Posted on 02/06/2006 10:11:00 AM PST by AnalogReigns
Pope St. Leo the Great was the first Pope who championed papal supremacy. He was rebuked. But the popes continued to acquire more and more jurisdictional authority in the centuries that followed. External as well as internal changes and divisions within the Church that longer understood the other half, Imperial power often used to curb papal independence and defiance, drove the popes to Franks who were all to happy to become the protectors of the pontiff and to give the pope more power that the church ever envisioned.
I've read the ALEXANDRE KALOMIROS paper, and I have to say, while he quotes various teachings of the early fathers frequently, he shows little or no familiarity with the theology of the Apostle Paul especially in the book of Romans. What he (literally) calls evil pagan Western Theolgy has much of its root right there...in Holy Scripture.
In utterly condemning Western theology, and recommending Eastern..not once does he cite the most thoroughly theological book in scripture, Romans, nor does he ever attempt to describe a New Testament theology, of Paul or anyone else there. Theological speculation proported to be supported by mystical quotes by the Fathers (none of which quotes I find fault with) about light and dark really doesn't prove his points.
His points about atheism too are not correct. Buddism--about as a non-Western religion/philosophy as one can get is also (in various forms) atheistic. Scripture says "the fool has said in his heart there is no God." Fools can be found all over the world--and do not radiate simply from that awful pagan Western theology....
Kalomiros' gospel and Paul's (and Augustine's too) gospel are entirely at odds. If Roman Catholics are semi-Pelagian, and Kolomiros is representative of Eastern Orthodox theology, then EO is super-semi-Pelagian. If this is how Eastern Christians think about Western Christians from AD 400 onwards...no wonder the breech is so wide.
Actually the author of this article is not defending Eastern Orthodoxy, he's actually a Reformed (Calvinist) scholar, but I'm sure most EO would agree with his reasons....that patristic Church tradition does not support obesience to one Pope in Rome.
Please explain.
"Pope" is actually a word for "father." The word evolved from a token of respect into a title...given to the chief bishops of the early Church's major cities, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome.
St. Paul wrote the book of Romans to Rome(before Paul had visited there)...evidently before there was any bishop--as no mention is made of an apostolic leader there, and it would have been rude, to say the least, for Paul not to acknowledge a fellow Apostle there. St. Peter may well have (later) been the first bishop of Rome (though the evidence is against that he founded the Church there) --or even the first Apostle to live (and die) there, though St. Paul lived and was executed there as well.
The first center of the early chruch though was Jerusalem...naturally, as its where the eucharist was instated by our Lord, where Jesus was crucified and resurrected, where Pentacost occured and was the center of the Jewish world--and first generation Christians were mostly Jewish. Please read Acts 15....and it appears St. James was the senior Apostle, not Peter--though the rest of Acts shows Peter was a very important leader. In any event their decisions at that council were made in unanimity without any hint of hierarchy.
The passage you cite, of course Matthew 16:18-20 is difficult to understand...however in light of the biblical book of Acts history of the Church, the idea that Peter was to be a supreme Pope leader in the infant church seems hard to maintain. The definition of proof-texting too is when major doctrines (take pacifism for example, in say Mennonite or Quaker churches--based on just a couple verses taken in isolation) are based on one or two verses. Dangerous...as if an alternative interpretation is proved best, the major doctrine will fall flat. That's why I bring up Acts. Peter's leadership in the Church looks entirely un-pope-like there, throughout the whole book, not just with a couple of verses...
As to the "keys of the kingdom" it appears they were given to the Apostles present...and just what were those "keys" spoken of in verse 19? Belief that Jesus is the Christ, according to Jesus Himself in v. 20.
So the keys were (and are) the gospel, first witnessed to by Peter specifically yes, but given to the Apostles generally to (later) spread throughout the world.
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. (Matt. 18:16-20)
That's a good answer, thank you for your thoughtfulness. I know the Church greatly suffered under the boot of Communism in the East. Just as Christians (and Jews) died in the much shorter (but very intense) persecutions by the atheist Nazi's in Germany (as many as 20 million civilians died by them....). Still millions of other Germans...many calling themselves Christian, followed and did the bidding of the Nazi serpents. One reason I think, was the arid, biblically empty nature of the Lutheran church in 20th Century Germany--making them fully unprepared to face a demonic ideology. European higher critical (unbelieving) biblical scholarship though is an aberation of Western Theology....having more in common with the secular Enlightenment than the faith of the first millenium Church. Another "fruit" of Western Theology, for all of its problems and evil, is America, THE most thoroughly Christian place in the developed Western world. All I'm trying to say is that I don't see how Western Theology is the source of all that's evil and wrong in the world...on the contrary--the modern world's good things are (almost) all based in progress in the West, enabled and spurred on by Western Theology.
read later
The way the Protestant Reformers knew it...and arguably (since they were great admirers, readers, and students of the early Church Fathers) that of the first millennia Church, was that the scriptures, in Old and New Testament, were the SUPREME authority, but NOT the ONLY authorities. The creeds, writings of the fathers, Church tradition, advice from bishops and popes, etc. ALL had weight....but the greatest weight and FINAL authority rested in the trustworthy testimony of the first Apostles, the scriptures--that which all Christians are bound to submit to.
For a variety of reasons most American Evangelicals think sola scriptura means one believes in the authority of scripture alone. This of course is easily and logically refuted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike. The Reformers Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, et als though, ALL honored the ecumenical creeds, they all drew up confessions for their Church bodies (which in those early days agreed on about 95% of doctrine) and greatly encouraged scholarship of ancient other-than-biblical literature, rightly acknowledging the relative weight and authority of various sources. The early Protestant Bibles (except Luther's) included the Apocrypha too--not that they saw it with the same supreme authority as Scripture, but that it was useful to help understand the culture and mindset of the ancient Hebrews, who wrote the OT scriptures.
For some reason in the last 200 years, the meaning of sola scriptura changed from "only the Bible is fully authoritative" into "only the Bible is authoritative AT ALL... (so throw the rest out the window)." The 2nd mindset devolved into hyper-individualistic interpretation and thinking, denominationalism, factionalism...and many times into an antinomian (NO authority...) way of thinking.
If more understood the original definition of sola scriptura, more would accept it as the best way of understanding godly authority. The Bible is the written-down gift of the Holy Spirit, all Christians of every authority, are bound to obey God. Saying that doesn't deny there are many lesser authorities to which individual Christians should submit.
Oh Darn take all the fun out of it. Just kidding.
No, the SINGLE procession was defined at Nicea in terms of the formulation of the creed. I was wondering if the dual procession was defined infallibly. I know the Catechism teaches it, following Aquinas, but this is not necessarily the same as infallible statement from the pope.
Also note that the West does not necessarily view the creed as infallible, but rather as a statement that informs the faithful in the way most consonant with the temporal pastoral needs.
I'd have to ban you, then rapture you first.
No one, I think, argues that the granting of the keys is sufficient to properly define the exercise of the Office, but it sure defines the existence of the Office.
Just recently I was told that the keys were loaned, like a family sedan, to Peter and returned; or that they were also given St. John the Theologian and St. Paul. I am waiting for the next hypothesis, that in Greek "to give the keys" really means something derogatory, not unlike the recently discovered "you Peter, satanic pebble..." scripture.
As to the "keys of the kingdom" it appears they were given to the Apostles present" (post 65)
I am going to bed. Frankly, my dear Scarlet, I don't give a key.
Seriously, if there was a point to your bit about biblewonk in heaven—hey, at least you granted him that much, eh?—meeting up with your "saints," please clarify it.
And kindly consider pinging any (read-only, in this case) FReepers whom you post about.
I would guess that means that the Eastern concept of Grace is what I thought it was.
Thank you.
"I would guess that means that the Eastern concept of Grace is what I thought it was."
Well now I'm curious. What did you think it was? :)
Sorry for not pinging biblewonk. I saw that he was pinged once to the thread.
48 was a joke, responding to another joke, in 47, about Biblewonk having been raptured. The point of the joke was that Biblewonk used to bug everybody with questions where various things, including the saints, were in the Bible. Hence the joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.