Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The papacy in the fathers

propaganda

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 Rafael Daher

Rafael Daher

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 05:32 PM

Dear All,

A friend of mine is defending the papacy arguing with some quoatations of the Holy Fathers. He send to me this: http://www.newadvent...then/12260a.htm

The principal quotation:

St. Ignatius of Antioch. A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love".

Why we can argue, with the Holy Fathers, that this primacy is not of leadership, like the roman catholics claims, and not of honor, like our Church teaches? I know of some quoatitions about that, but im finding new quotations against basicaly against this arguments of the Papacy on the Holy Fathers and Tradition.

#2 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 21 February 2007 - 08:20 AM

The Roman apologists for decades have been using quotes from Church Fathers to claim a papal supremacy. These quotes are either taken out of context (the majority), have been intentionally mistranslated (St Irenaeus comes to mind), are forgeries (one of St Maximus comes to mind at the moment), and others which do not talk about the papacy at all, but once again are taken out of context.

Why roman apologists use st Ignatius is mind-boggling. If the above quote speaks of a special pre-eminence for rome, then what does the following greeting for the church in Ephesus mean?:

"...To the Church which is in Ephesus in Asia deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness & fullness of God the Father and pre-destined before the beginning of time, that it should always be for an enduring and unchangeable glory...."

St Ignatius in his epistle to Smyrna writes,:

"Wheresoever the bishop appears let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church".

Roman apologists attempt to equate the bishop as the pope in the above verse. This is a classic example of taking something out of context. The epistle is to the local church of Smyrna and its refering to the laity and bishop of that church. The bishop of Smyrna is St. Ignatius close friend the great ST Polycarp. For Ignatius the fullness of the catholic church is found on the local level, each church with a bishop is fully catholic as Orthodoxy teaches, Rome claims each church is a part of the church.

#3 Ken McRae

Ken McRae

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 21 December 2007 - 01:25 AM

The Roman apologists for decades have been using quotes from Church Fathers to claim a papal supremacy. These quotes are either taken out of context (the majority), have been intentionally mistranslated (St Irenaeus comes to mind), are forgeries (one of St Maximus comes to mind at the moment), and others which do not talk about the papacy at all, but once again are taken out of context.


Kosta, what do you mean "intentionally" mistranslated? You make it sound as if there is'nt a single Catholic scholar on the face of planet Earth, let alone any with "intellectual" honesty and moral integrity! I am saddened that no Orthodox members here called you out on that. Why don't you produce these "forgeries," and especially the forgery of St. Maximus, if you can. And I would like you also to give a fair account of the "authorities" who have established them as forgeries.

#4 Paul Cowan

Paul Cowan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 22 December 2007 - 05:45 AM

Well, I would imagine 1) it is because it has been less than half a day and not enough people have read all these posts since we are gearing up for the Christmas holidays and/or 2)we believe him.

I can think of a verse in the NIV Bible that was intentially left out because they didnt like the way it fit with the theology of the people putting the version together. John 5:4

John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

This was from the King James Version. It is ommitted as is the verse number from the NIV. So if it can happen today right under our noses, it happened back then as well.

#5 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 09:39 AM

My problem is against the apologists not the scholars. In fact the Latin apologists contradict the Latin scholars. The late great NT biblical scholar and Roman Catholic priest Raymond E. Brown knows exactly what im talking about.

The papacy is built upon forgeries such as the false Decretals of Isidore and the Donation of Constantine. Even at the council of Florence in 1439 the latins produced writings which contained forgeries. Upon the production of a lating writing of St Epiphanios to prove the fillioque, St Mark Evgenicus said, "Concerning your books i have accurate information that they have been corrupted and forged". Also a document brought forth by the latins said to be the Acts of a previous council of the undivided Church stated the east recited the creed with the fillioque. The Orthodox party at Florence proved this was an interpolation of the latin document and did not exist in their greek version. Yet to this day these same latin corruptions still appear amongst the latin apologists. Also Roman Apologists offer writings as if they are authority when in reality are erroneous doctrines such as certain epistles of Pope Gelasius. There are mistranslations such as the verse by St Ireneous which supposedly says "all churches must agree" with the Pope of Rome. This is a spurious latin text with the latin word 'agree'(convenire) mistranslated to begin with. It is better translated as "to meet, to visit, to harmonize". Regardless its a spurious latin text not found in the original greek body of this saints writings.

The quotes given from a website which claims the title "The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy" are taken from the book: "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" by Scott Butler. As most of these books just like the books by roman apologist James Likoudis are based upon sources better described as "conspiracy theories". Much of the material is taken out of context, and some of this material are spurious texts, forgeries and interpolations. The false "Arab Canon" plays a big part in this book and is even exhalted over canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 3 of Constantinople 381.
Here is a critique of this book and its claims, while the author is not Orthodox the material is very Orthodox:

http://www.christian...h.com/mt16.html

If anyone wants further critique of this book look up James White article "The Peter Syndrome". Just google it.

#6 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 22 December 2007 - 12:28 PM

Kosta,

I find your recent post (above) quite problematic; not necessarily for your position, but for some of the specific details.

You speak of a mistranslation of St Irenaeus, presumably referring to his comments in the opening chapters of book 3 of his On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called -- more particularly 3.3.2. Specifically, you said:

There are mistranslations such as the verse by St Ireneous which supposedly says "all churches must agree" with the Pope of Rome. This is a spurious latin text with the latin word 'agree'(convenire) mistranslated to begin with. It is better translated as "to meet, to visit, to harmonize". Regardless its a spurious latin text not found in the original greek body of this saints writings.


Firstly, this is an impossible claim to make, since there is no extant evidence of what Irenaeus' Greek actually was. Book 3 of the work (as with most of it) exists only in the (very) early Latin translation (fourth century). A forceful claim that it is a 'spurious Latin text not found in the original Greek body of the saint's writings' is unsupportable.

Secondly, your comments on the translation of the term convenire stretch things. The word does indeed mean 'agree with', and so it ought generally to be translated (and so I have put it in the critical edition for ACW). It can also mean 'to come together with, to harmonise with', as you say; but the sentence and phrase themselves make very clear which reading Irenaeus is intending (and in any case, they all imply the same thing in the broader context of his comment).

Thirdly, St Irenaeus' comment itself has nothing to do with the pope. It has to do with the Church at Rome.


This kind of anti-apologia is troubling, because it is based in a lack of understanding what the fathers are really saying; but moreso, because it seeks to respond to false proof-texting by response proof-texting, attempting to defeat one person's / group's proof-texts by invalidating them on some historical or grammatical claim. This doesn't help understand what the fathers are genuinely saying. For his part, St Irenaeus is saying that all churches, everywhere in the world, must agree in doctrine with the church at Rome. Refuting misinterpretations or misapplications of this small phrase in his writings, should not come by attempting to remove the statement from St Irenaeus' mouth, but by offering an authentic reading of his statement. For example, reading a bit further on in the same sentence. Irenaeus' whole statement is:

'For with this Church [the Church at Rome], because of her great authority, it is necessary that every Church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree - because in her the apostolic tradition has always been safeguarded by those who are everywhere.'

St Irenaeus explicitly states that the reason all churches must agree with the church in Rome, is not because of some specific heritage of primacy or power, but because that Church faithfully preserves the apostolic tradition - the same that has been 'safeguarded by those who are everywhere'. It is apostolic testimony that grounds authority. Inasmuch as the church in Rome faithfully preserves this, she is to be a church with which all others must agree - not for her own account, but on account of the tradition she maintains and exemplifies.

As if anticipating misunderstandings, St Irenaeus goes to lengths - a bit earlier in the same book - to note that his discussions on Rome are due to her great fame and antiquity, and apostolic foundation; but he says the same is true of every church in the world that keeps the apostolic traditions rightly.

St Irenaeus' very point is that everyone must agree with the teachings of the Church at Rome, as they must agree also with any other Church, so long as those teachings are rightly and truly the teachings of the apostles. To claim that he did not make this statement, because of some presumed yet entirely un-foundable claim to a problem of converting his original Greek (which no one has) into Latin, is to rob him of his most important point: that it is precisely in apostolic testimony that authority resides, and apostolic testimony must be heeded and followed, agreed with rather than modified.

The implications for what Irenaeus' position means in relation to a church that has gone into error, which does not or no longer follows authentically the teaching and tradition of the apostles - whether that be in Rome or anywhere else - is entirely stripped of its meaning if his words are manipulated in this way.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

#7 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 08:27 AM

Dear Deacon,

I wholeheartedly agree with your asessment of St Ireneous. The problem is that the latin apologists do not view it in the same way. Your post puts it into the proper context something latin apologists dont knowing that most people are too lazy to look at the entire writing which in reality dispels the very same papacy the apologists attempt to prove.

At the same time I have to graciously disagree with you on the translation of convenire. The word convenire translated as "must agree" is the huge stretch. Daniel Whelton in his book "Two Paths" disproves this (mis)translation and demonstrates that in a latin dictionary "must agree" doesnt even appear.

But perhaps the best example of this intentional mistranslation is exposed by Abee Guettee in his book "the Papacy" in 1866. Not only does this former jesuit priest rejects this translation but he quite convincingly demonstrates what St Ireneous probably had indeed mean (see pages 62-69).

St Ireneous is just trying to establish that Rome being the capital and heart of the empire, all the Apostolic Traditions of all the churches are deposited there. In fact St. Ireneous himself gives a perfect example when he relates the story of Polycarp and Pope Anicetus:

"When the blessed Polycarp was visiting Rome in the time of Anicetus.. They were at once well inclined towards each other, not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon the matter (Paschal calculation). For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forgo the observance of his (Easter customs) inasmuch as these things had always been observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant."

We can see from Ireneous own writing that Polycarp did not have to agree with the Roman Tradition of celebrating Pascha on a sunday even though the Pope tried to persuade him. Infact St. Ireneous even admonished Pope Victor for attempting to excommunicate the Asia Minor Churches for celebrating Pascha on Nisan 14. St Irenous did not believe the Asiatic churches had to "agree" with Rome on this point and sided with Polycrates bishop of Ephesus over the pope.

Convenire is better intended to be as a"coming together" (in Rome). How so? Simply because it was the place the Fathers went to and deposited their traditions. These Fathers being Peter, Paul, Ignatius, Justin Martyr; all were martyred there and deposited the faith there. Not only the martyrs but also Hegesipus and Polycarp and many other Fathers before and after Ireneous.

Abee Guetee gives the best translation of the "intent" of Ireneous which to this day is shunned by the roman apologists. Compare the entire corpus of Ireneous writings with the latin apologist translation with that of the Abee Guettee and see who is more consistent and faithful to Ireneous thought on the disputed latin passage.

Abee Guetee translation on the passage: ....(Rome)"Which possesses a tradition that comes from the apostles as much as the faith declared to men and which has transmitted to us thru the succession of Her bishops; by that, we confound all those by any manner whatsoever, either thru blindness or bad intention do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality (capital city). In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles have been preserved by those who are of all countries."

Typical latin translation: "...We do this also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our own time by means of the succession of bishops. For it is a matter of neccesity that every Church must agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere. For the Apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere."

We can see a difference between the two translations, throw in the fact that the final sentence is always omitted when roman apologists quote these passages.

#8 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 23 December 2007 - 09:12 PM

Dear Kosta others,

In your above, you wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with your asessment of St Ireneous. The problem is that the latin apologists do not view it in the same way. Your post puts it into the proper context something latin apologists dont knowing that most people are too lazy to look at the entire writing which in reality dispels the very same papacy the apologists attempt to prove.


No one expects apologists for certain positions to interpret texts in a uniform manner - else they would not be apologists for a specific interpretation. What needs to be done is to respond accurately in the face of such apologia, not simply returning tit-for-tat, but placing the fathers' writings into their proper contexts. The ultimate response against errant proof-texting is to move entirely away from that flawed form of argument and justification, not simply to turn it around and 'proof-text in reverse' by invalidating points on similarly flawed grounds. The response to proof-texting is context, and authentic reading. Most proof-texters will not give time to such a response; their wish is single phrase justifications for points of view. Real understanding of the fathers takes time, energy, calm.

At the same time I have to graciously disagree with you on the translation of convenire. The word convenire translated as "must agree" is the huge stretch. Daniel Whelton in his book "Two Paths" disproves this (mis)translation and demonstrates that in a latin dictionary "must agree" doesnt even appear.

But perhaps the best example of this intentional mistranslation is exposed by Abee Guettee in his book "the Papacy" in 1866. Not only does this former jesuit priest rejects this translation but he quite convincingly demonstrates what St Ireneous probably had indeed mean (see pages 62-69).


Abbé Guettée is not a realiable source. Apart from arguing almost entirely from a proof-texting position himself (albeit a reverse proof-texting, attempting to take every proof-text used by the Roman Catholic apologists he knew from his own past, and interpreting them in an Orthodox way against the RC usage), Guettée has a questionable relationship with many of the passages at which he looks. His large text, The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, loses most of its credibility from its entire lack of objective grounding, and its extreme bias. This is not to say that bias is intrinsically bad (everyone has a bias), or to imply that 'objectivity' has to mean trating everything as equals; but Guettée is particuarly biased against his own background, and is unobjective in the worst sense: that he does not even try to understand why one might think differently than he, and thus imposes on many texts and writers views which he wishes them to have, without even giving consideration to alternative readings.


His treatment of St Irenaeus is case-in-point, and having spent the better part of my adult life studying St Irenaeus, I can say that I've never seen anyone take Guettée's views on him seriously. In chapter 3 of his The Papacy, Guettée gives a remarkably fanciful mis-translation of Ireaeus' On the detection and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called 3.3.2, which he presents as:

"we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."

Guettée refuses to accept that agreement with the Church in Rome could possibly have been St Irenaeus' intention, on grounds, says Guettée, that 'Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty'. In a most remarkable paragraph following his presentation of his translation (above), he goes on to argue against various Roman Catholic readings, failing at every stage to recognise the difference between what certain apologists have interpreted the text to mean, and what St Irenaeus himself is talking about. He comments on their use to support 'papal sovereignty', but does not raise the fact that papal matters do not figure in Irenaeus' comments at all; he later speaks against the idea that the text speaks of Rome 'to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy', without actually challenging this against Ireaneus' focus in the chapter as a whole.


Because Guettée has decided that the text must speak against these misuses, rather than in its own right, and because the misuses he identifies are based on questions of authority, sovereignty, pirmacy and agreement, he finds himself forced to work St Irenaeus out of this embarrassing situation by completely mistranslating his words. It is not simply that he insists convenire must mean 'gather together' rather than 'agree with -- which it must not -- but he is forced to re-translate the whole thrust of St Irenaeus' argument in the whole of AH 3.2-3, so that it is now about apostles and faithful going towards Rome as empirical capital. Guettée goes on for some several paragraphs justifying this with grammatical arguments that no one finds convincing, not least because, grammar aside, they throw into nonsensical relief Irenaeus' own points elsewhere. Guettée's conclusion is that:

"Nothing is wanting to prove that it is impossible to give to the words of St. Irenæus the sense attributed to them by the Romish theologians. The good father then has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the first and most powerful of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged."

He has arrived at this through a remarkable mis-translation of the text; but more than this, his final position makes a mockery out of everything St Irenaeus is attempting to say in the chapter. He has selected Rome as a single point of reference, and explicitly argues that his comments on Rome are equally as true of every Church in Christendom. His argument for why Rome's faithful preservation of the apostolic faith means it must be agreed with by all (which is what his text means, despite Guettée's protestations), loses its meaning, as comparable to other Churches, if it is bound up in Rome as an imperial capital and first city of the Empire. None other would be comparable to this; Irenaeus' point is rendered impotent.

This is not what the saint meant, and it is an insult to his insight.

Propagandist misuse of the fathers is of course wrong; but responding to it with what amounts to little more than reversed propaganda is equally as unfaithful to the true testimony of the fathers.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Edited by M.C. Steenberg, 23 December 2007 - 11:27 PM.
Corrected minor typos


#9 Geoffrey Miller

Geoffrey Miller

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 18 June 2008 - 12:03 AM

Okay, in my faith journey, I'm a Maronite Catholic.

I'm trying to settle a burning question in my mind: do the papal claims have historical precedent?

I'm not nearly as concerned about the primacy of Rome. That's pretty obvious. I'm more curious about the Pope's supremacy and charism of infallibility.

What do the early Church fathers say regarding these issues? In particular, what do they have to say about Matthew 16:18, and other Petrine passages?

I tried to get some information over at Catholic Answers Forums, but I couldn't get any straight answers. There was some mention of "doctrinal development." But how can I know such developments are valid without looking at what they developed from?

One of my close friends told me that some early fathers supported Papal claims like infallibility, while others didn't. Hence, the history is a bit murkier than I supposed.

Also, someone mentioned that there've been Popes who were heretics, and openly taught heresies in the early Church. Again, I'm not sure about this. I'm looking for some clear perspectives, from both sides.

Back in highschool, I explored Eastern Orthodoxy quite a bit. Now that I'm about to graduate from college, and have some hindsight, as well as some distance between me and several events from my youth, I'd like to re-evaluate my religious journey from Southern Baptist Protestantism to Eastern Catholicism.

Views on papal claims are one area of Eastern Orthodoxy, and Church history, that I haven't really looked into much.

I also saw a book called "Upon this Rock," by an Orthodox theologian. Is it any good?

#10 Paul Cowan

Paul Cowan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 June 2008 - 02:52 AM

Though Peter's name means Rock, this passage is referring to the Rock of his confession of Faith. It does not refer to Peter himself. No man regardless of his eccliastical position is infallible. You can do a search in this forum and get many threads on this topic.

#11 Michael Stickles

Michael Stickles

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 18 June 2008 - 04:15 AM

What do the early Church fathers say regarding these issues? In particular, what do they have to say about Matthew 16:18, and other Petrine passages?


St. John Chrysostom's take on Matthew 16:18 was this:

"And I say unto you, you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd.


More discussion of patristic commentary on Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15 (another Petrine passage) can be found in a recent Monachos thread on that topic.

On papal supremacy in general, St. Cyprian had this to say at the Synod held at Carthage (257 AD), which I think relates to that point:

For no one [of us] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops], or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone hath the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position].


There is an interesting exchange recorded in Session XVI of the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451 AD) that relates to this:

The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all (πρὸ πάντων τὰ πρωτεῖα) and the chief honour (τὴν ἐξαίρετον τιμὴν) according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy ...

The most reverend bishops cried out: This is a just sentence. So we all say. These things please us all. ...

Lucentius, the bishop, said: The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence; and therefore whatever yesterday was done to the prejudice of the canons during our absence, we beseech your highness to command to be rescinded. But if not, let our opposition be placed in the minutes, and pray let us know clearly what we are to report to that most apostolic bishop who is the ruler of the whole church, so that he may be able to take action with regard to the indignity done to his See and to the setting at naught of the canons.

The most glorious judges said: The whole synod has approved what we proposed.


It appears that here we see already the Roman See claiming some form of supreme authority ("ruler of the whole church"), while the other Sees denied this, granting Rome only the "chief honor" and, while acknowledging the "primacy of all" for Rome, also recognized in Constantinople "the same primacy" (thus obviously not recognizing an exclusive primacy for Rome).

In Christ,
Mike

#12 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 June 2008 - 06:34 AM

Views on papal claims are one area of Eastern Orthodoxy, and Church history, that I haven't really looked into much.


Dear Geoffrey,

If you would like to understand the greatest cause of rift between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, it would serve you well to look into this.

In Christ,
Antonios

#13 Misha

Misha

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 18 June 2008 - 09:21 AM

From an ex "romancatholic" priest:

http://www.impantokr...nvolier.en.aspx

#14 Geoffrey Miller

Geoffrey Miller

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 18 June 2008 - 10:01 PM

Wow. Okay, I see that there's some very interesting stuff here! Thanks for the posts.

#15 Geoffrey Miller

Geoffrey Miller

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 21 June 2008 - 12:06 AM

I looked into many of the sources given so far. I admit, some are removed from their proper contexts. I also did not enjoy the polemical essay that was linked to.

I am sorry that the priest mentioned in them had such bad experiences with Roman Catholicism, if in fact he did. But I am looking for in-depth, well-reasoned arguments from the Church Fathers. I just need to know where to look for them.

#16 Paul Cowan

Paul Cowan

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,064 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 21 June 2008 - 06:51 PM

After reading this article, I too would have liked to have seen the books he was given to read or seen the fruit of his studies. Not that I can read anything but english, but it would have given credibility to his story and allowed others to follow his path of discovery. Written as is, whether true or not, it is a story of conversion with no support though the author confesses to have written many many books and articles.

Paul

#17 Geoffrey Miller

Geoffrey Miller

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 22 June 2008 - 03:20 AM

My last thread didn't really go where I wanted it to.

What I'm seeking now is a person well read in the Fathers, and well studied on the question of the papal claims.

I'm already leaning toward the conclusion that papal infallibility and such aren't legitimate developments in doctrine, but I want to look deeper into the evidence, to make sure the evidence really does support the Orthodox point of view.

#18 Aidan Kimel

Aidan Kimel

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 22 June 2008 - 04:31 AM

Geoffrey, you may wish to read Thomas Allies's book The See of Peter. Allies was converted to Catholicism because of the patristic witness in support of the Roman claims. Also see T. G. Jalland's Bampton lectures, *The Church and the Papacy* (1949). Jalland was an Anglican but believed that strong support for the papal claims was to be found in the Church Fathers. His book is out of print but can be found in the used book market. Westall's article "The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy" has recently been made available on the internet. A study of Pope Leo's teaching on the papacy is crucial: see Walter Ullman, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” The Journal of Theological Studies, II 11 (1): 25–51 (1960), as well as Jalland's *The Life and Times of Leo the Great* (1940).

The Catholic Church did not invent the papacy out of thin air. John Henry Newman certainly believed that the seeds of papal supremacy were to be found in the Fathers. I do not argue that the evidence is probative, but it is more than suggestive: see my "bad reason #1."

I hope this helps.

#19 Misha

Misha

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 22 June 2008 - 11:46 AM

Tthis may also be useful:

http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0385158513

#20 Geoffrey Miller

Geoffrey Miller

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 22 June 2008 - 05:33 PM

Fr. Alvin,

Thank you for the articles you've linked me too, however, your post "bad reason #1," has frankly hurt my respect for John Henry Cardinal Newman. Please allow me to explain.

It seems to me that Cardinal Newman is a skeptic. According to him, we can deduce nothing certain from history about any doctrines or dogmas of our faith. Instead, we interpret history to support them, even when it might even support their opposite, because an infallible Church tells us to do so. And we trust that this Church is infallible, because it says so, and is infallible.

This circling reasoning is hardly convincing, and definitely disconcerting.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users