Apologetics, The Papacy, And Eastern Orthodoxy

Homiletic and Pastoral Review ^ | James Likoudis

[RobbyS]

I think that you had better examine your sources. As for the 42 date, the chronology of the New Testament is not so well established that you can establsh your claim. Given the constant commerce between Rome and Palestine, it is not unreasonable to think that the word about Christ quickly made its way to Rome, or that Peter paid a visit to a Christians already there. Don't you think that there were Jews from Rome who heard Peter on that Pentacost?

[Polycarp]

Try tinfoil. It works. Honest.

[Angelique]

I just gave this a cursory reading, but shall go back later. I am not so sure I agree with the author.

[livius]

I am Byzantine rite myself, although unfortunately, there's no Byzantine rite church of any kind near where I live.

You probably know that the seeds of the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) sere actually planted by dissatisfied Byzantine rite Catholics in Pennsylvania, after the Fr. Toth event. This involved a dispute over married clergy, a heavy-handed Latin rite bishop who was in charge of a set of Byzantine rite churches about which he knew nothing, etc. Fr. Toth left, sparking many of the Ruthinian Catholics in that area to become Orthodox. He is now buried, I believe, at St. Tikhon's Orthodox seminary. Eventually, this group of folks formed the nucleus of the OCA, which was established in an attempt to overcome the problem of dealing with tiny warring Orthodox parishes representing different ethnic groups.

I think the Byzantine rite churches are sometimes tangled up in Latin rite misunderstandings, although things have improved in recent years as their administrative lines have been made clearer. Few if any are still under Latin rite bishops, as was once the case.

From the Latin rite point of view, however, Eastern rite churches don't count for much. This is partly because the average Latin rite person doesn't know much about them, and partly because the Eastern rite churches are seen as "conservative." (Oh, no!!! Horrors!)

So many Catholics who couldn't tolerate the garbage that filled Latin rite churches changed rites in the 1970s that they stopped automatically granting a change of rites, in fact!

But that is exactly what I meant. It's hard to say that the Orthodox would be encouraged by this example.

[FormerLib]

Yes, sometimes the attacks on Catholics from Orthodox on FR are more virulent than any others. They say the most appalling things!

True. We need to do better and not allowed ourselves to be angered by the Roman Church's condescension toward us.

[don-o]

True. We need to do better and not allowed ourselves to be angered by the Roman Church's condescension toward us.

Now, now, FL, you forgot the smiley.

Which makes JP2's breathless courting of whatever Patriarch so amusing. The sad thing, IMO, is the EP's willingness, nay rush, to embrace.

[RobbyS]

deference to hierarchy Deference, heck. Many American bishops have simply ignore the warning about homosexuality put out by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1986.

[Woodkirk]

Oh I wholeheartedly agree with you that the word of the Gospel
spread quickly throughout the Roman Empire, particularly since
it was witnessed by Roman soldiers themselves.

The 42 AD date comes from the writings of
both Eusebius and Jerome, who deduced it partially from
Justin Martyr's statement regarding the labors of
Simon Magus, who was in Rome early
in the reign of Claudius [41-54] through the death of Nero [54-67],
establishing a heretical brand of Christianity with himself playing
"the part analogous to Christ".

Those who place Peter in Rome after he was released from Herod's
prison, place Simon Magus in Rome before him and write about
his great influence in Rome. They admit that Simon Magus had a
great following in Rome, that he was a favorite of the emperors
Claudius and Nero, that he worked sorceries, and that he
established a counterfeit Christian religion with Rome's
blessing.

Was this Simon Magus in Rome pretending to be Peter the
Apostle, who if he had been there, would have spent
his time in the Jewish community, which would have placed
him at odds with the Romans and their emperor.

Is it possible that Simon Magus has been confused with Simon
Peter and that he and not Peter was the one who
established the office of Roman Pontiff ?

[RobbyS]

What you say about Simon Magus is based on...?

[Matchett-PI]

The ROMAN Catholic church became an apostate organization of men when it reverted back to Arminianism also known as:

The Lie of Eden:
Satan said [paraphrased]: "If you disbelieve (disobey) and reject God's words [1] You will not [spiritually or physically] die, but [2] You will become like God and be able to say what is good and what is evil for yourself." [Gen.3:4-5]

When the Roman church went into apostasy between Augustine's day and the 16th Century, those who protested (called "Protestants" ) this reversion to Arminianism began the task of reforming the doctrines and conforming them to the universal (catholic) church that the Rock (Jesus) began. This effort is officially known as "The REFORMATION".

Since the REFORMATION, however, even many of the "Protestants", themselves have reverted back to the Arminian church that Eve (and her feminized husband, Adam) started in Eden. But that's another story for another time.

Roman Catholics revere two "Holy Fathers" which they are "obliged to obey" -- one living on earth in Italy and one in heaven.

St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion OVER them, and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his *obliged*, but his *beloved*, sons. [1 Co. 4:14]

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for ONE is your Master, [even] Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN.

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for ONE is your Father, which is IN HEAVEN.

Jesus warned his disciples against the elite class of "professional interpreters" of Scripture and tradition who loved pretentious titles and positions of influence.

Scripture indicates that church officers in the New Testament were chosen by the whole congregation, and that final governing authority -- in NT churches -- rests with the whole church.

The reasoning behind that is that [1] accountability to the congregation provides a safeguard against temptations to sin. [2] some degree of control by the entire congregation provides a safeguard against the leadership falling into doctrinal error. [3] government works best with the consent of those governed.

In addition to those, there is another reason for restricting the authority of church officers [4] a.) the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture and b.) the doctrine of the __priesthood of ALL__ believers (the regenerate).

The NT affirms that ALL regenerate Christians have access to God's throne in prayer and ALL share as members in a "royal priesthood".

[1 Pet.2:9; cf. Heb. 10:19-25; 12:22-24] show that ALL Christians have some ability to INTERPRET SCRIPTURE and some responsibility to seek God's wisdom in applying it to situations. ALL have access directly to God in order to seek to know his will.

The NT allows for no special class of Christians who have greater access to God than others. Therefore it is right to include all believers in some of the crucial decision-making processes of the church. "In an abundance of counselors there is safety." [Prov.11:14]

When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of LIMITED government that America's Framers gave us, is based straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3; 1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.] Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6; 14:23 and Titus 1:5].

Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to this duty." (of servant aka deacon)

The apostles had the *UNIQUE AUTHORITY* to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God*. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture.

In order *to qualify as an apostle someone had to have seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead* **AND** *had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.*

In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT.

Those *New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.*

Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles. -- READ IT AGAIN -- .

In fact it was not the Jerusalem apostles who ordained Paul and Barnabas, but people in the church at Antioch who laid hands on them and sent them out. [Acts 13:3] Ordaining is ultimately from the Lord, himself [Acts 20:28; 1Cor.12:28; Eph.4:11].

(Some of my comments about church government above were partially derived or paraphrased from Wayne Grudem's book on Systematic Theology Copyright 1994)

Here is more from Matthew Henry's Commentary (on-line) from the Blue Letter Bible website [snips]:

"Matt. 8–10. It is repeated twice; Be not called Rabbi, neither be ye called Master or Guide: not that it is unlawful to give civil respect to those that are over us in the Lord, nay, it is an instance of the honour and esteem which it is our duty to show them; but, 1. Christ’s ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi or Master, by way of distinction from other people; it is not agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel, for them to covet or accept the honour which they have that are in kings’ palaces. 2. They must not assume the authority and dominion implied in those names; they must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage, as if they had dominion over the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience. The reasons for this prohibition are,

(1.) One is your Master, even Christ, v. 8, and again, v. 10. Note,

[1.] Christ is our Master, our Teacher, our Guide.

[2.] Christ only is our Master, ministers are but ushers in the school. Christ only is the Master, the great Prophet, whom we must hear, and be ruled and overruled by; whose word must be an oracle and a law to us; Verily I say unto you, must be enough to us. And if he only be our Master, then for his ministers to set up for DICTATORS and *to pretend to* a SUPREMACY and an INFALLIBILITY, is a daring USURPATION of that honour of Christ which HE WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER.

(2.) ALL ye are brethren. Ministers are brethren not only to one another, but to the people; and therefore it ill becomes them to be masters, when there are NONE for them to master it over but their brethren; yea, and we are all younger brethren, otherwise the eldest might claim an excellency of dignity and power, Gen. 49:3. But, to preclude that, Christ himself is the first-born among many brethren, Rom. 8:29. Ye are brethren, as ye are all disciples of the same Master. School-fellows are brethren, and, as such, should help one another in getting their lesson; but it will by no means be allowed that one of the scholars step into the master’s seat, and give law to the school. If we are all brethren, we must not be many masters. Jam. 3:1.

Secondly, They are forbidden to ascribe such titles to others (v. 9); "Call no man your father upon the earth; constitute no man the father of your religion, that is, the founder, author, director, and governor, of it.’’

The fathers of our flesh must be called fathers, and as such we must give them reverence; but God ONLY must be allowed as the Father of our spirits Heb. 12:9.

Our religion must not be derived from, or made to depend upon, any man. We are born again to the spiritual and divine life, not of corruptible seed, but by the word of God; not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man, but of God. Now the will of man, not being the rise of our religion, must not be the rule of it. We must not jurare in verba magistri—swear to the dictates of any creature, not the wisest or best, nor pin our faith on any man’s.

St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion over them, and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his obliged, but his beloved, sons. 1 Co. 4:14.

The reason given is, ONE is your FATHER, who is IN HEAVEN.

God is our Father, and is ALL -- IN -- ALL in our religion. He is the Fountain of it, and its Founder; the Life of it, and its Lord; from whom ALONE, as the Original, our spiritual life is derived, and on whom it depends.

He is the Father of all lights (Jam. 1:17), that one Father, from whom are all things, and we in him. Eph. 4:6.

Christ having taught us to say, Our Father, who art in heaven; let us call no man Father upon earth; no man, because man is a worm, and the son of man is a worm, hewn out of the same rock with us; especially not upon earth, for man upon earth is a sinful worm; there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not, and therefore no one is fit to be called Father.~~ [end excerpts] ~~

There is only ONE who is worthy of the title, "Holy Father" and he is in heaven.

There is only ONE worthy of the title, "Mediator" [between God and man], and that is Jesus Christ.

ALL the (living and dead) regenerate (in whom is the Holy Spirit of God), are saints and are members of the invisible universal (catholic) church.

The temporal (visible) church is composed of both the regenerate and the UNregenerate (the wheat and the tares -- the sheep and the goats).

God's redeemed (the Justified) are scattered all over in earth in *and out* of --

(depending upon the spiritual maturity [Biblical Christianity] that God has brought them to [sanctification process] at the moment)

-- all sorts of orthodox and UNorthodox VISIBLE church organizations of men.

The visible church of God is not headquartered in Italy, even though there no doubt are some spiritually immature Christians that belong to it and think that it is. :D

[RobbyS]

You mean, of course, that no one listens to the EP, not even the national churches.

[RobbyS]

Arminianism make sense only in comparison and contrady with Calvinism.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I wasn't going to respond to this but I can honestly say I have never seen such a lack of Scriptural and historical knowledge as I have in that post. The best I can say is it is an exercise in creative writing. I especially enjoyed the part about the evil Eve, ooohhhh. I can't believe some people actually believe this *deleted*.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

To further clarify my previous post, I was referring to post #33.

[Matchett-PI]

"Arminianism make sense only in comparison and contrady with Calvinism."

There are only two religions:

One in which God is sovereign.

One in which man is sovereign.

[Matchett-PI]

"I especially enjoyed the part about the evil Eve, ooohhhh. I can't believe some people actually believe this *deleted*."

Every church in which God is not the Sovereign Head has a female or a feminized male at the helm.

You mean to tell me that you didn't know that Eve was the one who started The First Church of the Sovereign Man?

Her husband Adam got the blame for it though, because he wasn't deceived by the liar, even if his air-head, emotion-driven wife was.

Yessiree!! Eve was the head pastor (or pope, if you will) of "The First Church of the Arminians in Eden". I don't know what title of second-banana authority she gave to her hen-pecked husband though.

Maybe she gave him the title, "Wusshop". :D

[Sock]

If you don't mind my asking, since you can't find a Byzantine Rite Church, where do you worship?

And, is it true that Latins are permitted to change to the Eastern Rite (I don't know the procedure) but once they have changed, they cannot later return to the Western Rite?