Debating Catholicism

[Eleventh Doctor]

How are they being helped by Israel? Palestinian Christians in the region say they are being kept behind a wall built by Israel and their movement and freedoms are being curtailed. Father Philoumenos of Neapolis would also disagree that Israel helps Palestinian Christians, having been martyred by Jewish Zionist. The Palestinian Christians who were displaced by the illegal Israeli settlements would also disagree that they are being helped by Israel.

I was homeschooled, yes. But I learned about these things more recently.

[GratiaDei]

Pound Foolish, I'm a little bit confused as to what you mean when you say the Pope is infallible. The Pope is always right in spiritual matters? I would love to see any Scriptural references to that particular statement.

[Striped Leopard]

You're missing the point, GratiaDei. The Pope is infallible and inspired in his theological proclamations, therefore there does not need to be any Scriptural support. The Pope is just as authoritative as Scripture, in the Catholic tradition. That's why so many of their teachings can't be found in the Bible; as long as the Pope says it, they believe it just as if the Bible said it.

-- Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:38 am --

@ PF: I was wondering what you thought of these recent comments from Pope Francis:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ... Even the atheists. Everyone! And this blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the blood of Christ has redeemed us all!”

[Eleventh Doctor]

Christian, it is not correct to say there does not need to be any Scriptural support. Roman Catholic like Eastern Orthodox believe that Tradition and Scripture are part of the same inspired and authoritative revelation of God to us, it's not one without the other but about them working together. Now I do disagree with the infallibility of the Pope but it's important to accurately describe how Tradition and Scripture work together.

[GratiaDei]

Christian, it is not correct to say there does not need to be any Scriptural support. Roman Catholic like Eastern Orthodox believe that Tradition and Scripture are part of the same inspired and authoritative revelation of God to us, it's not one without the other but about them working together. Now I do disagree with the infallibility of the Pope but it's important to accurately describe how Tradition and Scripture work together.

So it's tradition to believe the infallibility of the Pope?

[Eleventh Doctor]

It is Roman Catholic Tradition to believe the Pope is infallible. Tradition includes interpretation of certain verses, Tradition is not instead of Scripture it is with Scripture. Now all that being said, I disagree with the infallibility of the Pope because of my Tradition.

[GratiaDei]

That makes more sense. I also disagree with the infallibility of the Pope, because I see no basis in Scripture.

[Pound Foolish]

That makes more sense. I also disagree with the infallibility of the Pope, because I see no basis in Scripture.

Well, Protestants don't and that's why they're protestant. But yes there is, actually (though in a way Christian is right. Not everything we believe is in scripture directly. As Doctor pointed out, everything is grounded in scripture but many of our beliefs aren't explicitly mentioned. For instance, to use an example from earlier, Catholics are required to believe life is valuable even in womb at all stages, but the Bible never explicitly says that. Anyhow, I'll color the bits of my reply pertinent to your remark to save your eyes.
Eleventh Doctor

If this quote proves the succession of Peter's authority then why didn't St. Ignatius inherit Papal authority? Since he was the successor to St. Peter.

Oops, did I say St. Ignatius? My apologies, I got my saints mixed up. The quote listing Successors to Peter was from, as I said when quoting it, St. Iraneus. In fact, the list, beginning with Linus, continues with thirteen Popes in all, ending with Eleutherius, who was Pope at the time St. Iraneus was writing.
Here's another quote from him which supports The Church:
Ireneaeus writes, “It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the Apostles..the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics…all have fallen away from the truth.”
Incidentally however, I'm not sure which St. Ignatius you're talking about, but for the heck of it, here's what St. Ignatius of Antioch has to say:
"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])
An interesting quote, eh what? Here's another:
“be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”
Notice the phrase, "the bishop." Not bishops. He is speaking of one bishop in particular with special power.

Also even if the term Pope didn't exist why didn't this line of authority mention a specific bishop being over other bishops?

This line of authority? Are you referring to the St Iraneus quote? The people listed were specific bishops above the others.

Since he was still alive?

Again, sorry about that, Ignatius of Antioch, who did not write that quote, was indeed alive in Peter’s time. The St. Iraneus I was referring to wrote that list between sometime between 1890 and 199, long after Peter. However, it does reference Peter. Here is the quote again:

For example, in 199 AD, St. Ireneaus wrote in his book, Against Heresies:
Blessed Apostles (Peter and Paul) having and built up the Church of Rome, They handed over the office of Episcopate to Linus. To him succeeded Analectus, and after him, in third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the Episcopate.

"
One last time, apologies for that confusion. I don't know how I got Iraneus confused with an Ignatius earlier. That was a very long post and I'm afraid I didn't double check everything properly. I'll try to be more careful.

Where as if, as I am claiming, this is a more recent development then of course St. Ignatius wouldn't mention this concept by name or even allude to it, if the name came about later, since it didn't exist, so how would he know to right against it? Instead he wrote what the Early Church believed about bishops, mainly that they are each accountable to God not to one bishop.

As it happens, I already have a quote above from Ignatius affirming the authority of Rome. I can provide others, I believe, if you wish. So Ignatius’ omission in one single instance is no proof of anything. Anyhow, as you yourself said, Peter was still alive at the time of St. Ignatius. That hardly helps your case. Peter maintained his position until his death. So St. Ignatius can't have been the successor to Peter. There was, as of yet, no need of a successor. Peter was alive and well. Records (not just Ireneus') strongly indicate Linus followed him as Pope of Rome after Peter died.
Truth be told though, I'd never heard of that homily you mentioned. So I Googled it. I don't know if this is how it actually is to the word (this is off the internet) but hopefully it's fairly close:

...this city [Antioch] was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [St. Ignatius of Antioch] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.

It's interesting how, at face value, the feed my sheep quote seems to a special honor to Peter, but you insist it addresses all the apostles. Here, at face value, all this says is , "Peter is leaving Antioch, so we need a replacement here who will fill the role of head bishop of our city." It all but argues against your case rather than for it. After all, he refers to Peter as, "the master of the whole world" which rather flies in the face of your claims Peter had no special authority from God above the other Apostles. He continues, "For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor." How could he say more clearly that St. Ignatius of Antioch (who, I'm gathering to my interest, is a rather significant figure to you Easterns) was no more than a local replacement for the role Peter once filled in that city?
This post as you can see, is going to be quite a monster. So the Schism and Pope Honrious will have to wait. (In advance though, the Pope Honorius case is of course a well known hunk of hooey.)

The Matthew 16 reference is the Great Commission to all the Apostles.

Oh, is it? As said above, at face value, Jesus seems to be speaking to Peter specifically. After all, he calls him by name. How could he make it more clear who he is speaking to?
But there are other examples.
Peter's name is always first of the Apostles, whatever order the others who follow are in, just as Judas Iscariot is always last, sometimes even before Jesus.
For instance, Jesus says, "You are Peter, and on this rock I build my Church.(Matthew 17:5.)
Later in the same passage, he says, "I will give you the keys of The Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."
The change of name is significant, like for example, Abram which means, "Exalted Father" is changed to Abraham, or "father of Multitudes" because of the promises made to him: "For I have made you the father of multitudes." As for the importance of the keys of the kingdom, and the power of binding and loosing, the corresponded to position of a king's chief steward. Looking back to Isiah 22:22, which refers to the office of Eliakim, the chief of steward of the king, we read...
"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the of David, he shall shut and none shall open."
You see that whoever held the keys acted with the authority of the king himself. To bind and to loose, to open and to shut, refers to power to allow or forbid something.
In Gospels there are examples of Peter using his authority. It is Peter who decides to hold an election to replace Judas with a new twelfth apostle in Acts 1:15. And again, at the first council of Jerusalem, it's Peter who, by his authority, decides what to do about the Gentiles.

[Eleventh Doctor]

The St. Iraneus quote is not supporting the primacy of the bishop of Rome. It is Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic belief that all bishops have their secession from the Apostles.

Yes I was referring to St. Ignatius of Antioch. Notice that letters are sent not just to Rome but to Asia as well. You took that quote way out of context, that's actually the quote I quoted earlier and "the bishop" is a reference to all bishops. It is talking about the Church hierarchy in general not specifically the bishop of Rome.

I'm not referring to the St. Iraneus quote, I'm referring to the St. Ignatius quote: “Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9) "The bishop" is referring to the fact that each city has its own bishop not that there is one bishop who has special power. So this of course begs the question, should this letter include "the bishop to Peter" unless you're saying that St. Peter's own disciple didn't recognize his special authority.

I don't deny that that list is a list of the bishop of Rome. In fact I've read several of Clement's letters. In fact I would say that the bishop of Rome is first amongst equals. But nothing beyond that.

I did not say the feed my sheep quote is addressed to Apostles. I said the whatever sins you release are released and whatever sin you keep are kept was said to all the Apostles. Sorry for the confusion. St. Ignatius of Antioch is a rather significant figure to us. I was not arguing that he was special, as in Pope special, my point was that St. Peter had been bishop of other cities before Rome and I was wondering why it wasn't until his very last city that this special power was created? Also which homily did you quote? I don't recognize it, even though I apparently quoted it

If you look at Matthew 18:18 you will see Jesus tell all the Apostles "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." So that power is not unique to Peter and in fact in Eastern Orthodox Tradition that power is given to every confessor. In Acts 1:15 why do they decide by lots if Peter was the sole authority? And if you read the account of the first council you see it is actually James who makes the final judgement about what to do.

When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
“‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’— things known from long ago.
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

So no, Peter did not have the final authority at the first council.

[Pound Foolish]

St. Ignatius of Antioch is a rather significant figure to us. I was not arguing that he was special, as in Pope special, my point was that St. Peter had been bishop of other cities before Rome and I was wondering why it wasn't until his very last city that this special power was created? Also which homily did you quote? I don't recognize it, even though I apparently quoted it

Hee hee. No, you didn't quote it. It's just what turned up when I tried to find some things online about St. Ignatius being a successor to Peter. It was by St. John Chrysostom, and in it, he accepts St. Ignatius as the new religious leader of Antioch and even claims that St. Ignatius is an equal to Peter. But as already stated, he is only a local replacement, equal in the sense that he is fulfilling the role Peter once did. Further, again, he calls Peter, "... the master of the whole world".
So again, (and again, and again...) We see Peter given special reverence, even as St. Ignatius assumes his place.

You took that quote way out of context, that's actually the quote I quoted earlier and "the bishop" is a reference to all bishops. It is talking about the Church hierarchy in general not specifically the bishop of Rome.

Yes, the quote was out of context. But is there a rule against using your own material against you? That quote was more of a joke, it probably doesn’t mean what I pretended it does. The point is, it could conceivably have the meaning I indicated. Maybe “the bishop” doesn’t mean the local bishop but just what it says: the bishop.
That’s all rather silly though, on my part. Onto the other Ignatius of Antioch quote. “Notice”, you say, that “the letters are sent to Asia as well.” Yeah. Notice. Notice that the letters are sent all the way to another continent. Yet on our own little continent, the only people to be consulted are the authority of Rome. Further…
“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. “—Letter to the Romans,
“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave.” —Letter to the Romans, Ch 4
Onto Pope Honorious. As stated before, this is rather complicated. In another way though, it’s simpler than me. The heresy of Monothelitism, held that Jesus had one will, divine, rather than both mortal and divine. Pope Honorious, the myth goes, taught in favor of this idea. This case is the darling of Protestants.
Like all such cases, it is groundless. Even a quick review of the records shows Pope Honorious merely declined to settle the dispute one way or the other, thinking it best in his limited human wisdom to prove it. Popes do not necessarily have a special grace from God to make decisions, they simply arrive at conclusions like any human. But their teachings, when given, have the blessing of God to be correct.
In other words, Honorious offered not teaching on Monthelitism at all. As Ronald Knox put it, “To the best of his human knowledge, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, to the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise to the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed the Pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.”
Why does the Magisterium reveal knowledge a bit at a time? Why, if the Catholic Church does indeed have the truth, not simply give this great good to the world?
Well, why didn’t God simply blast all wisdom to the Planet when he created man? Throughout the Bible, knowledge is given by degrees. The Ten Commandments come along, then further commandments. Prophecies aren’t given all at once, they come as they are needed. Jesus didn’t come at the beginning, but after who knows how long, and even then he didn’t sit the Apostles down immediately after gathering them and spoonfeed them everything they were to know. Always, God gives us knowledge as at a pace as best befits His plan. There are copies of the Celestial Calendar available. However, they’re not cheap. You have to die to get one.
As to the authority of Peter, again, Peter’s name is always first among the Apostles, without exception. How do you explain that? Also, again, Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, or Cephas. Peter, as you know, means rock. This wasn’t even a name back then. No Jew had ever been called Rock. Many other names came from nature, such as “Deborah” (bee) or Rachel (ewe) but there was no rock. It was like telling him, “Simon, henceforth, you are Chocolate Bar.” It clearly had a special meaning, a calculated intention. And right after that, Jesus says, “… and on this rock, I build my Church.”
Your Matthew 8:18 assertion is a logical but common and mistaken one. It holds up to absolutely no examination. First off, this case wouldn’t even help you if it were true. Even if the Apostles did receive the exact same grace of the same loosening and binding, they received it after Peter. The fact remains that Jesus singled Peter out.
Truth be told, Jesus’ words later on to the Apostles only come during after a list specific listing of procedures. Whereas Peter is simply given the power to bind and to loosen, period. Therefore, they are clearly not the same.
Further, this attempted dodge of the first half of Jesus’ words can’t explain away that Jesus gives Peter an additional promise. “I will give you the keys to The Kingdom of Heaven.” Cities in those, entirely surrounded by a wall, days had keys that opened the gates. To be selected to own them was a great honor and sign of ultimate trust. The keys given to Peter, as Jesus said, are to Heaven itself! As cited before, this symbolism for authority is used elsewhere: cf Is. 22:22; Rev. 1:18.

In Acts 1:15 why do they decide by lots if Peter was the sole authority? And if you read the account of the first council you see it is actually James who makes the final judgement about what to do.
Quote:

in Acts, the lots stem from Peter's decision. No Pope has ever had unlimited authority. However, we are not explicitly told how lots is decided on. (Though significantly, this is the last time the Apostles use lots.) In any case, the lots come about as a result of his authoritative words.
As to the first council...
“God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.
No one disputes Peter's speech or his right to make it. On the contrary, after he speaks, we are told a silence falls, and Paul speak concur, saying, "the signs and wonders of God" had been "working among the Gentiles." Some try to make much of the speech by James that follows. After all, he says, “by my judgment.” But James’ judgment aligns completely with Peter’s.
James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)” (232).

[Eleventh Doctor]

Do you know which letter of St. John Chrysostom that was? And I don't deny that Peter has a special place amongst the Apostles, I just don't see that translating into universal authority and infallibility.

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. “—Letter to the Romans

This seem to be saying that Rome holds presidency over the place of the country of the Romans i.e. Italy or whatever state was in and around Rome at the time. This doesn't speak to universal authority.

I will concede the point on Pope Honorius.

I again, give great honor to St. Peter and to the Apostolic Throne of Rome. I simply argue it has become more than it was ever meant to be.

I really think you're twisting the meaning of the statements in the Council. I just don't agree with your interpretation.

[Pound Foolish]

And I don't deny that Peter has a special place amongst the Apostles, I just don't see that translating into universal authority and infallibility.

I again, give great honor to St. Peter and to the Apostolic Throne of Rome. I simply argue it has become more than it was ever meant to be.

It doesn't need to "become more." There's to make something of Peter's significance, the Bible does it for us. You have just seen the New Testament contains various strong implications that Peter was a great authoritative figure. Not merely first among the Apostles, nor a great bishop. Jesus made it clear he had a role like no other. A role never assigned to any other human being. A role of huge authority. Being given the keys to Heaven made this clear. Again, in Biblical context, this meant a King gave an individual special favor. In this case, Peter had the keys to Heaven. Peter had a position of authority from Heaven itself. Not merely an earthly post, but a post of inestimable divine import
It hasn't "become more" over time. The exact beliefs of the Catholic church are right there.

This seem to be saying that Rome holds presidency over the place of the country of the Romans i.e. Italy or whatever state was in and around Rome at the time. This doesn't speak to universal authority.

.
Sigh. You try to re-interpret things insistently.
And honestly, what is with your everlasting call for records confirming early Papal primacy? Suppose there weren't any documents from the earliest times that documented Catholicism. How would that be a point in your favor? Would that somehow prove Jesus never meant there to be papacy?
No.
That is inaccurate theological reasoning.
Besides, even from a historical viewpoint rather than a spiritual one that premise has more holes than Swiss cheese. Documents surviving ages past are rare and precious. Consider, for example, Puntius Pilate. For a long time, there was no strong evidence, outside of the Bible, that he even existed. Atheists liked to use this as proof the Bible was in fact an erroneous document. Until quite recently in the sixties I believe, when Archeologists discovered a plaque with Pilate's name.
Lack of historical evidence is no proof of non existence.
Especially in this case, considering being Catholic constituted atheism by Roman law, which meant writing anything on the subject could be an excellent way to lose your head.
Add to that the fact that it took time for acceptance of the papacy to spread. What you say about not everyone believing in the papacy initially is true, in a way. The world doesn't recognize a new religion on a dime.
But you ask for early evidence of the papacy. Very well then. I give you evidence. No more Mr. Nice guy.
Cyperean of Carthage, writing about 256, put it this way: "Would the heretics dare come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whence no errors can come?" emphasis added (Letters 59 [55], 14 )
Augustine captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded." (Sermons 131, 10)
So, there you are. You keep trying to act as if there's a definite break in the chain. That there's some whole somewhere. Well, there isn't. Jesus gave the keys to Heaven to Peter. Peter used his authority from Heaven in the Bible. Records indicate strongly Linus succeeded him. The line goes straight on from there, unbroken, the present day, with Pope after Pope knocking down heresies and never once contradicting one another.
There is no missing link in the chain.

I will concede the point on Pope Honorius.

Splendid. Earlier, it was said that it is rather interesting there are so few of these cases. The fatal flaw in them is not so much that they are hopelessly questionable, but that that there are only those cases in the first place. The papacy isn't new. Popes have had plenty of time to blunder. Atheists and Protestants would love to get their hands on some inconsistencies. So where's the giant list to show, for all the hunting, all the millions of atheists, and all the centuries?
Well?
Instead, it's Pope Honorious, Liberius, Vigilius. Over, over, and over, the same song and dance. All skeptics can offer is a pitiful handful of three or four flawed cases.
If you were to disprove any other religion in the world by pointing out the inconsistency of its teachings, would you find yourself making your case on a few highly questionable examples!?

I really think you're twisting the meaning of the statements in the Council. I just don't agree with your interpretation.

You of all people, dear Doctor, can do much better than that.
Where is the twisting? How are these conclusions inaccurate? Where specifically are the errors?
One final point. Again, Jesus said, "You are Peter, and on this rock, I build my church." Granted, in the Greek, the meaning is a tiny bit mangled since the Latin word for rock, Petra, is feminine and so the translators had to invent a masculine version. But in the original Aramaic, the meaning is clear. Jesus means just what he says. That he is building his church on Peter.
This is not at interpretation, per se. This is what the text says. We Catholics are not looking at something that says one thing, and attempting to interpret it the way we want to. Jesus simply comes right out and says what he means. He speaks as frankly as he did when he said, "This is my body. This is my blood."
"You are Peter, and on this rock, I build my church."
The. Church. Is. Built. On. Peter.
Built on him.
It didn't "become" that way. It always has been. Jesus Christ, Our Lord God, Our Father, The Good Shepard, our Daddy, said so.

[Eleventh Doctor]

This debate has obviously been ongoing between Orthodox and Catholic for coming on a millennium now, I doubt we'll solve it here. I think my quote that a Vicar is only needed if Christ is absent still holds a great deal of sway with me. You cite two early bishops yet obviously the Orthodox have a different view on this issue. I think you are twisting the Council because it clearly says by James' authority and you someone take that to mean by Peters' authority, I don't think it can get anymore twisted than that. I think the fact that you have to translate the word rock from the Greek it was written in to Aramaic before, as you admit, the western translators had to invent a word in Latin is very telling. It is not as straightforward as you make it out to be, obviously it isn't since the historical church is now split in Orthodox and Catholic. I also think we've done fine without a pope.

[Pound Foolish]

This debate has obviously been ongoing between Orthodox and Catholic for coming on a millennium now, I doubt we'll solve it here.

We are not here to resolve our differences, as in reach a compromise. We are here to make one of us, whichever is wrong, see which beliefs are incorrect, that whoever it is may come nearer to the truth. Granted, even though one of us eventually will get cornered, he probably won't convert because of a discussion the web. But, at least the ball, praise be God, will be rolling in the right direction. And let the merry little game continue. I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying this immensely, so thank you!

I think my quote that a Vicar is only needed if Christ is absent still holds a great deal of sway with me.

Okey doke. Why? This has already been gone over.

You cite two early bishops yet obviously the Orthodox have a different view on this issue.

Oh good, you concede their point of of view on Rome is different. That means you admit there is indeed recognition of the authority of Rome in the early church, contrary to what you so insistently have been trying to claim. You're sure you concede that?

I think you are twisting the Council because it clearly says by James' authority and you someone take that to mean by Peters' authority, I don't think it can get anymore twisted than that.

Again, specifics please. Where is this "clear" passage that says the decision is made by James' authority? What sentences lead directly to this conclusion? How can you show that James made the decision?

I think the fact that you have to translate the word rock from the Greek it was written in to Aramaic before, as you admit, the western translators had to invent a word in Latin is very telling. It is not as straightforward as you make it out to be, obviously it isn't since the historical church is now split in Orthodox and Catholic.

Beg pardon? As this is written, it makes no sense. As it's written, you seem to say that because the later Greek translation was complicated, that somehow makes the original Aramaic unclear as well. Obviously, that would be insane.
But more likely you meant to write, "I think the fact that you have to translate the word rock from the Greek before it was written in to Aramaic..." Is that correct? In which case, you simply need to do some research. Scholars, even skeptical ones, say it's clear Aramaic was the first language of Jesus and his followers and the language some of the New Testament was originally written in.
We know Jesus spoke Aramaic because he speaks in Aramaic. In Matthew 27:46, he says from the cross, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? As you likely know, that is Aramaic, not Greek, meaning, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
This is only natural, Aramaic was the common language of Palestine at the time.
What's more, in Paul's epistles, four times in Galations and four times in 1 Corinthians, we have the Aramaic form of Simon's name. In our English Bible, it comes out Cephas. That's a transliteration of the Aramaic word kepha (rendered as kephas in the Hellinistic form.)
And Kepha means... Rock.
What Jesus said to Peter was, "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church."
Pretty straightforward.

It is not as straightforward as you make it out to be, obviously it isn't since the historical church is now split in Orthodox and Catholic. I also think we've done fine without a pope.

Probably you have, as far as earthly humans of limited knowledge can gauge how "fine" a sect is fairing in spiritual matters. So?
You don't believe in something because you have a practical use for it. You sound like you can go shopping for religious beliefs. "I'll have belief in the Mormonism so I can rule a planet, and I'd like to purchase some Buddhism so I can reach enlightenment and know everything... and I'd like to believe in reincarnation because I think it would be fun to be cute little a duck. Quack quack!"
You don't believe something because it's useful. You believe because it's true.
The Papacy could be suddenly useless. The Pope could be an evil monster planning the demise of world. Every Catholic on earth could suddenly stop believing. It wouldn't matter.
Truth is independent of need.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I am enjoying this too, thank you

Because I don't think Christ is absent. Yes, we've gone over this but and I don't believe Christ is absent in such a way that necessitates a new head of the Church.

No, I do not concede that. I say that your interpretation of their statements is for the authority of Rome but I say that obviously is not the Orthodox view.

James clearly claims final authority. "When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
“‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’— things known from long ago.
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”" (Emphasis mine) It doesn't say, by Peter's authority, it is James authority.

I will concede the point about the Rock, I don't see that meaning Peter has the authority you say though, obviously.

I agree truth is truth regardless of need. But if what you say is true and the pope is such an essential part of the Church then how has Orthodoxy remained theologically sound over the centuries since the schism? How have we not splintered into thousands of denominations? Why did we not have a Reformation? If the papacy is so important to the Church?

[Pound Foolish]

Because I don't think Christ is absent. Yes, we've gone over this but and I don't believe Christ is absent in such a way that necessitates a new head of the Church.

As stated earlier, Christ is physically absent. You can’t argue that. Again, the Pope is a physical reminder of Christ’s word and he adds to our knowledge here in the physical world.

No, I do not concede that. I say that your interpretation of their statements is for the authority of Rome but I say that obviously is not the Orthodox view.

Arrrrrgh! I mean, uh, cough cough… Well, allow me to languidly ask, then, what is the Orthodox interpretation then? It doesn’t seem such a big leap to think when a someone says, “the seat of Peter” is where “apostolic faith” is derived from and “that no errors can come” from there, to conclude he is saying that “the seat of Peter” is where “apostolic faith” is derived from and “that no errors can come” from there”!
Anyhow, here are the complete quotes again:
"Would the heretics dare come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whence no errors can come?" emphasis added (Letters 59 [55], 14 )
Augustine captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded." (Sermons 131, 10)
There you are. That is what you have to somehow reinterpret to avoid saying Peter and Rome had special authority. I wish you lots of very good luck. Perhaps he meant to “errors come from time to time from the seat of Peter because he has no more authority than any other bishop or apostle” and his pen slipped. Hey, it could happen.
Sorry if I’m being rather rude, (how unusual) but, as you can see, I’m trying to make a point here.

James clearly claims final authority. "When they finished, James spoke up.

You use the words “final authority’ and emphasize that James spoke when they were finished. And he did indeed. He waited till after Peter had spoken. Peter made the first recorded doctrine. Then Paul agrees. Then James concurred, not even slightly amending anything Peter said, only adding to it. How is it making a final decision to concur with an idea already proposed and agreed to? Does Fox News make governmental decisions by talking about them afterward?
“God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.[/quote]
You supplied a counterargument, but you did not refute my interpretation. Where does it go wrong? Again, specifically.

I will concede the point about the Rock, I don't see that meaning Peter has the authority you say though, obviously.

So Jesus' left his church built on a fallible man. Why would Jesus build his church on a foundation of sand?
It’s only common sense: if the Christian church is built on Peter, then Peter oughtta have the ability to preach truthfully on Christianity.
Now on your Peter claim Peter was no more than the greatest among the Apostles. Let’s clarify the choice: either the evidence points to Peter having a power on earth, namely infallibility, or it points only to being the leading Apostle.
Let us then examine stations similar to Peter’s in the Bible. Have other prophets had the ability to speak the truth on God’s behalf? They have indeed. Was their station greater than Peter’s? Well, their role, of a prophet, has been filled by many throughout the ages. Peter’s was unique. Its very name implies the incalculable weight of it. Peter is holder of the keys to Heaven, that is, Christ’s Steward. Jesus gave many throughout the ages great responsibilities and demonstrations of honor, but he never told any of them, “You are now my steward and hold the keys to Heaven” and certainly not that the church was built on them. The church is built on only one man. So Peter is the greatest figure in all of Christianity, as the Church is built on him, possibly he is below only May and Jesus in the people mentioned in the entire Bible. And if the lesser prophets only had the ability speak authoritatively on some spiritual subjects, it seems reasonable that the greater Peter should have authority to speak on any given spiritual subject Christ wills.
Some ability must stem from his station. The only power Peter demonstrates is authority, and you have yet to show he does not demonstrate that ability, for the very good reason he does.
This is not such a huge jump to make. The entire Bible is infallible teaching. Jesus merely, in this case, made the infallible teaching able to come to us through both written and verbal communication.

I agree truth is truth regardless of need. But if what you say is true and the pope is such an essential part of the Church then how has Orthodoxy remained theologically sound over the centuries since the schism? How have we not splintered into thousands of denominations? Why did we not have a Reformation? If the papacy is so important to the Church?

A shaky claim, at best, for it cannot be proven. You assume we do not need papal authority, on the grounds that a million people do well without the Pope. If the leadership of the Pope were permanently removed, how do you know that the Chatholic church would not fall into discord? We cannot know that it would, though it seems likely, but you cannot prove it would not. Now the…
Picture this: an organization, The National Agricultural Plethora, or N.A.P., we shall call them, like to meet and have discussions on planting, coming up with entirely new methods. (They are a bit boring and they often end up napping.) They are all great authorities on agriculture, so they come out with a monthly magazine. The magazine becomes famous. The new discoveries revolutionize agriculture, building on the foundation set before them by centuries of gardeners. Occasionally, they add to an article they made before, sending ripples of excitement across the community. Sometimes, there will be those who reject the new info, but this never lasts in large numbers. But then, an association, using one of the copies, sets up their own organization, A.W.A.K.E. (Association of Wise and About Knowledgeable Enough people.) They do not subscribe the N.A.P., and instead claim they do not need N.A.P. and never needed it.
A poor analogy perhaps, and maybe a rather insulting one I’m afraid, I came up with them myself. (Including the acronyms. But no apology for them, I like them.) But no need to go any farther with analogy. You get the point.
Now for another analogy:
Priest Joe Blow runs a protestant church skillfully. It is unified. His congregation follows him anywhere. Priest Joe Blow has coffee one day with John Smith. (the waiter looked a little skeptical when they told him their names for some reason.) John Smith is in the rare situation of pasturing ten different protestant churches he founded. Which could never happen of course, but bear with me.
Joe Blow takes his first sip of salted caramel mocha. “So, John Smith. How are your ten churches going?”
“Well, Joe Blow, they could be doing better. We’ve had some discord recently. But by and large, we still get along.”
“Oh? Not so in my congregation. We are in agreement. With all due respect, John Smith, if I may be so blunt, if your ten churches truly need your leadership, why do they have some disagreement while my church is unified? I bet they would do just as well without having one uniting leader.”
It seems rather absurd for Joe Blow to say compare the unity of his one church to ten, doesn’t it? It’s like saying a chef who can cook one cake at a time is as likely to be able to cook ten at once. How much more absurd is it then, to compare the unity of Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism, which outnumbers Eastern Orthodoxy far more than merely ten to one?

[Eleventh Doctor]

So Christ doesn't add to our knowledge here in the physical world?

Could you please provide a link to the Augustine sermon? I can't find it anywhere. The Orthodox interpretation is that every bishops seat is where apostolic faith is derived from and that only together can they be infallible.

I did provide a refutation. You cannot compare James and Fox News, James is not simply reporting what Peter says. He is the one who says what is to be done and the one from whom the letter goes out from. This is not simply him agreeing with Peter. If you don't view that as a sufficient counter argument then I have no more to say.

I believe that Peter and all Popes that follow him are First amongst Equals.

Eastern Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian denomination, next to yes Roman Catholic. That is not like one church and ten churches. There are 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, if you include all the Eastern Catholics and the breakaway Catholic churches, to the Eastern Orthodox 300 million, which doesn't include the Oriental Orthodox, so no you do not outnumber Orthodoxy far more than ten to one. It is not a million people who do fine without a pope and it is a legitimate question.

[Pound Foolish]

So Christ doesn't add to our knowledge here in the physical world?

He does. But besides the Pope and Ecumincal councils, only through miracles and private revelation. Miracles have to ascertained by the Vatican and its team of scientists, and private revelation is not infallible because it can be personal perception or the person may be lying.

Could you please provide a link to the Augustine sermon? I can't find it anywhere. The Orthodox interpretation is that every bishops seat is where apostolic faith is derived from and that only together can they be infallible.

Unfortunately not. I read it in book form, which I prefer, and cannot find it online. But here are the citations again if you wish to try:
Cyperean of Carthag (Letters 59 [55], 14 )
Augustine (Sermons 131, 10)

The Orthodox interpretation is that every bishops seat is where apostolic faith is derived from and that only together can they be infallible

He mentions Peter specifically. Plus, he says "no errors" can come from there. Eastern Orthodox do not believe bishops are infallible, do they?

I did provide a refutation.

To be clear, by counterargument, I mean you provided your own argument, that the scripture is saying James is in authority. A good argument, but...
It is not what I mean by a refutation. That is, specifically pointing out the errors in my interpretation. If it is wrong, then of course, the evidence is all erroneous. In which case, you have only to point out how what I say about passage is erroneous.
To clarify further: my thesis is that Peter is making a doctrine and makes the decision by his authority. I provided evidence for it. Your counterargument is that it is James who makes the decision. But although your explained your counterargument, providing evidence for it, you have not attacked my evidence.

“God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.
No one disputes Peter's speech or his right to make it. On the contrary, after he speaks, we are told a silence falls, and Paul speak concur, saying, "the signs and wonders of God" had been "working among the Gentiles." Some try to make much of the speech by James that follows. After all, he says, “by my judgment.” But James’ judgment aligns completely with Peter’s.
James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed.

That is far more of a mouthful than your interpretation. But since I did my best to refute your your thesis, it would be courteous to do a step by step refutation of my thesis in return.

You cannot compare James and Fox News, James is not simply reporting what Peter says. He is the one who says what is to be done and the one from whom the letter goes out from. This is not simply him agreeing with Peter.

You have two premises. One, that James is the one who says what is to be done. Second, that his writing the Gospel is indicative of authority.
First premise first. Please define your terms. What do you mean by saying James, "says what is to be done"? Please explain so that I may answer your challenge.
Your second: writing the Gospel is indicative of authority. If this is so, then why are is the old Testament not written by Moses? Surely this writer was not in higher authority than he?
Also, the greatest human authority in the Bible is Jesus, isn't it? There is no Gospel according to Jesus.

I believe that Peter and all Popes that follow him are First amongst Equals.

No. You have already admitted that Peter is Christ's Steward. You also conceded the point of the rock. So, who is it that is an equal to these stations? The disciples? The bishops who are not in the Bible you mention so often? What makes them equal to the steward of God and the Foundation of Christianity?

Eastern Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian denomination, next to yes Roman Catholic. That is not like one church and ten churches. There are 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, if you include all the Eastern Catholics and the breakaway Catholic churches, to the Eastern Orthodox 300 million, which doesn't include the Oriental Orthodox, so no you do not outnumber Orthodoxy far more than ten to one. It is not a million people who do fine without a pope and it is a legitimate question.

Where do you get that statistic? I have never heard that before, and looking about, I can't find any verification on that. Granted, internet info is always questionable. But Google is a reliable search engine, and none of the top results back up your claim. So, again, source please.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Why did Eccumenical councils occur if the Pope could just discern the correct answer? Why would they spend years, if not decades, getting together all the bishops if all was needed was the Pope? Why was there discussion in the Councils? Why didn't the Pope simply give them the solution?

That's doesn't help, there are many Sermons by Augustine and no standard order that would tell me which one is 131.

Eastern Orthodox believe that bishops and the Church as a whole are infallible, i.e. the Eccumenical Councils. Those are infallible, no one person is infallible.

Okay my refutation of your point is that Peter is simply one of the speakers, why did everyone need to be there if Peter was the only authority that mattered?

I never said Peter is Christ's Steward. I did say that Peter was given special honor by virtue of the Rock quote but that does not equal universal authority and personal infallibility.

Do you really think there are only a million Eastern Orthodox in the world? http://christianity.about.com/od/easter ... rofile.htm

The other bishops of the Church the ones that made up the Eccumenical Councils. They are the foundation of Christianity because that is the witness of the Apostles and the Holy Fathers. As St. Ignatius said, where the bishop is there is the Church.

[Pound Foolish]

Have you forgotten when we went over Pope Honorious?
You conceded: God gives his wisdom to the world by degrees, in His time. The Pope cannot wave his wand and abracadabra know everything. He comes to conclusions over time in the natural human way. The Pope do not necessarily have special grace from God to know the truth, but when they do come to a new teaching they are protected from error by God.
This means that councils are naturally more productive and overcome major problems more quickly than if it were all left up to the Pope.
Yes... and the citation doesn't help me either, I'm afraid. As I said, I can't find that particular letter online. It's not as if the letter has a name like a book.
You said, "Eastern Orthodox believe that bishops and the Church as a whole are infallible, i.e. the Eccumenical Councils. Those are infallible, no one person is infallible."
Firstly, the Ecumincal councils involve the Pope.
Secondly, you have yet to prove no one person is infallible.
Thirdly, you did not answer the question. What makes Peter "first among equals"? What makes a bishop's station, or all the bishops as a whole, equal to Peter?
Why did everyone need to be there? Ha ha, clever. But have you ever tried announcing a doctrine with no one there? It's not very satisfying.
Further, again, Popes do not necessarily have a special grace from God to know truth, but God protects them from error. In other words, Peter is still reliant on the wisdom of others.
You still have not done a step by step refutation, refuting the specifics of my argument. My interpretation used various sentences from the passage to make my case. I asked that you refute my take on those various sentences. Not necessarily every one, but a few would be lovely.
Why haven't you? Are you unable to see logical flaws in them?

I never said Peter is Christ's Steward. I did say that Peter was given special honor by virtue of the Rock quote but that does not equal universal authority and personal infallibility.

I pointed out to you clearly that Peter is indeed Christ's Steward and the Holder of the Keys to Heaven and you did not claim otherwise.
If you wish to deny that, you will have to consider the arguments I posed and refute them.
If the Church is built on Peter, then... the Church is built on Peter.
You keep asking how this can mean he has authority. How can it not mean that?
If Jesus did not wish others to think Peter had authority, he chose his words very poorly. He literally said that the entire goldarn Christian Church is built upon Peter, a mere man. Is Jesus a bad teacher?