I would really like to know where 'First among equals' derived from

[WarriorAngel]

This is the third time I am asking [maybe forth] :wave:

And I looked at patristic writing, and have not found it. So help me if you could. :help:

[WarriorAngel]

Ahh...is this true?

Eastern Orthodox Church
The phrase "first among equals" is also used to describe the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Constantinople), who, as the Ecumenical Patriarch, is the first among all the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church). He has no direct jurisdiction over the other patriarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch) or the other autocephalous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephalous) Orthodox churches but he alone enjoys the right of convening extraordinary synods consisting of them and/or their delegates to deal with ad hoc situations and has also convened well-attended Pan-Orthodox Synods in the last forty years. His title is an acknowledgement of his historic significance and of his privillege to serve as primary spokesman for the Eastern Orthodox Communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church_organization).

From wikipedia?
Then this is what I was saying about Constantinople.
Usurping the Pope's role and taking the role upon himself. :scratch:

Can that be denied? Or the wikipedia is correct?
Interesting and most telling, if you ask me.

Then if wiki is right....this shows that the Roman historians are correct in their assesment of the Bishop of Constantinople.

:scratch:

[WarriorAngel]

Primus inter pares (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language)) or First among equals is a phrase which indicates that a person is the most senior of a group of people sharing the same rank or office.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_among_equals#_note-0)
When not used in reference to a specific title, it may indicate that the person so described is technically equal, but looked upon as an authority of special importance by his peers. In some cases it may also be used to indicate that while the person described appears to be an equal, he actually is the group's unofficial or hidden leader.
A number of books have also been titled First among equals.

Here is the official definition again in wiki.

[nestoj]

Ahh...is this true?

Eastern Orthodox Church
The phrase "first among equals" is also used to describe the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Constantinople), who, as the Ecumenical Patriarch, is the first among all the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church). He has no direct jurisdiction over the other patriarchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch) or the other autocephalous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephalous) Orthodox churches but he alone enjoys the right of convening extraordinary synods consisting of them and/or their delegates to deal with ad hoc situations and has also convened well-attended Pan-Orthodox Synods in the last forty years. His title is an acknowledgement of his historic significance and of his privillege to serve as primary spokesman for the Eastern Orthodox Communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church_organization).

From wikipedia?
Then this is what I was saying about Constantinople.
Usurping the Pope's role and taking the role upon himself. :scratch:

Can that be denied? Or the wikipedia is correct?
Interesting and most telling, if you ask me.

Then if wiki is right....this shows that the Roman historians are correct in their assesment of the Bishop of Constantinople.

:scratch:
Well, Orthodox Christians would agree to Pope having the same role as this you've described here. We won't agree on more power then this (well, add a head of the table seat).

Constantinople is a New Rome (for us, Papal and EP authority come from the authority of their seats (cities) - not from larger divine grace). After Rome sparated from other four, respect given to the Old Rome was now given to the new capital - New Rome - that's all.

[Sothron]

Well, Orthodox Christians would agree to Pope having the same role as this you've described here. We won't agree on more power then this (well, add a head of the table seat).

Constantinople is a New Rome (for us, Papal and EP authority come from the authority of their seats (cities) - not from larger divine grace). After Rome sparated from other four, respect given to the Old Rome was now given to the new capital - New Rome - that's all.

Well said.

[zhilan]

How about first you show where the early church talks about Infallibility.

[WarriorAngel]

Well, Orthodox Christians would agree to Pope having the same role as this you've described here. We won't agree on more power then this (well, add a head of the table seat).

Constantinople is a New Rome (for us, Papal and EP authority come from the authority of their seats (cities) - not from larger divine grace). After Rome sparated from other four, respect given to the Old Rome was now given to the new capital - New Rome - that's all.

I know where Christ handed the keys to Peter...
But where does Constantinople derive the authority?

In fact, wouldnt it behoove the Bishop in Constantinople to remove the Roman Pontiff in order to enjoy the seat of authority?

Therefore, it seems most suspicious to me. :o AS per the history I read from the Catholic site.

If the East doesnt need an authority, why did Constantinople take that position?

Also, where in Tradition did Constantinople ever have that position?...
I can however show that position in history to the Pope in Rome who has direct Apostolic succession....and Constantinople does not.

Infallibility is another thread. :wave:

[nestoj]

I know where Christ handed the keys to Peter...
But where does Constantinople derive the authority?

In fact, wouldnt it behoove the Bishop in Constantinople to remove the Roman Pontiff in order to enjoy the seat of authority?

Therefore, it seems most suspicious to me. :o AS per the history I read from the Catholic site.

If the East doesnt need an authority, why did Constantinople take that position?

Also, where in Tradition did Constantinople ever have that position?...
I can however show that position in history to the Pope in Rome who has direct Apostolic succession....and Constantinople does not.

Infallibility is another thread. :wave:
That is exactly where we confront… Roman Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople receive their authority as first among equals because of their seats in capitals of the empire (which would say they received authority trough authority of their cities, in modern days there is even less reason for this) – not because of their Apostolic succession from this Apostle or that. If that was the case, Orthodox Christians would have Ecumenical Patriarchy in Antioch (also found by St. Peter) or (by my opinion most rightful claim) in Jerusalem (founded by St. James and in the sacred city of God).


Peter as the keys holder claim of RCC (even if that put him higher then other Apostles, whith which we disagree), from our pov, is not valid when directed to us for the Patriarchy of Antioch is also founded by St. Peter. Furthermore, Paul became Christian and was baptized there.


Hope this clears Orthodox perspective a bit, because it seams to me that when an EO person and RC person try to discuss this matter - they are talking past eachother...


nestoj
God helps

[xristos.anesti]

Oh, did you ask 4 times?



that is the number of Apostolic Sees in the Orthodox Church.

That is why you have to ask four times whilst we have to ask you only once.

Many years.

[eoe]

Imagine a house with 5 brothers. The oldest brother gets the biggest piece of fried chicken at dinner but when it comes time to go see a movie they all get one vote as to which one to see.



Imagine that the 5 brothers all decide to see Shrek 3. As they get to the theater the eldest decides that he wants to see something else. The decision has already been made to see Shrek 3 though and the other 4 see no reason to change that at all. The eldest then goes off on his own and watches what he changed his mind to.

Now imagine that you see the 4 younger brothers sitting at a table together and off in the distance you see the eldest, alone. Who left who?

Of the 4 is there now an eldest? Of course there is - kids come out one at a time even if they are twins! With the eldest brother off doing his own thing - someone still gets to eat the biggest piece of chicken. It simply falls to the next in line.



Simple.

[WarriorAngel]

That is exactly where we confront… Roman Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople receive their authority as first among equals because of their seats in capitals of the empire (which would say they received authority trough authority of their cities, in modern days there is even less reason for this) – not because of their Apostolic succession from this Apostle or that. If that was the case, Orthodox Christians would have Ecumenical Patriarchy in Antioch (also found by St. Peter) or (by my opinion most rightful claim) in Jerusalem (founded by St. James and in the sacred city of God).


Peter as the keys holder claim of RCC (even if that put him higher then other Apostles, whith which we disagree), from our pov, is not valid when directed to us for the Patriarchy of Antioch is also founded by St. Peter. Furthermore, Paul became Christian and was baptized there.


Hope this clears Orthodox perspective a bit, because it seams to me that when an EO person and RC person try to discuss this matter - they are talking past eachother...


nestoj
God helps

So mow I see where the issue of misunderstanding derives from...
First point, Antioch did not succeed Peter because of the city...
St Ignatius was already the Bishop there while Peter [still alive] left him there to care for the sheep.

Second, it was the men who succeeded Peter [after his death] who held the keys, not the cities.
This was specifically mentioned by the ECF's.
Furthermore; adding that St Clement l was reportedly a successor of Peter who himself was previously ordained by Peter.

Obviously a remarkable issue because it was mentioned that he succeeded Peter who was ordained by Peter...and that Peter had wanted this.

It so happens that the place where Peter was crucified upside down was where they took up ~ to place a PERSON in his Seat.

The keys are not about cities but about men who are living and hold the keys. [led by the Spirit]

Unfortunately due to heavy persecution, the first three Popes [Sucessors} were persecuted immediately after resuiming the role. SO there is very little known about them.

St Clement l however; who eventually succeeded Peter after becoming an eventual Bishop...was shown to have the authority in his letter to the East.

It was him, who the Eastern Church conferred, and not to St John the Apostle. Who lived in Patmos of that time. Living much closer to the East.

Wherever the idea that cities could hold keys, is error.
Christ told Peter a living person, not the place where He stood...but Peter.



Imagine a house with 5 brothers. The oldest brother gets the biggest piece of fried chicken at dinner but when it comes time to go see a movie they all get one vote as to which one to see.



Imagine that the 5 brothers all decide to see Shrek 3. As they get to the theater the eldest decides that he wants to see something else. The decision has already been made to see Shrek 3 though and the other 4 see no reason to change that at all. The eldest then goes off on his own and watches what he changed his mind to.

Now imagine that you see the 4 younger brothers sitting at a table together and off in the distance you see the eldest, alone. Who left who?

Of the 4 is there now an eldest? Of course there is - kids come out one at a time even if they are twins! With the eldest brother off doing his own thing - someone still gets to eat the biggest piece of chicken. It simply falls to the next in line.



Simple.

I see this as a slightly flawed analogy.
One, the Holy Spirit is not going to worry about chicken and a movie. That is a very secular idea.

Second, the Apostles honored Peter in all their writings.
Mentioning Peter FIRST 99.99% of the time. In one occurrence was he mentioned second.

Third, Christ Who is God administered the keys to Peter.
Isaias 22 shows us the importance of Keys.
That symbolic gesture to Peter was important because it was Peter who would take the 'keys' to open and shut the doors for the entire Church.
AND moreover, it was in that handing the keys to Peter that would be the DOOR to Heaven.

I believe the specific mentioning of Heaven makes that profound.

AS for the post I quoted above, you should read it, how it vastly differs from the other Apostles role in binding and loosing.

The holder of the KEYS has all authority on the doctrines of Christ and lead to the Churches He was establishing ON PETER.

Peter means rock...
And upon Peter Christ BUILT His Church.

That is also significant, Because Christ based His whole Church upon PETER His Rock.

It was by no mistake that Christ gave Him the nickname Peter [Rock] and then solemnly spoke that upon that ROCK, He would build His Church.

You eliminate Peter...then what is your Church built upon?
He is the Rock.

And I believe other analogies Christ taught about building upon Rock also fits Peter.

The entire CHURCH iitself is where that Rock is.

[nestoj]

I call all my brothers and sisters to post corrections of any error you find in fallowing post. I would also be wery gratefull if you would post clearer explanations, since my knowledge of English is not sufficient for precise and clear presentation of complicated mathers...

So mow I see where the issue of misunderstanding derives from...
First point, Antioch did not succeed Peter because of the city...
St Ignatius was already the Bishop there while Peter [still alive] left him there to care for the sheep.

Second, it was the men who succeeded Peter [after his death] who held the keys, not the cities.
This was specifically mentioned by the ECF's.
Furthermore; adding that St Clement l was reportedly a successor of Peter who himself was previously ordained by Peter.

Obviously a remarkable issue because it was mentioned that he succeeded Peter who was ordained by Peter...and that Peter had wanted this.

It so happens that the place where Peter was crucified upside down was where they took up ~ to place a PERSON in his Seat.

The keys are not about cities but about men who are living and hold the keys. [led by the Spirit]

Unfortunately due to heavy persecution, the first three Popes [Sucessors} were persecuted immediately after resuiming the role. SO there is very little known about them.

St Clement l however; who eventually succeeded Peter after becoming an eventual Bishop...was shown to have the authority in his letter to the East.

It was him, who the Eastern Church conferred, and not to St John the Apostle. Who lived in Patmos of that time. Living much closer to the East.

Wherever the idea that cities could hold keys, is error.
Christ told Peter a living person, not the place where He stood...but Peter.


You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not saying that the seats (cities) are holders of Apostolic succession. I’ve mentioned that, if we ware accepting RC view on Apostolic Succesion, then we would have seat of Ecumenical Patriarchy in Antioch or Jerusalem – not in Constantinople. What I’m trying to explain, is that higher respect that Orthodox show to EP, and used to show to Rome, has nothing to do with founding any of this two sees by a certain Apostle – respect is shown because of the status of this two cities as an Imperial capitals.

Orthodox hold ALL Bishops as equals. More respect shown to one more then to the other has everything to do with their personal quality as with the responsibility they are carrying (as responsibility of being a Bishop of Imperial capital…), it has nothing to do with particular Apostle.

Let’s say, current Patriarch of Antioch is ordained by no one else then previous Patriarch of Antioch, and this one by no one else but by his predecessor – Patriarch of Antioch, and all this in the same fashion, all the way to the second bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter. This current Patriarch would hold no more valid Apostolic Succession then any other Bishop who was ordained, for example, by some Bishop without this kind of “no middle Bishop” type of Apostolic Succession. We find them all to be of the same rank and validity – thus First among equals to the Constantinople. Same applies to Rome.

Furthermore, I was explained that we find that all authority of Bishops, and entire Apostolic Succession, flows from Christ since it was given to us by the God. Thus, having its root in the God, every Apostolic Succession, has the same power and validity, without difference if it comes from one Apostle or another unless it was cut by some Bishops self exclusion – heretical and anti-Christian teachings, behavior or support to the same (don’t literally quote me on this unless someone else confirms it).

Peter and the keys claim of Rome, could bare exclusive weight in Rome's favor (even if we all forget entire stance of Orthodoxy on Apostolic Succession and only accept Roman Catholic view ) only if Peter didn't ordained any other Bishops except those that are in RCC.

BTW. I wander, could all Popes show that they have this, exclusive "directly-ordained-to-directly-ordained" kind of link all the way to the St.Peter. Not saying that it matters to us, but if you want to represent this kind of, one Bishop is over the other because it has link to this Apostle or that, view this would be absolutelly necessary minimum for having some ground.

Someone, on this subforum, said already that we have different view of Apostolic Succession - I hope my explanation is reasonably clear and without to many errors... :)

nestoj
God helps

[Albion]

Second, it was the men who succeeded Peter [after his death] who held the keys, not the cities.
This was specifically mentioned by the ECF's.

That appears not to be what Nestoj was saying, so we can retire it.

St Clement l however; who eventually succeeded Peter after becoming an eventual Bishop...was shown to have the authority in his letter to the East.

No, not shown to have the authority. He merely offered his POV. The rest is something guessed at the reader. Clement at no point in his letter suggests that he has authority over those to whom he was writing or any one else outside his diocese.



Second, the Apostles honored Peter in all their writings.
Mentioning Peter FIRST 99.99% of the time. In one occurrence was he mentioned second.

Yep. It is clear from the NT and the wrotings of the ECFs that Peter is the most honored, allowing also that some of them held Paul and/or James to be of equal importance.

Third, Christ Who is God administered the keys to Peter.
Isaias 22 shows us the importance of Keys.

Which is one of several ways of interpreting what the keys in Peter's case mean.

That symbolic gesture to Peter was important because it was Peter who would take the 'keys' to open and shut the doors for the entire Church.

Or open the wider world to the Gospel. This we know Peter did do on Pentecost, whereas the Papacy was not asserted by even the bishops of Rome until many years later.

AND moreover, it was in that handing the keys to Peter that would be the DOOR to Heaven.

The Gospel and the faith that comes from hearing it surely is as speficially the means to salvation as anything we could name.




You eliminate Peter...then what is your Church built upon?

Christ?

But no one's "eliminating" Peter.

[WarriorAngel]

I call all my brothers and sisters to post corrections of any error you find in fallowing post. I would also be wery gratefull if you would post clearer explanations, since my knowledge of English is not sufficient for precise and clear presentation of complicated mathers...

Ok, I didnt know you had a hard time with English..or rather if I am inconcise. :wave:
Sorry. Didnt mean to misunderstand.




You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not saying that the seats (cities) are holders of Apostolic succession. I’ve mentioned that, if ware accepting RC view on Apostolic Succesion, then we would have seat of Ecumenical Patriarchy in Antioch or Jerusalem – not in Constantinople. What I’m trying to explain, is that higher respect that Orthodox show to EP, and used to show to Rome, has nothing to do with founding any of this two sees by a certain Apostle – respect is shown because of the status of this two cities as an Imperial capitals.

I believe respect from all would be great.
I do respect the Patriarch's of the East. They are the servants to which the Apostles have been fulfilled....by filling 'their shoes' so to speak.

Orthodox hold ALL Bishops as equals. More respect shown to one more then to the other has everything to do with their personal quality as with the responsibility they are carrying (as responsibility of being a Bishop of Imperial capital…), it has nothing to do with particular Apostle.

WE should all emulate the Apostles.
The Patriarchs have a duty to emulate the Aposltes.
And I assert that Peter was most respected by due honor given to him in matters and in how they wrote his name first.
Historically, that is a sign of great respect.

The others all mentioned Peter first, even if they themselves were writing about things they were involved in.
Peter was always mentioned directly after Christ.
When they wrote the Gospels, it was after Peter was their leader.



Let’s say, current Patriarch of Antioch is ordained by no one else then previous Patriarch of Antioch, and this one by no one else but by his predecessor – Patriarch of Antioch, and all this in the same fashion, all the way to the second bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter. This current Patriarch would hold no more valid Apostolic Succession then any other Bishop who was ordained, for example, by some Bishop without this kind of “no middle Bishop” type of Apostolic Succession. We find them all to be of the same rank and validity – thus First among equals to the Constantinople. Same applies to Rome.

How does Constantinople have the same rank as Peter?

Furthermore, I was explained that we find that all authority of Bishops, and entire Apostolic Succession, flows from Christ since it was given to us by the God. Thus, having its root in the God, every Apostolic Succession, has the same power and validity, without difference if it comes from one Apostle or another unless it was cut by some Bishops self exclusion – heretical and anti-Christian teachings, behavior or support to the same (don’t literally quote me on this unless someone else confirms it).

Sorry, I had to quote you. ;)
Its part of replying.

Seriously, this happens. It was Rome [chair of Peter] who excommunicated heretics.
You will find that exclusively throughout Tradition. [history]

No other Bishop [Patriarch] had that authority.

Peter and the keys claim of Rome, could bare exclusive weight in Rome's favor (even if we all forget entire stance of Orthodoxy on Apostolic Succession and only accept Roman Catholic view ) if Peter didn't ordained any other Bishops except those that are in RCC.

I do not believe Peter was exclusively ordaining in Rome. Nor exclusively ordaining for Rome.
He ordained many men...
Ordinations do not substantiate succession.

Bishops today ordain thousands of men per year, but not all will be claiming succession. Succession, pardon me if I am incorrect, was always done by the HIGH Bishops of the Church.

It was not who ordained them, but who was choosen by some sort of vote, or method who would directly and specifically replace the former Chair of an Apostle.



BTW. I wander, could all Popes show that they have this, exclusive "directly-ordained-to-directly-ordained" kind of link all the way to the St.Peter. Not saying that it matters to us, but if you want to represent this kind of, one Bishop is over the other because it has link to this Apostle or that, view this would be absolutelly necessary minimum for having some ground.
Our intial information on the succession were reported by Ireneaus.
He made a writing to that effect telling who replaced Peter.

Afterwards, it was still written and reported.
SO yes, we have that information.
And we also have the anti popes who tried to 'take' the position, but were removed.

Someone, on this subforum, said already that we have different view of Apostolic Succession - I hope my explanation is reasonably clear and without to many errors... :)

nestoj
God helps

It only became different [on how they came to the position] after 1054 AD.

[Rowan]

WarriorAngel -

In my limited understanding as a catechumen, I do not see in Orthodoxy any need to "eliminate Peter". There has been recognition as St. Peter as "the eldest brother", and the pre-schism history of the Church tells us this. As it's been a good quote around various parts of CF, it is not Papal Primacy that is the problem, but Papal Supremacy.

Anyway, my two cents. Thanks for the discussion guys. Learnin' lots :)

[nestoj]

Ok,
How does Constantinople have the same rank as Peter?


I will consider this to be unintentional error (you are comparing city to Apostle - I've never done that).

We seam to have language barier, or we are still talking past eachother as usual ;) .

Not Constantinople same rank as Peter - Bishop of Constantinople same rank as Bishop of Rome. Actualy, Bishop of Vranje (small city in Serbia) same in rank as Bishop of Rome, same in rank as Bishop of Constantinople, same in Rank as Bishop of Moscow....

How - all Bishops receive authority and Apostolic Succession from the same source - God. Bishop is a Bishop, if he has greater diocese he will have greater responsibility and will receive better place to sit when more of them are gathered, and others will, probably but not necessarily, pay close attention to what he has to say. When he calls a meating, all that can will probably respond. Orthodoxy works this way from the beginning of The Church and under much hevier conditions then the RCC - and we are still all of one, unchanged, faith. We call them Patriarch's, Pope's, Archbishops...itd. to show respect for responibility they are carying - but they are in essence all the same - Bishop's.

If my explanation is not clear enough, then please forgive me, but I can't do it better. Some of my brothers and sisters will probably do it better.

nestoj
God helps

[Simon_Templar]

This question may seem impertinant, but it is a genuine question that I have and come back to frequently on issues like this.

First, I'm not convinced by the argument of Petrine Supremacy among the apostles and the keys of the kingdom argument, otherwise I'd be a Roman Catholic. However, this argument, were it to be accepted, makes sense as to why the Pope's position would continue to be important etc.

The argument based on the imperial importance of the city, to me, seems to make little sense since both Rome and Constantinople are now essentially historical footnotes of little international importance.

That gets to the larger question. Why do things like the importance of a city, which has no bearing whatsoever on theology, doctrine etc, become enshrined in Tradition. I understand the importance and place of tradition in terms of doctrine and theology etc.

However, things like the importance of cities changed so why do we stick with a city that was the capitol of an empire a thousand years ago?

A somewhat lesser aspect of the question would be in regard to the development of liturgy. We know historically that liturgy developed in both the east and the west over a thousand years or more. Yet now it has become so enshrined in its given form that its nearly impossible to change. Why is this the case when we know in the past there were different accepted forms, and that change occured etc.

[EmperorConstantine]

Second, it was the men who succeeded Peter [after his death] who held the keys, not the cities.
Question!

Since the bishops after St. Peter hold the keys, why then were the keys not handed to St. Evodius who succeeded Peter in Antioch? Why Rome?

There must be some other reason of Rome than just because of St. Peter.

[nestoj]

The argument based on the imperial importance of the city, to me, seems to make little sense since both Rome and Constantinople are now essentially historical footnotes of little international importance.


Exactly. I don't see purpose to. There was no other reason for primacy, and when importance of cities ceased to exist, new explanations had to be invented.

EP primacy is one of honour only and you may look upon it as a respect for endured hardships. However, Papal primacy in RCC is not one of honour only - it is actual supreme power in RCC. In modern days, reasons for higher honor position of Roman Bishop are the same as that of EP. If RCC would accept this higher position of honour, then we would have no more problems...:)

nestoj
God helps

[WarriorAngel]

Question!

Since the bishops after St. Peter hold the keys, why then were the keys not handed to St. Evodius who succeeded Peter in Antioch? Why Rome?

There must be some other reason of Rome than just because of St. Peter.

Because Linus was choosen immediately and he resided in Rome after Peter died.
Thus anyone choosen resided where Peter died and did his last 5 years of sitting as Bishop....
The Chair of Peter was literal and symbolic.
DID you know they actually made a Chair in Rome?
Just some trivia for you all.

But the men were choosen to take Peter's place....and the Chair resides over his tomb.

Those in Antioch were not choosen to take his Chair.

That is the difference. :wave: Does that help at all?

[WarriorAngel]

Exactly. I don't see purpose to. There was no other reason for primacy, and when importance of cities ceased to exist, new explanations had to be invented.

EP primacy is one of honour only and you may look upon it as a respect for endured hardships. However, Papal primacy in RCC is not one of honour only - it is actual supreme power in RCC. In modern days, reasons for higher honor position of Roman Bishop are the same as that of EP. If RCC would accept this higher position of honour, then we would have no more problems...:)

nestoj
God helps

The Pope and JPll fully desired a reunification, and neither one rules it over anyone...
They know they are to serve the Church and help keep her on track.

They may be leaders, but they are/were humble leaders...

Which is the way they should be.
The Pope understands the importance of their role, and it probably frightens them.

Those who are given more will be judged harder.

If the other Patriarchs were less afraid of following and ready to be 'last' to which they will be first...it would work.

I know the Pope views his Chair as one who must be 'last' and treat others first.
However; he must maintain the rule of shepherd and feed the sheep....filling Peter's shoes.
Even Patriarchs and Bishops are sheep.

Very hard responsibility....
No one ever in history toke lightly.

I think the perception of LEADER frightens ppl.
[Although he isnt a dictator some suppose, Only on keeping Tradition]
Just a cautious man who must take on responsibility to ensure Tradition is maintained at all costs.

Obedience is a tough pill to swallow.
Catholics must conceed to this all the time.

But where else can there be the keys?
So humility and obedience is what we do to submit...because we have faith that the Holy Spirit will always help steer the ship.

Thus we completely trust.

[Albion]

Because Linus was choosen immediately and he resided in Rome after Peter died.
Thus anyone choosen resided where Peter died and did his last 5 years of sitting as Bishop....


By what kind of logic can it be said that Apostolic Succession or Papal Supremacy is based on where a bishop DIES? None that I can see. Of course, we already know that nothing Jesus said to Peter or to anyone else made reference to his church and the city of Rome.


The Chair of Peter was literal and symbolic.
DID you know they actually made a Chair in Rome?


So building a chair is what makes for Papal Supremacy? I can hardly accept that as meaningful except that the next bishop in Rome might occupy that chair. Every bishop of every diocese has a chair these days, as you know.

[WarriorAngel]

I will consider this to be unintentional error (you are comparing city to Apostle - I've never done that).

We seam to have language barier, or we are still talking past eachother as usual ;) .

Not Constantinople same rank as Peter - Bishop of Constantinople same rank as Bishop of Rome. Actualy, Bishop of Vranje (small city in Serbia) same in rank as Bishop of Rome, same in rank as Bishop of Constantinople, same in Rank as Bishop of Moscow....

How - all Bishops receive authority and Apostolic Succession from the same source - God. Bishop is a Bishop, if he has greater diocese he will have greater responsibility and will receive better place to sit when more of them are gathered, and others will, probably but not necessarily, pay close attention to what he has to say. When he calls a meating, all that can will probably respond. Orthodoxy works this way from the beginning of The Church and under much hevier conditions then the RCC - and we are still all of one, unchanged, faith. We call them Patriarch's, Pope's, Archbishops...itd. to show respect for responibility they are carying - but they are in essence all the same - Bishop's.

If my explanation is not clear enough, then please forgive me, but I can't do it better. Some of my brothers and sisters will probably do it better.

nestoj
God helps

I agree all Bishops receive authority over their dioceses, but without someone to glue them together, one leader, it might splinter off to several Bishops disagreeing with one another and then there is no one to stand up and say....'Look, this is how it is.'

Christ knew that He would leave one in charge. TO overlook the others.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there you shall see him, as he told you.


Question!

Since the bishops after St. Peter hold the keys, why then were the keys not handed to St. Evodius who succeeded Peter in Antioch? Why Rome?

There must be some other reason of Rome than just because of St. Peter.

Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bid Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

[WarriorAngel]

By what kind of logic can it be said that Apostolic Succession or Papal Supremacy is based on where a bishop DIES? None that I can see. Of course, we already know that nothing Jesus said to Peter or to anyone else made reference to his church and the city of Rome.

By the writings of the ECF's we know this.
As i showed a few times now.




So building a chair is what makes for Papal Supremacy? I can hardly accept that as meaningful except that the next bishop in Rome might occupy that chair. Every bishop of every diocese has a chair these days, as you know.

No, I said it was an interesting trivia...how it was symbolic.

I go by Tradition and the wiritngs of the ECF's who continuously wrote about Rome and the Chair of Peter.

[Albion]

Please consider two points:

1. We don't deny that there is a line of bishops in Rome. The question is whether they are over any other bishops. The quotes from Tertullian and others don't address this point at all.

2. We don't deny that Peter was a leader among the Apostles. That isn't at question either. But the verses you cited do not at all put him in charge of the other Apostles.

[Albion]

[/font]

By the writings of the ECF's we know this.
As i showed a few times now.


But none of the ECF said that Peter's successors were over the other bishops of the world because he had a chair in Rome. Some of them consider Peter the leader of the Apostles, but others say Paul or John.



No, I said it was an interesting trivia...how it was symbolic.

I go by Tradition and the wiritngs of the ECF's who continuously wrote about Rome and the Chair of Peter.

OK, so here's the bottom line to our asking. You believe in Papal Supremacy for the reason that some early Christian writers say he had a chair in Rome.

If that's your answer, I can let it stand with that, and "thank you."

[WarriorAngel]

Please consider two points:

1. We don't deny that there is a line of bishops in Rome. The question is whether they are over any other bishops. The quotes from Tertullian and others don't address this point at all.

2. We don't deny that Peter was a leader among the Apostles. That isn't at question either. But the verses you cited do not at all put him in charge of the other Apostles.

If you do not deny Peter's role and His Episcopate, then consider his Chair [Seat] to which he passed on.
IE, the keys are with the chair. The whole enchilada.

Why would the ECF's make a significant recant to the Chair of Peter if it was no longer going to maintain the same authority as Peter?
See what I mean?

Jesus spoke of the Chair of Moses...did He not?
Jesus knew the Chair held the appointed office of continuing the role of Moses, hence He stated that they listen to those on that Chair....and obey.

Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).

The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).

Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).

Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).

[Albion]

If you do not deny Peter's role and His Episcopate, then consider his Chair [Seat] to which he passed on.
IE, the keys are with the chair. The whole enchilada.

I'm sure you believe that. I don't see any connection logically or scripturally.


Why would the ECF's make a significant recant to the Chair of Peter if it was no longer going to maintain the same authority as Peter?
See what I mean?

Jesus spoke of the Chair of Moses...did He not?
Jesus knew the Chair held the appointed office of continuing the role of Moses, hence He stated that they listen to those on that Chair....and obey.

That's one theory, all right. I find it all to be speculation. For one thing, Jesus did not speak of any chairs with regard to Peter. And again, every bishop has a chair. And as for the ECFs who did consider Peter the most prestigeous of the Apostles, that doesn't make him a pope, just the most important of the Apostles. Then there are the ECFs who said that he didn't even have that role.

[nestoj]

The Pope and JPll fully desired a reunification, and neither one rules it over anyone...
They know they are to serve the Church and help keep her on track.

They may be leaders, but they are/were humble leaders...

Which is the way they should be.
The Pope understands the importance of their role, and it probably frightens them.

Those who are given more will be judged harder.

If the other Patriarchs were less afraid of following and ready to be 'last' to which they will be first...it would work.

I know the Pope views his Chair as one who must be 'last' and treat others first.
However; he must maintain the rule of shepherd and feed the sheep....filling Peter's shoes.
Even Patriarchs and Bishops are sheep.

Very hard responsibility....
No one ever in history toke lightly.

I think the perception of LEADER frightens ppl.
[Although he isnt a dictator some suppose, Only on keeping Tradition]
Just a cautious man who must take on responsibility to ensure Tradition is maintained at all costs.

Obedience is a tough pill to swallow.
Catholics must conceed to this all the time.

But where else can there be the keys?
So humility and obedience is what we do to submit...because we have faith that the Holy Spirit will always help steer the ship.

Thus we completely trust.



I understand your view on a role of Pope.

Trust me, this is not what some of us can accept without great reserve (or our history and view are distorted). It has something to do with a RC Bishop, declared Blessed (I think that's a word) by Vatican recently, who signed some papers whith sentences like this one I'm paraphrasing “One third should be converted to Catholicism, one third must be exiled, and the rest of them should be killed”. It ended with 1500000 dead.


I've taken this to far already, and here I'll stop.


nestoj
God helps

[Sothron]

Please consider two points:

1. We don't deny that there is a line of bishops in Rome. The question is whether they are over any other bishops. The quotes from Tertullian and others don't address this point at all.

2. We don't deny that Peter was a leader among the Apostles. That isn't at question either. But the verses you cited do not at all put him in charge of the other Apostles.

I still have not seen an answer that logically speaks to these two questions. No one denies that Linus on down had AS from Peter. What we are asking is why the other sees that Peter established *and also passed on to bishops* do not get the same consideration.

Logicially speaking if you are arguing a person carried with them some kind of special authority and that one location gets to keep that authority from AS then every single location that person started and passed on with AS should get that authority.

I also agree that there is no support where Peter is directly named the leader of the Apostles and ergo the vicar on Earth. What we see from the earliest writings was the power of the councils and synods working together under the Spirit to establish dogma and Tradition.

[WarriorAngel]

I understand your view on a role of Pope.

Trust me, this is not what some of us can accept without great reserve (or our history and view are distorted). It has something to do with a RC Bishop, declared Blessed (I think that's a word) by Vatican recently, who signed some papers whith sentences like this one I'm paraphrasing “One third should be converted to Catholicism, one third must be exiled, and the rest of them should be killed”. It ended with 1500000 dead.


I've taken this to far already, and here I'll stop.


nestoj
God helps


Seems to me the Pope is quoting a prophecy to the last days...

If the Pope is correct in this prophecy, isn't that scary?
Regardless, I think he was referring to Protestants, Jews and athiests converting. 1/3 of each group.

I wont really speculate on which prophecy the Pope is relying... but he is not stating that this is something the Church is going to do.

I still have not seen an answer that logically speaks to these two questions. No one denies that Linus on down had AS from Peter. What we are asking is why the other sees that Peter established *and also passed on to bishops* do not get the same consideration.

Logicially speaking if you are arguing a person carried with them some kind of special authority and that one location gets to keep that authority from AS then every single location that person started and passed on with AS should get that authority.

I also agree that there is no support where Peter is directly named the leader of the Apostles and ergo the vicar on Earth. What we see from the earliest writings was the power of the councils and synods working together under the Spirit to establish dogma and Tradition.

That same argument is often found in protestantism.
Not enjoining the ECF's writings explaining what happened AFTER Peter died.

By your own argument then, your Bishops has no authority over their own areas.
That would also cancel out the Apostolic succession of all Bishops...would it not?
Since it does not mention James, Matthew or any of the others being given Apostolic Succession nor importance.

.ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON (c. 180-199 AD)

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or "preeminent authority"] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION." [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)

[Albion]

I still have not seen an answer that logically speaks to these two questions. No one denies that Linus on down had AS from Peter. What we are asking is why the other sees that Peter established *and also passed on to bishops* do not get the same consideration.

Yes. But we needn't confine it to other churches established by Peter, even though that is a most obvious point to raise when it comes to claims made for the city of Rome.

We also don't have any reason to think that all the successors of the Apostles are not equal, not even if Peter were the chairman of the Twelve while he and they were alive. We know that the Apostles passed on on their commission to preach, ordain, etc, but we have no evidence from scripture or Tradition that any claims of universal leadership were passed on from Peter.

[nestoj]

Yes. But we needn't confine it to other churches established by Peter, even though that is a most obvious point to raise when it comes to claims made for the city of Rome.

We also don't have any reason to think that all the successors of the Apostles are not equal, not even if Peter were the chairman of the Twelve while he and they were alive. We know that the Apostles passed on on their commission to preach, ordain, etc, but we have no evidence from scripture or Tradition that any claims of universal leadership were passed on from Peter.
My position too.
I'm saying this all the time, just maybe not so concise.

nestoj
God helps

[Sothron]

Yes. But we needn't confine it to other churches established by Peter, even though that is a most obvious point to raise when it comes to claims made for the city of Rome.

We also don't have any reason to think that all the successors of the Apostles are not equal, not even if Peter were the chairman of the Twelve while he and they were alive. We know that the Apostles passed on on their commission to preach, ordain, etc, but we have no evidence from scripture or Tradition that any claims of universal leadership were passed on from Peter.

I quite agree with you. However since the RCC will still insist on Peter's "keys" authority I am focusing simply on him and that claim for now. We know Peter established other churches and left bishops behind him in those places. Why is only Rome given primacy? There is no logical reason to suggest that just because he happened to die in one spot it gets to "inherit" sole rights to this authority.

What I am saying is that even if you accept the RCC argument of primacy it falls apart when you consider all of the other places Peter set up and left AS with.

[Albion]

I quite agree with you. However since the RCC will still insist on Peter's "keys" authority I am focusing simply on him and that claim for now. We know Peter established other churches and left bishops behind him in those places. Why is only Rome given primacy? There is no logical reason to suggest that just because he happened to die in one spot it gets to "inherit" sole rights to this authority.

What I am saying is that even if you accept the RCC argument of primacy it falls apart when you consider all of the other places Peter set up and left AS with.

I understand. It's a deliberately specific issue you are working on. Perhaps that is for the best, since all threads tend to wander.

[WarriorAngel]

Yes. But we needn't confine it to other churches established by Peter, even though that is a most obvious point to raise when it comes to claims made for the city of Rome.

We also don't have any reason to think that all the successors of the Apostles are not equal, not even if Peter were the chairman of the Twelve while he and they were alive. We know that the Apostles passed on on their commission to preach, ordain, etc, but we have no evidence from scripture or Tradition that any claims of universal leadership were passed on from Peter.
The episcopal office of Peter holds particular responsibilities when it comes to maintaining the unity and orthodoxy of the entire Church (e.g. John 21:15-19).

Quote from Lumen Gentium:
"Just as the role that the Lord gave individually to Peter, first among the apostles, was permanent and meant to be transmitted to his successors...."
Okay. What "role" did Christ give "individually" to Peter? Well, in Matthew 16:17-19, Christ individually imparts to Peter the office of "Rock," "Key-bearer," and the authority to "bind and loosen." Also, in Luke 22:31-32, the Lord individually imparts to Peter the task of strengthening his brethren (i.e. the other Apostles). Also, in John 21:15-19, the Lord makes Peter a shepherd, telling him three times to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep."
And so, here's a simple question: Are any of these things exclusive to the full measure of Peter's Apostolic office?

Cyprian;
"....Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

I am not stating this, but just quoting the early Church.

To show unity is not only desired, but should be prayed for. I see the divisions only as man's holding...but not God's.

[WarriorAngel]

I quite agree with you. However since the RCC will still insist on Peter's "keys" authority I am focusing simply on him and that claim for now. We know Peter established other churches and left bishops behind him in those places. Why is only Rome given primacy? There is no logical reason to suggest that just because he happened to die in one spot it gets to "inherit" sole rights to this authority.

What I am saying is that even if you accept the RCC argument of primacy it falls apart when you consider all of the other places Peter set up and left AS with.I understand. It's a deliberately specific issue you are working on. Perhaps that is for the best, since all threads tend to wander.

AS I showed a few times....
The successors have been shown to succeed in ROME.
And the ECF's write that it is ROME who has the Chair of Peter.

Why does that cause contention?

History shows us, and we know it is accurate because it would not be until this moment anyone would question it considering the hundreds of writings by the Church in every generation that it is in Rome Peter's Episcopate resides.

IF he died and his successors followed him in Ishtanbul, then Ishtanbul would be his Chair...but it didnt work out like that.

Its just where the successors resided after his death.

Perhaps his death and burial meant that much to them that that is where they planted their feet.
I dont know the WHY'S...just that it is so.

[Albion]

The episcopal office of Peter holds particular responsibilities when it comes to maintaining the unity and orthodoxy of the entire Church (e.g. John 21:15-19).

...and that would be the RCC interpretation. I think that it is unnecessary at this stage to state for the record what any particular communion holds to on this matter, as we all already know.


Okay. What "role" did Christ give "individually" to Peter? Well, in Matthew 16:17-19, Christ individually imparts to Peter the office of "Rock,"

Whoa. That is hardly a common interpretation of those verses. Rock can have at least three different meanings here, and even the one that identifies Peter with the Rock is usually thought to be a pun, not a coronation.

And so, here's a simple question: Are any of these things exclusive to the full measure of Peter's Apostolic office?

Cyprian;
"....Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

I am not stating this, but just quoting the early Church.

Well, if you were actually quoting the early Church, maybe. With Cyprian you have selected one quote, whereas he also wrote just the opposite view in another. And Cyprian is not "the early church." He is one voice among many. Not only that, but he writes considerably after the time of Christ and Peter when the claims of the bishop of Rome were already being made. But that has nothing to do with our basic discussion of what Jesus intended or the first Christians believed. You can't use a few spokesmen and ideas that are not Apostolic in age to establish a doctrine from "Tradition."

I see the divisions only as man's holding...but not God's.

Me too. That's one reason I was interested to have read you saying in an earlier post that you believe in Papal Supremacy because of the testimony of the ECFathers, and not on the Bible.

[Sothron]

AS I showed a few times....
The successors have been shown to succeed in ROME.
And the ECF's write that it is ROME who has the Chair of Peter.

Why does that cause contention?

History shows us, and we know it is accurate because it would not be until this moment anyone would question it considering the hundreds of writings by the Church in every generation that it is in Rome Peter's Episcopate resides.

IF he died and his successors followed him in Ishtanbul, then Ishtanbul would be his Chair...but it didnt work out like that.

Its just where the successors resided after his death.

Perhaps his death and burial meant that much to them that that is where they planted their feet.
I dont know the WHY'S...just that it is so.

TBH, you do not know the "why" because there is no reason for it outside the fact Rome was more important as a city back then than Antioch was. Peter left bishops behind him in several cities and we know for a fact the Patriarch of Antioch can trace their AS back to Peter. If Peter had the "keys" while he was in Antioch and he left Antioch then the preceding bishop would inherit the "keys" from Peter.

Could you ask your priest this question? Quoting Latin West histories to show something is not a convincing counterargument as to *why* only Rome's bishops got to inherit this authority and all of the other bishops who followed behind Peter did not.

[Sothron]

Oh and we still call it Constantinople btw. ;)

[Dorothea]

I agree all Bishops receive authority over their dioceses, but without someone to glue them together, one leader, it might splinter off to several Bishops disagreeing with one another and then there is no one to stand up and say....'Look, this is how it is.'

Christ knew that He would leave one in charge. TO overlook the others.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there you shall see him, as he told you.




Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bid Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

You don't think all bishops can be accountable to each other and equal in overseeing their jurisdictions without needing one head overseer?

You sure talk about Peter a lot. I know I don't know half the history you seem to know, but I do know that in my faith St. Peter is honored, but he is one of the Apostles. Does the Catholic Church not recognize or honor any of the other Apostles to the degree they do St. Peter?

[Dorothea]

Please consider two points:

1. We don't deny that there is a line of bishops in Rome. The question is whether they are over any other bishops. The quotes from Tertullian and others don't address this point at all.

2. We don't deny that Peter was a leader among the Apostles. That isn't at question either. But the verses you cited do not at all put him in charge of the other Apostles.
The bolded and red statements are nearly the exact same thing my priest said to me today when I asked him about St. Peter and his importance.