suggest that you read Chapter 15 of Acts more carefully. There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests that James, brother of the Lord, presided at this gathering of Apostles and Presbyters in Jerusalem. He may have presided over the church in Jerusalem, but the gathering is not a gathering of the Jerusalem church. Peter is at this gathering and is the first to speak after there has been some debate. He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak. James comes in next supporting what Peter has said and adds a couple of restrictions he feels are essentials of Mosaic law. I don't think any of us on the forum, Catholic, Orthodox or otherwise, need try to convince the other of our positions. We just need to state as truthfully, clearly and as accurately as possible what we believe. As an old man I get immense pleasure from reading the posts from time to time, and hope that, at least some, may obtain enlightenment from what I write. ἐγὼ [St. James] κρίνω: " I judge..." 15:9 If St. Peter "is the first to speak after there has been some debate," he was not the first to speak. He is not the last to speak. That is St. James. "He rather authoritatively silences the crowd, so to speak." And they listen to SS. Sials and Paul during that "silence." The Definition sent to Antioch records St. James' judgement, not St. Peter's testimony. I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that the text of Acts, chapter 15 gives no evidence of who, if anyone, presided at this gathering in Jerusalem. You seemed quite sure that it was St. Peter. The Fathers, St. John Chrysostom for instance, and I are quite sure St. James the Brother of God presided. The chapter certainly continues to exhibit the prominent role played by St Peter from the very first chapters of that Book. St. Peter disappears in chapter 12, but not before informing St. James of his departure (12:17). Besides this pericope, he doesn't reappear. He was prominent in chapter 8, for instance: he was sent by the Apostles (8:14). We have it on good authority that the one sent is not greater than he who sends. Besides that one pericope, (13-21), James doesn't appear at all in Acts as far as I can remember. Besides St. Peter reporting to him above, he also reappears, e.g. chapter 21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 167 |
I think Roman Catholics and Orthodox should stop seeing this matter as a theological "zero sum game." The rise of charlatan religions, moral relativism combined with a terrifying loss of faith, and grave threats to the sanctity of human life should be enough to unite the two Churches.
I love the Roman Catholic Church for serving as a vital stronghold of God's morality in a spiritually deteriorating world. But in my humble opinion, Rome's great fault is this: imperial arrogance. The hierarchy seemingly expects everyone to act in a simlar manner as Henry IV, by crawling through the snows of Canossa and grovelling at the Pope's feet.
Rome's supremacy was more a theological end justified by a series of sociopolitical means and tragedies befalling the other patriarchs and churches- the Eastern bishops and communions became besieged and entirely overrun by Mohammed's long and violent sword. Rome remained free from such occupation and visual annhilation. And in 1870, can one really not consider the fact that the Vatican Council declared papal infallibility to counteract the loss of the Pope's temporal powers and control of the Papal States, and instead bolstering his spiritual realm?
I don't know if it is proper to consider papal supremacy a development of doctrine, but an evolution of theological power based on sociopolitical realities. Rome remained the last many standing for centuries, therefore it designated itself to be supreme?
Rome will always be considered the "first among equals," the elder brother. I think it should relinquish the notion that it is the unquestionable high lord of the Church. St. Peter did not act in this manner towards his brother Apostles. Primary, but not in solitude of power.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 192 |
Neither is the Pope considered infallible for the first time in 13th century.
Example, Pope Gregory VII (11the century) in his Dictatus Papae states that papacy shall never err in eternity.
We shouldnt mistake the technicalities of terminology (infallibility) with the essence of the claim (of being infallible).
Whoever understands the institution of papacy will see that the second has been there from at least in antiquity.
It is an alltogether another thing how the claim of infallibility being in a process of development of expressing it from papacy itself from the antiquity was received in the greek east. There are up and downs, in and outs in this process.
It is because of this duplicity of roman empire that wd have a schisma today, two churches born out of one generally speaking empire.
Last edited by Arbanon; 09/02/12 07:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Perfect Unity. I congratulate that the nearest to this preSchisma 1054 Unity, are the byzantine catholics. Pope John Paul II thought something along those lines as well, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 776 Likes: 24 |
Besides St. Peter reporting to him above, he also reappears, e.g. chapter 21. I stand corrected and enlightened. Thank you. St. Peter disappears in chapter 12, but not before informing St. James of his departure (12:17). Besides this pericope, he doesn't reappear. If I were staying in your household I would inform you and your brethren of my departure upon leaving. You seemed quite sure that it was St. Peter. I did not say that he presided at the gathering; I said that the text gives him a prominent role. He was prominent in chapter 8, for instance: he was sent by the Apostles (8:14). We have it on good authority that the one sent is not greater than he who sends. The ones sending are the ones sent, and St Peter is no greater than his brethren. "Servus servorum Dei".
Last edited by Utroque; 09/02/12 10:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
It is because of this duplicity of roman empire that we have a schism today, two churches born out of one generally speaking empire. Arbanon, I think it's completely unfair to place the blame for the schism solely on the West (or the East either, for that matter). The *real* reason for the schism is that both sides had the attitude that they were certainly right, and therefore the other side must certainly be wrong. Such an attitude *easily* becomes justification for all sorts of actions that would otherwise be regarded as sinful (after all, it's not a sin to act violently and unjustly against "them," because they're so bad, etc.). The schism is a real wound causing real pain, debilitating the Body of Christ in this world and severely compromising its witness. It will never be healed by placing blame, but by each side seeking--and giving--forgiveness. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
