THE APOLOGY OF THE POPE TO THE ORTHODOX; THE 4th. CRUSADE OF 1204

hellenicnews.com ^ | Apr 23, 2004 | Rev. Dr. Miltiades B. Efthimiou

[monkfan]

So you made an assertion that the councils had found Popes to be heretics, even though you accede that the assertion is false, and then say you *assume* Popes are fallible, just because they are "peccable"? (Yes, I probably made that word up!)

First off, the assertion is already "out there" and is not mine, per se. Secondly, I do not, at this moment, have any documentation in my possession that I can utilize to expedite your request. Thirdly... pipe down! ;)

Let me share with you what I *do* have. Specifically, a quotation from something my priest photocopied for me. I don't know the name of the book it came from, but this part is titled "The Office for receiving into the Orthodox Faith such persons as have not previously been Orthodox". There is a section for Roman Catholics. One of the questions is this:

Bishop: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?

[Recommended] Answer: I do.

Soo... if this is a big problem for you and you just can't sleep until the air is cleared, I would suggest you have your bishop call my bishop and they can straighten it out over lunch. I'm sure it's all just a misunderstanding.

It's the *Holy* *Spirit* and not the Pope who confers infallibility apon the Pope

No doubt, that would be necessary. However, Rome has done a lousy job of convincing us that this is indeed happening. What appears to be a lot of shifting and hem-hawing (don't bother with a dictionary), about what has been stated infallibly and what has not, is less than completely helpful.

We careful who it is you distrust!

We are and will continue to be. But thanks for the tip

[monkfan]

It's so nice that they've conceded the need for a global patriarch, isn't it?

Ya, it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it. We actually had one before, but I heard he got mad and left. Dunno what that was all about. :P

[Destro]

...or the hand of Satan which holds dominion in this world.

[Campion]

Bishop: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?

If that's supposed to be an accurate statement of Catholic belief ... well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, here are some more errors to denounce.

[Destro]

The difference is that the Orthodox readily agree that the Pope is the Chairman of the board of the Church but not dictator of the church. The board members have an equal seat at the council where the Pope serves as first among equals. The Orthodox still remember and honor all pre schisim Popes.

[monkfan]

If that's supposed to be an accurate statement of Catholic belief ... well, it isn't.

Don't go schooling me on Catholic history just yet...

Meanwhile, here are some more errors to denounce.

Oh, that's rich. I'm so persuaded. Perhaps now would be a good time to talk about Pope Leo IX and his use of what is arguably the most notorious forgery in history.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

On second thought, let's not and say we did.

[Revenge of Sith]

That's right. Innocent III excommunicated the Crusaders who sacked Constantinople because they disobeyed his orders to attack the Holy Land.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

...or the hand of Satan which holds dominion in this world.

Exactly. I view the betrayal of Romanos IV by the Court immediately after Mazinkert as a likely cause of many of the subsequent downfalls of the Roman Empire. Mazinkert need not have been a disaster, because it was only after several years that the Turks started settling in Anatolia. The Evil One was undoubtedly at work in having the new Roman Emperor invite in the crusaders who promptly misdirected their energies from destroying the Turkish occupation to fighting and slaughtering their fellow Christians in Antioch and Jerusalem.

The bitter and stupid quarrel between the two Romes is also a probable cause for the subsequent judgement and puishment of both - the West by constant wars, the Babylonian Captivity and Great Schism and Reformation, the East by the destruction of all Roman civilization by the Turk. West Rome was given tremendous power and showed to all how it would dreadfully misuse it. East Rome was deprived of all power and allowed to sink ito oblivion.

It is hard to imagine that God will bless either of two brothers who insist upon quarrelling and haughty arrogance towards each other.

[nutmeg]

read later

[dangus]

"Bishop: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils?"

Since the Orthodox Church considers Papal infallibility to be a heresy, so of course THEY consider Popes who believe in in fallibility to be heretics. But you are using the accusation that Popes have been heretics to prove your case that the Pope is not infallible. In other words, your support for your assertion that popes are fallible is nothing more than your assertion that popes are fallible.

"First off, the assertion is already "out there" and is not mine, per se."

You wrote it; it is now your assertion. If you cannot support it, do not assert it. At best, stating information that you have no reason to believe is true is gossip; at worst, slander.

"I do not, at this moment, have any documentation in my possession that I can utilize to expedite your request."

Ya know what? I don't need documentation. I just need to know why you believe that. An apparently, it's more a lousy reason (as mentionned above.)

"I'm sure it's all just a misunderstanding."

No, it's not. It's an ugly slander, and I'm scandalized by the fact that there is an apostle of Christ who has incorporated vicious slander such as that into a sacrament.

"What appears to be a lot of shifting and hem-hawing (don't bother with a dictionary), about what has been stated infallibly and what has not, is less than completely helpful."

Whatever a dictionary stated, when the Church proclaimed the doctrine of infallibility, it did so by defining what they meant by infallibility. (Or, you might say, under what conditions infallibility was present.) It's not the Catholic Church's fault that her enemies promote lies about what the Catholic Church said; her statements are clear.

[FactQuest]

Was Matthias denied the privileges possessed by the other apostles?

Honestly, I don't know. I've never seen anything that says one way or another. Never really looked into it. Do you know of anything that talks about what happened to him?

Interestingly, I had in my head a notion that Paul was the apostle chosen by Jesus to be the 12th - he was certainly called an apostle, and seemed to have apostolic priveleges. Or, I guess there could have been 13 apostles for a while...

[FactQuest]

That's exactly what it is. And if it isn't outwardly manifested, odds are, it didn't happen.

I agree.

Think of a burning log: Combustion causes heat and light, so if the log is cold and dark, I'm gonna guess the log isn't burning.

Again, I agree, but add, just because the log is sitting in a fire that is putting off heat and light, doesn't necessarily mean it is on fire. It is easy for someone to go through the motions of an act, without the necessary inner change.

You need to experience the (outward) sacrament of baptism, otherwise you cannot say you have been baptised.

Again, I agree.

[FactQuest]

A couple of times, there is reference to an entire wealthy household being baptised.

Very good point. I'll have to concede that round, there is indeed some biblical precedence for infant baptism. I'll have to think about that.

Also, please note that the NT is filled of phrases like, "we have been baptised in Christ." In such places, the authors probably would have said, "we have repented in Christ," if repentance brough salvation but baptism did not.

I'm not so sure about that. Baptised means more than repentance... in implies being purified, and it implies following Christ in His death and resurrection, and it implies being "washed in the blood" to use an old-timey phrase, as well as being "dunked" in the baptismal waters.

The physical manifestation of a sacrament cannot be seperated from the spiritual occurrence, just as you cannot make conjugal love to your wife over the telephone.

Let's just say I'm not yet convinced of that. Certainly, there is a man who was baptized who never repented; likewise, surely there is a man who repented without ever being baptized.

[dangus]

>> I'm not so sure about that. Baptised means more than repentance... in implies being purified, and it implies following Christ in His death and resurrection, and it implies being "washed in the blood" to use an old-timey phrase, as well as being "dunked" in the baptismal waters. <<

Exactly the point... Baptism *is* more than merely repentance. I was saying OTHERWISE the bible would use the two interchangeably, but it doesn't: It says baptism is necessary!

>>Certainly, there is a man who was baptized who never repented; likewise, surely there is a man who repented without ever being baptized.<<

Baptism can occur without the outward sign, but this is an *extraordinary* working of Christ's mercy, that permits salvation, such as instances of imminent death (i.e., the Good Thief) or invinceable ignorance.

[conservonator]

Or, I guess there could have been 13 apostles for a while...

And then 14, the 15 etc, etc, etc...Is there any evidence from scripture that indicates that the gifts to the apostles are finite in their duration?

[Campion]

Oh, that's rich. I'm so persuaded. Perhaps now would be a good time to talk about Pope Leo IX and his use of what is arguably the most notorious forgery in history.

What's your point? That the citations I linked are forgeries? Sorry, I don't believe they are, but feel free to present your evidence.

My point is that the "denunciation" of "errors" your priest gave you might well serve to denounce a number of Eastern saints and patriarchs.

[FactQuest]

they were baptized as infants or young children.

Yeah, I'm rethinking this one. Good points.

(Forgiving sins? Not seen.) Already mentioned: John 20.

I think there is a difference between an elder and an apostle. Do you not?

We no more believe that about our priests than you believe it about your pastors. I know you don't mean to offend, but that's an offensive and nasty accusation to level at fellow believers.

Many apologies, I do not wish to offend. Obviously, I have received some bad information.

[FactQuest]

(me: baptism is not what effects salvation, and on that almost all Protestants agree)

But Church of Christ members and some Anglicans emphatically do not. If it "works out nicely" to figure this stuff out from your Bible alone, why do some people keep getting it wrong?

Good point. Of course, compared to most Protestants, Anglicans seem very close, theologically, to Roman Catholics.

As to the real point of you question, I can't think of a way to put it delicately. The scriptures, in places, are deep, complex, and confusing. Particularly to laymen. Many areas are open to interpretation, and people come to the scriptures with different interpretational philosophies. I contend that no denomination has it perfect in all their teachings. This makes me popular with no one, of course, but least of all, it would appear, Roman Catholics. I'm beginning to understand why.

I also believe in "priesthood of the believer," that the Holy Spirit has the power to reveal God properly through the reading of Scripture. I've seen, however, that people, with often impure motives, find that it supports what they want it to support. And I'm beginning to get wistful for a church hierarchy that has already hammered out a full, solid, scripturally supportable theology.

As for the baptism issue... I found the following website very informative, exploring the theological questions from many angles. http://www.carm.org/doctrine/1Pet_3_21.htm

[FactQuest]

Me: Where does it say that they had the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin?

You: John 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

The Father sent Jesus as God made man on earth. Jesus sent the disciples, as men, filled with God's power. The Father sent Jesus to die, to pay the price for all sin, once and for all time. Jesus sent the disciples... to spread the word. So, Jesus sent the disciples, in some way or ways, as the Father sent Jesus, but not in every way. They weren't 11/12/13 little Jesuses. So, I don't see the theological proof that the way Jesus sent them included the authority to transfer the authority to forgive sin. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but this verse doesn't say.

[FactQuest]

Is there any evidence from scripture that indicates that the gifts to the apostles are finite in their duration?

I haven't seen much that says, one way or the other. Do we have a record of the unbroken chain - who was the 14th, the 15th, the 24th... were they all of apostolic character? Gifted apostolically? Who did they heal? How many demons did they cast out?

Maybe I'm too skeptical for my own good, but I would assume we humble humans who never saw Jesus when he was alive would not be qualified. If I remember correctly, having seen Jesus in real life on Earth was a distinct requirement for being called an apostle. And for this reason, Paul always claimed his encounter on the road to Damascus. It seemed good enough for the rest of the apostles.