Peter the Rock and his keys

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

I have a serious question of all of you. There is scripture in the NT where Jesus gave Peter the keys and calls him the Rock. If Peter is the head of the church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church, then how does the church prevail without Peter's chair? :confused:
This is very bothersome to me.

[Nichole]

Hummmm.....................what is Peter's chair?

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

Hummmm.....................what is Peter's chair?
The chair of the Bishop of Rome

[Vasileios]

According to most Fathers, the Rock is Peter's profession of faith, that Christ is the Messiah.

[Philothei]

You can also go here :

to find out information....

http://christianforums.com/t76096-the-keys.html


and this article:

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html


Hope the second link works ... I think I messed it up somehow.... not good with comp....

God bless,
Philothei

[Sacrum Silentium]

We believe that the strong faith which St. Peter showed is the rock on which the Church is built, not St. Peter himself. Saintly and righteous before God as he is, there is still no 'Vicar' of Christ.

Christ is baptized!

[Rowan]

FYI, Peter is venerated as the elder brother of the Apostles in Orthodoxy, but even he made lapses in judgment about how the church should be run, i.e. that dispute over circumcision between Sts. Peter & Paul. Luckily, they reconciled :)

None of the historical patriarchates had a spotless record (still don't), but Christ has kept His promise (and how could He ever not?).

The Head of the Church is Christ Himself. The Church prevails through the power of the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God the Father.

Holy Apostle Peter prays for our souls.

[Philothei]

All saints pray for our souls.....There is no greater than Chsit himself. Christ talked about all Apostles.... Also the Rock ... is Christ himself.... He is our Rock as no human can replace Christ... in this world or the other.... Christ is the Highest Vicar of God :) He does not have "representatives" as He does not need to have any. He reins over His Church.

The article by Webster is very long and rich in information... I pray it will answer most of your questions. ....

Happy Epiphany to all for tomorrow :) and to our RC brothers and sisters... (I saw many, many people going to mass tonight...:))


God bless,
Philothei

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

You can also go here :

to find out information....

http://christianforums.com/t76096-the-keys.html


and this article:

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html


Hope the second link works ... I think I messed it up somehow.... not good with comp....

God bless,
Philothei

Thanks for the links. There are over 180 posts in that thread and believe it or not..i just read them ALL! And now its past my bedtime! I havent gotten to your second link yet, tomorrow if i have time!
I have many more questions that have popped into my brain and will be posting another thread for ya'll tomorrow! lol :P

[Philothei]

Have a good rest Red... I know that thread was a ...killer.... lol...

keep the questions coming ...

Have a blessed day tomorrow.

Philothei

[buzuxi02]

The chair of the Bishop of Rome
Hmm, Unusual concept. What gives you the idea that Rome is the chair of St Peter? Why do you even think there is such a thing as a chair of St Peter? And would this concept tie in with a belief in the preexistence of souls and reincarnation?

[Prawnik]

Be very careful not to read the verse exactly as it it written and not to inject our preconceptions into it.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

Hmm, Unusual concept. What gives you the idea that Rome is the chair of St Peter? Why do you even think there is such a thing as a chair of St Peter? And would this concept tie in with a belief in the preexistence of souls and reincarnation?
I didn't think it was an unusual concept. Most Catholics and Orthodox are very aware of it. It has nothing to do with re-incarnation. It has to do with the laying on of hands and Apostolic succession.:)

[Prawnik]

Interesting, as Christ did not say any of that.

[Xpycoctomos]

According to most Fathers, the Rock is Peter's profession of faith, that Christ is the Messiah.
But according to some prominent Fathers it is also St Peter himself and such a statement has never been condemned by the Church. It is also interesting to note that St Peter is referred to by the the Church as "the Foremost".

I think the question of St Peter's leadership or being the Rock is a very interesting thread, but has very little to do with the position of the Bishop of Rome within the structure of the Church. There is no need to defend or contest anything about St Peter in order to defend or contest anything regarding the priorities of the Roman Patriarchate.

[Xpycoctomos]

When I was in Romania I visited a Church in Suceava that, like most Orthodox CHurches there, had the walls covered in iconography. On one of the walls was St Peter holding the keys. No other Apostle held them.

Now, obviously all of the Apostles received them afterward, but I say this only to point out that the Church did see something special in St Peter. We cannot act as if it is not something Special that unlike all of the other disciples, St Peter received the keys from Christ separately, most likely first, and by himself (at that moment). no, that does not mean he ONLY holds the keys, but the facts mentioned above probably gives light on why very old ORTHODOX icons picture St Peter with the keys... and this is not common with the other Apostles (actually I haven't seen it at all, but that doesn't mean anything). Below is an icon of "the Foremost" of the Apostles from St Catherine's Monastery that many here have probably seen before. Notice what he holds in his hands.

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/cart09.jpg

Again, this says nothing at all about the responsibilities of the Bishop of Rome. I do think, perhaps, it says a lot about the mission that ALL bishops have inherited from the example of St Peter. The Petrine ministry is not guarded to one man any more than another. The Bishop of detroit is equally guarded with feeding Christ's sheep as is the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Hmm, Unusual concept. What gives you the idea that Rome is the chair of St Peter? Why do you even think there is such a thing as a chair of St Peter? And would this concept tie in with a belief in the preexistence of souls and reincarnation?
While I do think this is a good question, it should be noted that the title is quite ancient. I would be interesting to see the the earliest incidents of this title being attributed to Rome... I think it can easily be found as early as the 300s and even earlier, but I could be wrong.

I still think it's a separate issue. But it would be a good thing for all of us to educate ourselves on.

[Xpycoctomos]

http://www.bnr.bg/NR/rdonlyres/38F50391-D989-482F-B8FB-63309FC33AAB/0/sv_petar_pavel.jpg
Above is from a Bulgarian Orthodox Church... link: http://www.bnr.bg/RadioBulgaria/Emission_English/Theme_History_And_Religion/Material/StPetersday.htm

And below is an icon of St Peter and Spouse, St Peter again with the Keys. From this site which I haven't read at all, but seems to be Orthodox and talks about the "Rock" issue as well as the "keys". http://aggreen.net/peter/peter_spouse.jpg

Again, my argument is NOT that St Peter was the only APostle to receive the keys. It would take 2 secs for any of you, regardless of your being Orthodox, Catholic or... Mormon for that matter, to prove that idea wrong for it is clear in the Scriptures that Christ gave the keys to the other Apostles separately.

However, I show this to point out that the ORthodox CHurch unabashedly holds up Peter as the Apostle with the Keys with no fear of this meaning anything at all about Rome. There is no reason for any of us to feel the need to downplay the role or any supposed role of St Peter within the Early Church or what he represented among the Apostles or still represents today. HE should be extoled. We should humbly laud his position of the Foremost of the Apostles and look to him (I dare say) even for a supreme example of leadership among, however sinful and imperfect he was shown to be time and time again. I mean, Christ gave him the keys separately. That means something. Christ told him and him alone explicitly, "Feed My sheep"... three times! That means something. And that doesn't mean that he was the only one entrusted with that. But there is something special about him as far as leadership goes.

I feel like sometimes we downplay the role of Peter precisely because we fear that extolling him too much might give handy fodder to the Catholic concept of Rome. It does... using their logic, which, overly simplified, is Peter=Pope.

But I suggest that that is a very flawed premise and that THAT is what should be rejected by us. No Apostle equals ANY bishop. Apostles were not Bishops and most Bishops were not Apostles (I say that only becuase some were given titles like "equal to the Apostles"). They are connected.. no doubt, but BIshops are not somehow simple continuations of the Apostles. They had a distinct office and calling from the "overseers".

[Xpycoctomos]

I think I forgot to add the link where I got the icon of St Peter and his Spouse.
http://aggreen.net/peter/st_peter.html
I looked at it a little bit and I really can't tell if it is a Uniate or Orthodox website. However, there are articles from both Orthodox and, it seems, Catholics. At worst, the site is interesting.

So, I can't verify the tradition from whence the icon of St Peter and his Spouse comes from, but I have already shown two other icons of Peter with the keys and I assure you I have seen the one in the Orthodox Church in Romania. My simple point is that such an image of singling out POeter with the keys (as opposed to the other Apostles) in no way strengthens or diminishes the modern Catholic appeal.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

Thanks for all your answers everyone.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

Interesting, as Christ did not say any of that.
History makes it clear

[Akathist]

History makes it clear

No, RC history makes it clear. Our history most definately does not make it clear. I thought you had read the information here?

The "rock" is the faith of St. Peter according to our history.

BTW, St. Peter did not just start the apostolic succession in only Rome.

See of Antioch

Saint Peter the Apostle (founder) c.37 - c.53

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=10436470&postcount=3

So, as you see someone has been sitting in his seat there for nearly 1995 years.

[Sacrum Silentium]

No one is contesting St. Peter's authority, or the authority of the first among equals. Should a true unification happen, the way we see it, the Pope would resume his position as the Roman Archbishop and be consulted as the first among equals, the first consulted, head seat of the council... as +BARTHOLOMEW is to us today.

But Archbishop Bartholomew knows that although he is the first among equals, he is not infallible, and he makes no decisions that are not conciliar. Should we unite, the Pope would take his place, but that would mean he'd be stepping away from the 'Vicar of Christ' seat and into the first among equals.

But of course, Roman Catholic history has made it clear that this likely isn't going to happen, and I never see a reunification happening, sad as that may be.

[MariaRegina]

I didn't think it was an unusual concept. Most Catholics and Orthodox are very aware of it. It has nothing to do with re-incarnation. It has to do with the laying on of hands and Apostolic succession.:)

Apostolic succession - the laying on of hands from one of the Twelve Apostles to establish the Church

Apostolic succession has absolutely nothing to do with St. Peter alone. He was only one of the Twelve Apostles.

There are Bishops from around the world that do not have any apostolic succession from St. Peter's hand.

And this is because all twelve Apostles could and did ordain bishops and priests to establish the Church worldwide.

[Xpycoctomos]

No one is contesting St. Peter's authority, or the authority of the first among equals. Should a true unification happen, the way we see it, the Pope would resume his position as the Roman Archbishop and be consulted as the first among equals, the first consulted, head seat of the council... as +BARTHOLOMEW is to us today.


But again, this confuses the issue and takes for granted the RC concept of Peter=Bishop of Rome. Peter may have been first among equals... he may have even been more than that, but that has little to do with the standing of Rome within the Church.

I don't know how else to say it...the modern RCC has convinced us that in some way Peter =Pope. That is often simply assumed as fact, but it is not. Even if Peter did found the See of Rome, the Pope is the sole carrier of Peter's mission any more than anyone else.

[HisKid1973]

Look at the scriptures...Did they show one calling the shots and lording over the rest and or do you see them all being accountable to each other and deciding issues via councils..Who first brought the gospel to Rome that started the church there..

[buzuxi02]

But again, this confuses the issue and takes for granted the RC concept of Peter=Bishop of Rome. Peter may have been first among equals... he may have even been more than that, but that has little to do with the standing of Rome within the Church.

I don't know how else to say it...the modern RCC has convinced us that in some way Peter =Pope. That is often simply assumed as fact, but it is not. Even if Peter did found the See of Rome, the Pope is the sole carrier of Peter's mission any more than anyone else.
I would say thats where the problem lies. But i dont think its "us" (if you mean Orthodox) that the papacy has convinced. I believe it is the roman catholic laity which has been conditioned to believe this. For centuries the RC church has been indoctrinating the laity to believe that Peter is Rome and Rome is Peter. In fact they have been proclaiming it so much for so long , that the RC establishment itself can no longer differentiate between the geographic location of the city of Rome and its archbishop with the first century disciple. They cannot disentangle the historic person who was a fisherman and apostle of the first century with the italian city of Rome.

[All4Christ]

I didn't think it was an unusual concept. Most Catholics and Orthodox are very aware of it. It has nothing to do with re-incarnation. It has to do with the laying on of hands and Apostolic succession.:)
You know - there's a Coptic Orthodox pope too - who is also a successor of Peter - apostolic succession wise. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure that this really will help :) But it was an interesting tidbit that I recently learned.


EDIT: I mixed up two things - the see of Antioch - and the fact that there is a Coptic Orthodox pope. Sorry! I think that the Coptic Pope is actually a successor of St. Mark the Evangelist.

[Sacrum Silentium]

Yes, their Apostolic succession comes from St. Mark I believe, who evangelized Egypt. It's a real shame that we're not in communion, and I see us bridging that gap far before the Great Schism is healed.

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, their Apostolic succession comes from St. Mark I believe, who evangelized Egypt. It's a real shame that we're not in communion, and I see us bridging that gap far before the Great Schism is healed.
Not to digress, but i hope for a reunification of both Orthodox Churches.

[Sacrum Silentium]

Me too. :)

And I hope for a reunification of us all.

[buzuxi02]

You know - there's a Coptic Orthodox pope too - who is also a successor of Peter - apostolic succession wise. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure that this really will help :) But it was an interesting tidbit that I recently learned.


EDIT: I mixed up two things - the see of Antioch - and the fact that there is a Coptic Orthodox pope. Sorry! I think that the Coptic Pope is actually a successor of St. Mark the Evangelist.
Theres also an Eastern Orthodox pope of Alexandria who is the successor of St Mark as well, his name is Pope Theodoros II of Alexandria and all of Africa.

[Philothei]

You know - there's a Coptic Orthodox pope too - who is also a successor of Peter - apostolic succession wise. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure that this really will help :) But it was an interesting tidbit that I recently learned.


EDIT: I mixed up two things - the see of Antioch - and the fact that there is a Coptic Orthodox pope. Sorry! I think that the Coptic Pope is actually a successor of St. Mark the Evangelist.
The word Pope ....means Bishop... and also in this case Patriarch... since the Pope IS the Partiarch of the West.... The fact that this title is given to the Coptic Partiarch is no wonder.... (what Sacrum said)....

[Xpycoctomos]

I would say thats where the problem lies. But i dont think its "us" (if you mean Orthodox) that the papacy has convinced. I believe it is the roman catholic laity which has been conditioned to believe this. For centuries the RC church has been indoctrinating the laity to believe that Peter is Rome and Rome is Peter. In fact they have been proclaiming it so much for so long , that the RC establishment itself can no longer differentiate between the geographic location of the city of Rome and its archbishop with the first century disciple. They cannot disentangle the historic person who was a fisherman and apostle of the first century with the italian city of Rome.
I mean "us" as in the Orthodox. I agree with everything else you said, but look at this thread. For most here, the goal seems to be stating what St Peter was and wasn't IN ORDER to disprove Papal claims of authority. BUt the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if St Peter was ordered by Christ to be First among Equlas, just another apostle like all others or a benevolent dictator over the apostles. It's a separate issue from the issue of Papal authority and other Papal perrogatives... yet as Orthodox we still tend to wrongly equate Peter with the pope and this is shown in that we feel that somehow by disproving this or that about Peter we disprove this or that about the Pope. But all we do is enter into a long debate about Peter and never actually make any headway on the real issue: the Pope... or at the very least the flawed premise presented by the Catholic CHurch (but simplyaccepted by us). Right here in this thread and every single thread about Peter and the Pope we've done it.

IF some one says to me "On can know if a house is American because it is pink, so, how can you claim that your house, which is red, is American?" does it make more sense to 1) point out that pink is a derivative or try to convince the accuser that my house is somehow pink or 2) question the entire premise of his/her argument and refute the idea that a house MUST be pink to be american (regardless of the actual color of my house).

IN threads like these, we take the bate (not that it is purposely offered as bate... I do not belive that modern Catholics are purposely trying to "trick" us) and try to re-explain what pink is (ie who is Peter, what was his role, was he the rock, what did that mean, what's first among equals, was he this etc... all of which is NOT officially defined for us as Orthodox as many different views on Peter have existed and continue to exist in the Orthodox Church) instead of just cutting to the chase and refuting the absurd idea that a house must be pink to be American (ie that what we know about Peter's role can be simply applied to the Pope).

I edited and changed my wierd analogy above... it's still wierd and is not meant to be taken too deeply... so I am not sure that it is an improvement...

[Knowledge3]

The chair of the Bishop of Rome

The Bishop of Rome ~

You either harmoniously agree with

or vigorously oppose.

[Orthosdoxa]

I noticed some of the same tired arguments in OBOB that just don't hold any water. Sometimes I wonder if those who write them even believe it themselves:

they have a "pride" issue that is encouraged from within the church. The evidence of this is the fact that they will not recognize the Catholic Church sacriments as legitamite or even allow their brothers and sisters of the Catholic faith to receive sacriments in their churches... To me that would be practicing under sinful intentions and supporting a hateful agenda.We are not in communion - we will not be until they renounce their errors since 1054 - yet they see our refusal to pretend that we are by sharing sacraments as "pride" and "hate". The Eucharist is our most sacred treasure within the Church and must be treated with all care. Rome left the Church - we cannot pretend this does not matter. To do so would be to spit on the Eucharist and thus on Christ.

The Church wants all to enter Her embrace- the problem with some in the RCC is they want to pretend that they already are (oh, those silly old double anathemas in 1054 were meaningless. Goofy bishops! It didn't count!!), and the only problem is the silly old Orthodox won't accept the Pope. Yet our intense desire to protect the Church's most sacred treasures is regarded as "hate". We see their priorities as backwards.

To use an analogy, the reunion of the Churches would be a marriage, and the mystical union of the Eucharist would be the marital union. We're saying, "Let's get married, then have marital union", they're saying, "Let's pretend we're already married and have marital union." We WANT this reunion - just not under false pretenses. And as long as so many in the West continue to deny the serious issues that separate us, they will NEVER be resolved. I happen to like this current Pope despite his slamming of us, because at least he's HONEST about what separates us, rather than pretending it doesn't matter. Honesty is the first step.

Catholic, of course, means universal, for all nations, East and West, not just certain ethnic groups. That also means embracing all means of truth, Western logic and Eastern Christian mysticism.I would think people would know better than to claim Orthodoxy is just for certain ethnic groups (says this American of western European heritage who goes to church with other Americans of all mutt backgrounds, Syrians, Russians, Serbians, Greeks, and more). But okay.

I have no problem with people arguing the papacy is correct, as many posts there did. They're wrong of course, but at least they come by it honestly. But to call us hateful for being HONEST about our differences is ridiculous, as is saying that Orthodoxy is too ethnic. If that were true, it would have never left Greece to begin with. I had to respond to these two things.

I was also rather appalled by one post that made a list of what's "wrong" with us, most of which were complete lies, such as our priests put no emphasis on charity, just prayer. I have a million stories of how that's not true, but I know they won't matter to those that have their minds made up.

Bottom line - most of what is in that thread is dreck, except for the arguments about the Pope. I can truly see why that is confusing for an inquirer and I encourage you to do a lot of reading and praying. Just like Protestants prooftext with Scripture, so do people prooftext with the Fathers in situations like these. I urge you to not decide too quickly - there is much to learn about it. I struggled with it for a while during my inquiry, but after a while the answer just became obvious. I can share more about that later. Gotta put the babes in bed now.

[WarriorAngel]

Hi Orthodoxa, I wont debate but this;

Just like Protestants prooftext with Scripture, so do people prooftext with the Fathers in situations like these.

Is not what i did.
I only quoted them.
Proof texting is adding a slant to what the writing is interpretive to mean. Which needs not to be done...and was not done. [Exception being the heretic that or problem of the time which gives the author's writing a background]

They are as they stand.

If it makes you uncomfortable, then you must reread them and see why this is how you felt.

[nestoj]

I mean "us" as in the Orthodox. I agree with everything else you said, but look at this thread. For most here, the goal seems to be stating what St Peter was and wasn't IN ORDER to disprove Papal claims of authority. BUt the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if St Peter was ordered by Christ to be First among Equlas, just another apostle like all others or a benevolent dictator over the apostles. It's a separate issue from the issue of Papal authority and other Papal perrogatives... yet as Orthodox we still tend to wrongly equate Peter with the pope and this is shown in that we feel that somehow by disproving this or that about Peter we disprove this or that about the Pope. But all we do is enter into a long debate about Peter and never actually make any headway on the real issue: the Pope... or at the very least the flawed premise presented by the Catholic CHurch (but simplyaccepted by us). Right here in this thread and every single thread about Peter and the Pope we've done it.

IF some one says to me "On can know if a house is American because it is pink, so, how can you claim that your house, which is red, is American?" does it make more sense to 1) point out that pink is a derivative or try to convince the accuser that my house is somehow pink or 2) question the entire premise of his/her argument and refute the idea that a house MUST be pink to be american (regardless of the actual color of my house).

IN threads like these, we take the bate (not that it is purposely offered as bate... I do not belive that modern Catholics are purposely trying to "trick" us) and try to re-explain what pink is (ie who is Peter, what was his role, was he the rock, what did that mean, what's first among equals, was he this etc... all of which is NOT officially defined for us as Orthodox as many different views on Peter have existed and continue to exist in the Orthodox Church) instead of just cutting to the chase and refuting the absurd idea that a house must be pink to be American (ie that what we know about Peter's role can be simply applied to the Pope).

I edited and changed my wierd analogy above... it's still wierd and is not meant to be taken too deeply... so I am not sure that it is an improvement...
I must say I agree with your post, but it will be very difficult to apply this, from my pow correct, angle of looking. I mean, I already prepared a verses from Acts that speaks for the equality of Apostles when decision making was taking place, when I read your post. Almost entered in to the enchanted circle again...but it will take time for non-Orthodox to understand this position and we may be accused "for denying the Apostolic succession".

nestoj
God helps

[Orthosdoxa]

Proof-texting is appealing to an authoritative source to prove a rhetorical point, a point which may or may not stand when the source is viewed in a much larger context, in this case the entire body of writings of the ECF's, rather than a few misapplied quotes. I don't really care what you want to call it, WA.

I wish this had not been moved to the debate section. OBOB already has their own thread, much of which is filled with eye-popping lies, unfortuately, (notes tadoflamb's posts), but a place where they can address RTM as they would like. I would like the opportunity to address RTM here without interruptions as well (minus the lies, of course ;)). A number of TAW'ers have pointed out that tadoflamb's post is a complete fraud, but have not argued other than that. Are we not allowed the same - a place to defend our faith to an inquirer as we see fit, without interruptions from people who already have a place to say their piece???

[Xpycoctomos]

I must say I agree with your post, but it will be very difficult to apply this, from my pow correct, angle of looking. I mean, I already prepared a verses from Acts that speaks for the equality of Apostles when decision making was taking place, when I read your post. Almost entered in to the enchanted circle again...but it will take time for non-Orthodox to understand this position and we may be accused "for denying the Apostolic succession".

nestoj
God helps
However, with all that I have said regarding the issues surrounding Peter, it is still an interesting biblical and hisotrical topic to delve into. And although there are MANY different and valid ways to view Peter within an Orthodox context, I am not suggesting that all views are equal.

For example, it is my opinion that Peter was set as a leader over the Apostles. A leader who would listen.. a leader who was fallible, but leader none the less. Paul held such a position to an extent.. but still, to a lesser extent. I believe when Christ gave Peter the keys apart from the other Apostles and when He told him to "Feed My sheep" three times, that Christ was setting him apart from the other apostles as someone special, not just another Apostle. I believe that not only the confession but Peter himself is the rock Christ referred to. (but, again, in an attempt to keep this issue separate from the Popes, Christ was talking to St Peter, not anyone else).

However, I admit that while my view on the matthew verse is supported by other Earch Church Fathers, it is not THE Orthodox view... in fact, it is not a very popular view, at least not nowdays. And I have read some very good scholarship challenging this position. There is no ONE Orthodox view on the issue of Peter. There are several, even if some are better supported than others.

While I think many people have great reasons for not believing that St Peter is the rock being referred to, and I while I think this issue can offer for a very interesting debate to learn from, unfortunately a lot of the research and scholarship that went and still goes into this issue is not initiated by any real curiosity about St Peter, but about the disputed status of the pope as if it would shed any further light on the issue. I think that's why most of us have such strong positions on the Matthew verse because we have been unintentionally fooled into thinking it has something to do with the Pope. And it doesn't, at least, I'm not convinced yet.

I'm sorry I keep repeating myself in 7 different ways here (and in all of these threads), but... well, but nothing. I guess I jsut really want to get my point across and that perhaps one day I will say it in such a way where it connects with more people.

I'm gald that Nestoj sees my point. (and I don't mean that in a condescending way to the rest who do not... it's not about you, it's about my confuddles explanations lol).

I guess I also repeat myself because I would like to rather have a conversation about the RC premise rather than the accusation.

i mean, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the premise that peter=Pope is true in which case it then makes sense to delve into the matthew verse and other matters of Peter's supposed role to shed light on the pope's role in the Church. But I guess I personally need to be convinced of such a premise first.

Does anyone understand what I am saying? Does anyone think that might make for a useful thread?

[MariaRegina]

Read about the First Apostolic Council in Jerusalem detailed in the Acts of the Apostles.

There you will see that the council was chaired by James, not Peter. If Peter was truly the head of the Apostles, why did he not chair that important meeting?

[Xpycoctomos]

Proof-texting is appealing to an authoritative source to prove a rhetorical point, a point which may or may not stand when the source is viewed in a much larger context, in this case the entire body of writings of the ECF's, rather than a few misapplied quotes. I don't really care what you want to call it, WA.

I wish this had not been moved to the debate section. OBOB already has their own thread, much of which is filled with eye-popping lies, unfortuately, (notes tadoflamb's posts), but a place where they can address RTM as they would like. I would like the opportunity to address RTM here without interruptions as well (minus the lies, of course ;)). A number of TAW'ers have pointed out that tadoflamb's post is a complete fraud, but have not argued other than that. Are we not allowed the same - a place to defend our faith to an inquirer as we see fit, without interruptions from people who already have a place to say their piece???
For what it's worth, OBOB is traditionally (in my experience) quite lenient on visitors who challenge individual OBOBers as long as done with a respectful tone.

Maybe management has changed there, I don't know. But I do agree with you that, I have only read the first 20 posts or so and while most of it was fine there were some posts that were just lacking of any real substance to their accusations and very shallow, mischaracterizing the Orthodox Church with personal impressions (which is fine, but also very uncharitable).

I think perhaps if you stick to simply defending the OC on the completely subjective or flat-out false points brought up (about us being prideful and what it means that we don't allow for intercommunion). I don't think anything will happen to you as long as you keep it in a respectful and dispassionate tone. I mean, technically they could still delete your post anyway, but I don't think they are generally that petty (at least haven't been in the past with me).

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Read about the First Apostolic Council in Jerusalem detailed in the Acts of the Apostles.

There you will see that the council was chaired by James, not Peter. If Peter was truly the head of the Apostles, why did he not chair that important meeting?
1) I think the Catholics (as you know better than most of us) have well prepared answers for this challenge... some of which I can think of off hand.

2) But does it matter? Is/was peter the Pope? Is/was the Pope Peter's replacement?

[MariaRegina]

For what it's worth, OBOB is traditionally (in my experience) quite lenient on visitors who challenge individual OBOBers as long as done with a respectful tone.

Maybe management has changed there, I don't know. But I do agree with you that, I have only read the first 20 posts or so and while most of it was fine there were some posts that were just lacking of any real substance to their accusations and very shallow, mischaracterizing the Orthodox Church with personal impressions (which is fine, but also very uncharitable).

I think perhaps if you stick to simply defending the OC on the completely subjective or flat-out false points brought up (about us being prideful and what it means that we don't allow for intercommunion). I don't think anything will happen to you as long as you keep it in a respectful and dispassionate tone. I mean, technically they could still delete your post anyway, but I don't think they are generally that petty (at least haven't been in the past with me).

Xpy

If however, you were a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy, then you can be viewed with suspicion by the members no matter how nicely you post.

And of course, words can be twisted or read wrong since our language is ambiguous to begin with. :eek:

[MariaRegina]

1) I think the Catholics (as you know better than most of us) have well prepared answers for this challenge... some of which I can think of off hand.

2) But does it matter? Is/was peter the Pope? Is/was the Pope Peter's replacement?

Then, by all means play the devil's advocate.

Give the reasons here so that we can shoot them down.

We obviously cannot do that in the OBOB thread, now, can we?


However, for me, the key issue was not papal infallibility but papal supremacy.
I was taught one thing in my CCD instruction in grammar, high school, and even at Dominican University.
Nevertheless, when I read the documents concerning papal supremacy, I was shocked.
Then I read the documents concerning papal infallibility and the dogma crumbled right in front of me.

I studied mainly from the book The Church Teaches, which was written by the Jesuits of St. Mary's College
and recommended by my Dominican professors for extra reading outside of class. It was an eye opener.

Then I talked with some ex-seminarians who also told me that The Church Teaches raised some very
important issues that made them question the validity of Papal Powers.

When I contacted Catholic Answers in an attempt to save my Catholic faith, the gentleman with whom
they put me in contact did not walk, but ran to the Orthodox Church and was chrismated before me.
That was in the Spring of 1994.

Yes, I was then considered dangerous and Catholic Answers refused to answer any more of my letters.
However, I did dialog with Scott Butler, one of the co-authors of Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.
He was sure that he could "stabilize" my faith, but it did not work.

I remained a Catholic for one more year while corresponding with Scott Buttler,
and since I could get no suitable answers to my questions,
I then became an Orthodox catechumen in the Fall of 1995.

[Xpycoctomos]

If however, you were a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy, then you can be viewed with suspicion by the members no matter how nicely you post.

And of course, words can be twisted or read wrong since our language is ambiguous to begin with. :eek:
I didn't know Orthodsdoxa was a convert.

But, you know, I guess at worst... it's a just a forum. What can they do to you? Give you be credit? Take your children from you? Excom,municate you? At worst you get a warning or banned (which, won't happen due to just one offence... but even if... who cares?).

I guess that's why I don't ever really give a rip about the rules in the forums because... it's just a forum. I mean, I follow them to be nice and becuase I believe in following rules, but if it gets to a point where I personally feel it's better to speak my mind on something, I will do so in a respectful way and worry about whatever stupid warning I get later on... and my life still goes on.

I guess that's why I generally don't care when people break the rules here. i only care when someone says something that would bother me in real life, like hateful comments or getting too personal or whatever.

Just my POV.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

Then, by all means play the devil's advocate.

Give the reasons here so that we can shoot them down.

We obviously cannot do that in the OBOB thread, now, can we?


However, for me, the key issue was not papal infallibility but papal supremacy.
I was taught one thing in my CCD instruction in grammar, high school, and even at Dominican University.
Nevertheless, when I read the documents concerning papal supremacy, I was shocked.
Then I read the documents concerning papal infallibility and the dogma crumbled right in front of me.

I studied mainly from the book The Church Teaches, which was written by the Jesuits of St. Mary's College
and recommended by my Dominican professors for extra reading outside of class. It was an eye opener.

Then I talked with some ex-seminarians who also told me that The Church Teaches raised some very
important issues that made them question the validity of Papal Powers.

But that still is against my entire point. Shoot them down? To what end? Becuase all we are doing is talking about peter. We are making no headway (from what I can see) about the Pope. What you are saying has nothing to do with the Pope.

If you didn't notice, my point # 2) made my point #1) completely meaningless and pointless.

I can tell why I beleive Hotdogs are not really a meat, but that has nothing to do with whether Hamburgers or hotdogs taste better.

THe council in Acts can tell us a lot about peter depending on how one looks at it, but why discuss this if what we are really trying to do is talk about the Pope.

That's my entire point.

[MariaRegina]

My point is that the Catholics consider Peter to be the first Pope.

Yet, he was a traveling Apostle, and never a sitting Pope.

In fact, didn't he ordain and consecrate the first Pope in Rome to establish the Church in Rome,

And then didn't he go to Alexandria with Mark and establish the Church in Alexandria.

And James was Bishop in Jerusalem, so it was natural for him to head the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in Acts.

Then again, it was Peter who ordained the first Bishop in Antioch. Was he Pope of Antioch? No.

So, Peter was a missionary, and not a Pope.



BTW: This information was told to me by a Melkite Eastern Catholic Bishop in Communion with Rome.
It only solidified my decision to bail from the Catholic Church and enter Orthodoxy.


BTW: Catholics who want to have apostolic succession directly from the line of Peter could go to the Antiochian Orthodox. :)

[Xpycoctomos]

My point is that the Catholics consider Peter to be the first Pope.

Yet, he was a traveling Apostle, and never a sitting Pope.

In fact, didn't he ordain and consecrate the first Pope in Rome to establish the Church in Rome,

And then didn't he go to Alexandria with Mark and establish the Church in Alexandria.

So, Peter was a missionary, and not a Pope.
Ah, my sincerest apologies, very apt point.

[nestoj]

The real question should be "are Bishops Apostles" or are the Apostles somewhat different category. Personally, I believe that the God made His house completely, Apostles invited the kin and set the tables, and that Bishops are successors to their fathers (*fathers in the spiritual sense) but are not the Apostles (in a way that I'm not my father but his son). Just to add, Peter had an elder *son before the Roman son, and I still don't think he was the leader (maybe the first to defend what was given to him, but not the leader):

Acts 8:14
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

I know most will say this verse proves nothing, but still....

nestoj (*in the corner, ready to play the role of dart target)
God helps

[Xpycoctomos]

My point is that the Catholics consider Peter to be the first Pope.

Yet, he was a traveling Apostle, and never a sitting Pope.

In fact, didn't he ordain and consecrate the first Pope in Rome to establish the Church in Rome,

And then didn't he go to Alexandria with Mark and establish the Church in Alexandria.

And James was Bishop in Jerusalem, so it was natural for him to head the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in Acts.

Then again, it was Peter who ordained the first Bishop in Antioch. Was he Pope of Antioch? No.

So, Peter was a missionary, and not a Pope.



BTW: This information was told to me by a Melkite Bishop.
It only solidified my decision to bail from the Catholic Church and enter Orthodoxy.

So, Peter was a missionary, and not a Pope.


Exactly... he was an Apostle. Not a bishop. The OC sees these as two distinct offices. The RC sees the bishops as nothing more than a continuation of the Apostles. Two very different views that finally rocked the Church in 1054.

[MariaRegina]

I didn't know Orthodsdoxa was a convert.

Of course she is a convert. Wasn't she a former Baptist?


But, you know, I guess at worst... it's a just a forum. What can they do to you? Give you be credit? Take your children from you? Excommunicate you? At worst you get a warning or banned (which, won't happen due to just one offense... but even if... who cares?).

I guess that's why I don't ever really give a rip about the rules in the forums because... it's just a forum. I mean, I follow them to be nice and because I believe in following rules, but if it gets to a point where I personally feel it's better to speak my mind on something, I will do so in a respectful way and worry about whatever stupid warning I get later on... and my life still goes on.

I guess that's why I generally don't care when people break the rules here. i only care when someone says something that would bother me in real life, like hateful comments or getting too personal or whatever.

Just my POV.

XpyI agree. Nuff said.

p.s. Errors corrected.
That is the beauty of an automatic spell checker.
:)

[MariaRegina]

Exactly... he was an Apostle. Not a bishop. The OC sees these as two distinct offices. The RC sees the bishops as nothing more than a continuation of the Apostles. Two very different views that finally rocked the Church in 1054.

The Apostles were Bishops.

However, they were all missionary Bishops who traveled around and set up Bishops to continue their work.

They were too busy to be a sitting Bishop and live a life of luxury. They were too busy climbing out of towers, escaping from chains, and swimming ashore from shipwrecks, to be nicely settled in a chancery office.

Today's bishops are not missionary bishops. Perhaps that is what we need.

Oh, the OCA and the Antiochian Bishops are traveling Bishops who spend each weekend in a different parish and who travel thousands of miles each year.

[Orthosdoxa]

Xpy, your experience is not everyone else's. I was treated pretty crappily in OBOB and do not post there anymore.

I simply want to be able to answer RTM here without debate.

This is always how it happens: The Catholics say the Orthodox are mean, because we won't share communion. The Orthodox say the issues need to be tackled first - the Eucharist is too important. The Catholics say, oh, those goofy Orthodox! If only they'd accept the Pope we'd all be one big happy family! The Orthodox say, That's only the tip of the iceberg on what separates us. If we can't be honest about what separates us, how can we ever resolve it? The Catholics say, Look at these quotes about Rome! That proves the papacy! The Orthodox say, No, it proves what we've been saying all along - that Rome had primacy, but not supreme authority. There's an enormous difference. And on and on and on.

RTM -
I do not think an internet debate is going to get anyone anywhere. I simply want to present information for your prayerful consideration.

I know being a wife and mom means you have soo much extra time (hahahaha)... but if you could read anything, you should read "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine", a 5 volume set written by one of the most pre-eminent Christian historians of our time, Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-5756770-5703307?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jaroslav+pelikan&x=0&y=0). He was a Lutheran when he wrote this set. (Later he became Orthodox.) Also, you should attend several Divine Liturgies and set up an appointment to talk to the priest about this. I think this is your best bet. Otherwise, the same arguments will just keep spinning in circles around here. But Orthodoxy must truly be lived and experienced - no one can understand it through just reading.

I pray God guides your journey.

[nikolayalexandroff]

There wasn't nothing similar to modern papacy during the early centuries of the Church history. St Athanasios of Alexandria and St Gregory of Nazianze like St Basil the Great weren't ordained or nominated by any of Popes.

[MariaRegina]

...

[WarriorAngel]

Orthodoxa, if you are unable or feel unable to dispute Tad's opinion or his own experience, you can safely do so here.

Just letting you know, you could give your input still, even if you dont wish to in OBOB.

RTM will still be reading it.

God Bless...:crossrc:

[Orthosdoxa]

......

[WarriorAngel]

Um... thanks for giving me permission to post in my own forum. Greatly appreciated.
Just reminding you that your hands are not tied. :wave:
In all love and peace.

Peace be with you.

[Orthosdoxa]

.....

[MariaRegina]

To continue on topic --



Exactly... he was an Apostle. Not a bishop. The OC sees these as two distinct offices. The RC sees the bishops as nothing more than a continuation of the Apostles. Two very different views that finally rocked the Church in 1054.

Really, kindly explain. Honestly, I would like to learn more here.

I thought that the RC and the EO both see the bishops as a continuation of the Apostolic line of succession. So the Orthodox Bishops can trace their apostolic succession down to one of the 12 Apostles or several Apostles, even St. Peter, but not necessarily him.

Whereas the EO derive their lines from the 12 Apostles, the RC only derive their lines from the Pope of Rome and then down to Peter.

[Xpycoctomos]

The real question should be "are Bishops Apostles" or are the Apostles somewhat different category.


You hit the nail on the head.

[Xpycoctomos]

Of course she is a convert. Wasn't she a former Baptist?

I agree. Nuff said.

p.s. Errors corrected.
That is the beauty of an automatic spell checker.
:)
Of course? lol. Okay.

But why would OBOB care if she were a convert from a non-Catholic religion. I don't think that would play any part.

However I do see how being a convert from Catholicism could play a part in them being more critical of a poster there just like we would be here (fair or not, it's human nature).

Xpy

[MariaRegina]

Of course? lol. Okay.

But why would OBOB care if she were a convert from a non-Catholic religion. I don't think that would play any part.

However I do see how being a convert from Catholicism could play a part in them being more critical of a poster there just like we would be here (fair or not, it's human nature).

Xpy

You hit the nail on the head.

Remember Ireland and the battle between the Orange Men and the Green Leprechauns. ;) Not so cool.




Okay, back on topic once again

Is the following belief a Roman Catholic teaching -- that the 12 Apostles and St. Paul had the powers of a bishop?

The Apostles were chosen by God, and the replacement for Judas was chosen by lots
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Even St. Paul was chosen by Christ to be an Apostle
to the Gentiles when he was on his way to Damascus to murder the Christians.

However, the Apostles even voted for deacons, didn't they?

So all actions were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And even St. Paul had the laying on of hands by the Apostles as mentioned by the Acts.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

And although there are MANY different and valid ways to view Peter within an Orthodox context, I am not suggesting that all views are equal.

The thing is MANY different views can NOT all be right, only ONE can be! This is what is a little confusing about the Orthodox VIEWS, there is more than ONE view! :scratch:

For example, it is my opinion that Peter was set as a leader over the Apostles. A leader who would listen.. a leader who was fallible, but leader none the less. Paul held such a position to an extent.. but still, to a lesser extent. I believe when Christ gave Peter the keys apart from the other Apostles and when He told him to "Feed My sheep" three times, that Christ was setting him apart from the other apostles as someone special, not just another Apostle. I believe that not only the confession but Peter himself is the rock Christ referred to. (but, again, in an attempt to keep this issue separate from the Popes, Christ was talking to St Peter, not anyone else).
the question that comes to mind while reading this is..why would Christ only be talking to Peter and ONLY be giving Peter the keys and not succesors of PETER? To me it just doesn't make sense that Peter was given the keys and made the leader only till he died and then NOTHING?? Would'nt it make sense that Peter passed those keys down in order to keep a leader in the church for all time?:scratch: Leadership shouldn't die when Peter died!:eek: Doesn't every organization need a leader?

However, I admit that while my view on the matthew verse is supported by other Earch Church Fathers, it is not THE Orthodox view... in fact, it is not a very popular view, at least not nowdays. And I have read some very good scholarship challenging this position. There is no ONE Orthodox view on the issue of Peter. There are several, even if some are better supported than others.

If the Orthodox church is the one true church WHY can they not agree on stuff like this? Why is there not ONE Orthodox view on Peter and the keys and his leadership? When looking for the true church, UNITY is one thing i am looking for. By having ONE leader rather than a bunch of leaders, there is someone to give answers set in stone. I am wondering why the Orthodox church doesnt have a Catechism? These are just things popping out as me as this discussion continues. :sorry:

i mean, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the premise that peter=Pope is true in which case it then makes sense to delve into the matthew verse and other matters of Peter's supposed role to shed light on the pope's role in the Church. But I guess I personally need to be convinced of such a premise first.



In the house of David there is one leader, and the leadership is handed down. Since Matt 16:18 is referring to Isaiah 22:22 it seems only obvious that the keys of the house of David that were handed to Peter WILL have successors. If Peter is the only one with the keys and he doesnt hand them down..the church comes to and end at Peter's death. I guess i don't understand why the Orthodox can't see this. It seems so clear to me. :confused:

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

Read about the First Apostolic Council in Jerusalem detailed in the Acts of the Apostles.

There you will see that the council was chaired by James, not Peter. If Peter was truly the head of the Apostles, why did he not chair that important meeting?

i didn't know that, but will definitely look into that!:)

[Orthosdoxa]

The thing is MANY different views can NOT all be right, only ONE can be! This is what is a little confusing about the Orthodox VIEWS, there is more than ONE view! :scratch:


You're absolutely right - there IS only right view. I'm confused as to what all this talk of multiple views is, and frankly I think you are getting some very bad information here from people who try too hard to look like they're presenting all viewpoints, thus muddling THE viewpoint. Please, PLEASE talk to a priest.

The Bishop of Rome has primacy, not total authority. This has always been the view. I suppose that there are different ways of explaining this one view, but this is the ONE VIEW.

If the Orthodox church is the one true church WHY can they not agree on stuff like this? Why is there not ONE Orthodox view on Peter and the keys and his leadership? When looking for the true church, UNITY is one thing i am looking for.

There IS unity. Ask 1000 Orthodox priests the answer to this question about Peter and you will get the same answer. Unfortunately on the internet anyone can answer anything and pretend to be an expert, but few are. I have been aggrieved by some of what has been written here, and I will not say anything further than that, at least not publicly.

PLEASE talk to a priest.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

My point is that the Catholics consider Peter to be the first Pope.

Yet, he was a traveling Apostle, and never a sitting Pope.

In fact, didn't he ordain and consecrate the first Pope in Rome to establish the Church in Rome,

And then didn't he go to Alexandria with Mark and establish the Church in Alexandria.

And James was Bishop in Jerusalem, so it was natural for him to head the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in Acts.

Then again, it was Peter who ordained the first Bishop in Antioch. Was he Pope of Antioch? No.

So, Peter was a missionary, and not a Pope.



BTW: This information was told to me by a Melkite Eastern Catholic Bishop in Communion with Rome.
It only solidified my decision to bail from the Catholic Church and enter Orthodoxy.


BTW: Catholics who want to have apostolic succession directly from the line of Peter could go to the Antiochian Orthodox. :)
would you give me permission to take this post and post it over in OBOB and ask them for their reply because i would be very interested into what they have to say about Peter being a missionary, and especially about him starting the Antioch church.:)

[MariaRegina]

would you give me permission to take this post and post it over in OBOB and ask them for their reply because i would be very interested into what they have to say about Peter being a missionary, and especially about him starting the Antioch church.:)

No, please I would rather not.

I do not want to get the Melkite Bishop in trouble. but that would not probably happen anyway.

However, hard feelings could be generated if his words were to be taken out of context.

And note that I have only paraphrased him, and not used any direct quotes.

Yet, I have been truthful to represent his ideas without distorting them.

However, if you would go to the Byzantine Catholic Forum and ask the same question there, you would receive some very interesting answers.

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm

And there are Orthodox as well as Catholic priests who post regularly on that board, contrary to CF.





Mods, please note again: I am not a mod or an admin at ByzCathforum.
I am just very grateful for that wonderful peaceful site.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

Xpy, your experience is not everyone else's. I was treated pretty crappily in OBOB and do not post there anymore.

I simply want to be able to answer RTM here without debate.

This is always how it happens: The Catholics say the Orthodox are mean, because we won't share communion. The Orthodox say the issues need to be tackled first - the Eucharist is too important. The Catholics say, oh, those goofy Orthodox! If only they'd accept the Pope we'd all be one big happy family! The Orthodox say, That's only the tip of the iceberg on what separates us. If we can't be honest about what separates us, how can we ever resolve it? The Catholics say, Look at these quotes about Rome! That proves the papacy! The Orthodox say, No, it proves what we've been saying all along - that Rome had primacy, but not supreme authority. There's an enormous difference. And on and on and on.

RTM -
I do not think an internet debate is going to get anyone anywhere. I simply want to present information for your prayerful consideration.

I know being a wife and mom means you have soo much extra time (hahahaha)... but if you could read anything, you should read "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine", a 5 volume set written by one of the most pre-eminent Christian historians of our time, Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-5756770-5703307?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jaroslav+pelikan&x=0&y=0). He was a Lutheran when he wrote this set. (Later he became Orthodox.) Also, you should attend several Divine Liturgies and set up an appointment to talk to the priest about this. I think this is your best bet. Otherwise, the same arguments will just keep spinning in circles around here. But Orthodoxy must truly be lived and experienced - no one can understand it through just reading.

I pray God guides your journey.
thanks for the advice and the prayers and also for the book suggestions. I will prayerfully consider what your saying to me. thanks for all your help.:) km

[Vasileios]

Dear Cree,
I see your point and agree to a certain degree. St. Peter was undeniably special. We do not even need to look at quotes from the Fathers, this is plainly seen in the hymns on his feast day and as you already pointed out on the icons of him.

The Rock Christ pointed out was Peter's statement. That Christ is the Son of God is the foundation of our faith. When Peter made this statement he was the first of the disiples to recognise fully Christ for what He is.

The issue about Peter being the Rock itself, is indeed found among the Fathers (although substantially less than the fact that Peter's statement is the rock). But I am thinking that this shows that St. Peter is the first and primary example of what our faith should be like. In a sense then, both his statement and himself are the Rock because this statement of faith did not come out of thin air, it came from a human being, who in the presence of Christ who was clothed in humble humanity he recognised the Divinity.

For this display of faith he was undoubtedly recognised as the first among equals, first in honour, as he was the first to proclaim the core truth of our faith, that Christ is God.

There is no doubt in my mind and I think in anybody's mind in the Church, that St. Peter held the role of being the first among equals. An image of the first elder perhaps, who we go to for counsel but whose status of utmost respect was bestowed on him not only by universal recognition of all Christians in those days, but also by Christ Himself in the passage you mentioned ("feed my sheep").

But as you already pointed out this special place St. Peter held has nothing to do whatsoever with the later ideas about the Roman See, of infallibility and supreme jurisdiction. I believe we all are aware of the conciliar nature of the first Church, and also Holy Scripture is very clear about St. Peter making mistakes, conceding that St. Paul was correct in certain matters etc.

I guess I am saying that I agree with you but I also wanted to add that the interpretation that St. Peter is the Rock does not imply that the majority of the Fathers who say his statement of faith is the Rock are mutually exclusive. Both are true, but I think the most significant truth is that St. Peter confessed the Truth about Christ.

[kamikat]

Sorry,folks! I forgot to mention that this thread has been moved to St Justin Martyr's Corner by staff consensus. Feel free to go about your normal routine!

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

No, please I would rather not.

I do not want to get the Melkite Bishop in trouble. but that would not probably happen anyway.

However, hard feelings could be generated if his words were to be taken out of context.

And note that I have only paraphrased him, and not used any direct quotes.

Yet, I have been truthful to represent his ideas without distorting them.

However, if you would go to the Byzantine Catholic Forum and ask the same question there, you would receive some very interesting answers.

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm

And there are Orthodox as well as Catholic priests who post regularly on that board, contrary to CF.





Mods, please note again: I am not a mod or an admin at ByzCathforum.
I am just very grateful for that wonderful peaceful site.

ok, no problem i will not bring your post over to OBOB, but i will atleast ask them about Peter being the head of Antioch because more than one person has now brought it up.:wave:

[Vasileios]

Er, my post was in response to Cree's post where he apologises for repeating the same argument :P

Lots of other posts in between, so I am just clarifying about the point I am agreeing with.

[- DRA -]

I have a serious question of all of you. There is scripture in the NT where Jesus gave Peter the keys and calls him the Rock. If Peter is the head of the church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church, then how does the church prevail without Peter's chair? :confused:
This is very bothersome to me.

I believe the text under consideration is Matthew 16:13-20, which reads (NKJV):

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter [the Greek word "petros"], and on this rock [petra] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Here's how I understand the text ...

The context begins with Jesus' question about His identity. Peter responds with the various opinions he has heard. Jesus then wants to know Peter's opinion. Peter's conclusion is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus acknowledges that Peter has spoken correctly - and that God has revealed this to Peter, not man (i.e., flesh and blood). In verse 18, Jesus promises to build His church on the rock (the Koine Greek word "petra"). What is that rock? Either it is the fact that Peter ("petros") is Peter, or the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God - which is obviously the issue being dealt with in this context. Personally, I have to side with the idea that the rock Jesus' church would be built upon is Peter's statement about Jesus' identity. It is the essence of the gospel message - Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.

Then, comes the matter of the kingdom. Note the beginning of John's ministry ... "The kingdom of heaven is at hand [or near]" - Matthew 3:2. Jesus followed with the same message - Matthew 4:17. Jesus described the closeness of the kingdom in Mark 9:1 - it would come during the lifetime of some in His audience. Then skip forward to Colossians 1:13. The kingdom was in existence and people were being translated into it. Note also Revelation 1:9. The apostle John was in the kingdom. With these things in mind, let's briefly consider how Peter used the "keys" of the kingdom to unlock the door for folks to enter (as Jesus promised in Matthew 16:19). In Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, which apostle preached the first sermon which resulted in 3,000 Jews having their sins forgiven and were added to the Lord's church (His kingdom) - see Acts 2:22-38,41,47? It was the apostle Peter. Then, note Acts 10. Which apostle was the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles - and resulted in Cornelius and his household obeying the truth? It was the apostle Peter. Thus, Peter was given the "keys" to the kingdom - which allowed him to open the door to salvation through Christ to both the Jews and Gentiles.

In all fairness to the text in Matthew 16 (or other similar passages), I find no reference at all to Peter's chair.

I sincerely hope these thoughts might help with your study of the text in Matthew 16.

In His service, :bow:
DRA

[Xpycoctomos]

To continue on topic --



Really, kindly explain. Honestly, I would like to learn more here.

I thought that the RC and the EO both see the bishops as a continuation of the Apostolic line of succession. So the Orthodox Bishops can trace their apostolic succession down to one of the 12 Apostles or several Apostles, even St. Peter, but not necessarily him.

Whereas the EO derive their lines from the 12 Apostles, the RC only derive their lines from the Pope of Rome and then down to Peter.
In the Orthodox Church, traditionally we see the Apostles as having created bishops. Certainly in doing so they gave others many of the gifts they held has apostles (like, the keys), but they didn't pass on their personal qualities and gifts. While St John was the Apostle Christ loved most, are we to assume that He loved most St John's successors?

There were Apostles and FROM (meaning AFTER) Apostles came bishops. The bishops did NOT replace the apostles. And while in some ways they were extentions of the Apostles, they were not extentions of those individuals. The Bishopric was a separate and new office created.

It's only in the ... third century? when we first find a bishop referring to an apostle as a bishop. I believe they may have been speaking of St Peter being a bishop of Rome. It had nothing to do with infallibility or supremacy but actually something totally unrelated with this discussion. I apologize for the sketchy details. i need to get back with you on that.

Anyway, it was not until then that there was even an idea that the Apostles were some how considered first bishops.

The First bishop of Rome was Pope Linus in the earliest Church, never peter. Evodius is the first bishop of antioch. Peter was not. He was an Apostle.

It's a separate institution. There is nothing in the early Church to suggest that any of the first bishops somehow mystically inherited the personal charismas of this or that Apostle. Perhaps they inherited a certain amount of respect and honor much as Martin Luther Kings Children recieve.

St Linus was St Linus... not St Peter.

I know that is really sketchy and more than to convince you I am only posting this to let you know where I am coming from. I will hopefully remember to come back with a better and more detailed version to back up what I claim to have read before.

Xpy

[Xpycoctomos]

You hit the nail on the head.

Remember Ireland and the battle between the Orange Men and the Green Leprechauns. ;) Not so cool.




Okay, back on topic once again

Is the following belief a Roman Catholic teaching -- that the 12 Apostles and St. Paul had the powers of a bishop?

The Apostles were chosen by God, and the replacement for Judas was chosen by lots
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Even St. Paul was chosen by Christ to be an Apostle
to the Gentiles when he was on his way to Damascus to murder the Christians.

However, the Apostles even voted for deacons, didn't they?

So all actions were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

And even St. Paul had the laying on of hands by the Apostles as mentioned by the Acts.
I'm not saying that they didn't have Sacramental powers. I'm not saying they were just like any layman (I can see how it would seem I was saying that).

I've heard it said this way. The Apostles were like Proto-Bishops. They weren't bishops. They were Apostles. The bishops were a separate office created by the Apostles.

[tadoflamb]

Any information I've got on Orthodoxy I either have garnered from the Orthodox on CF or from Timothy Ware's book "The Orthodox Church".

If some how I've gotten the wrong impression, instead of calling me a liar, why don't y'all take the opportunity here to enlighten me?

Thanks,

Tad

[Philothei]

Read the following if you want to be "enlightened" ... it was posted only a dozen times.....

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html


God bless,
Philothei

[Philothei]

The Bishop of Rome has primacy, not total authority. This has always been the view. I suppose that there are different ways of explaining this one view, but this is the ONE VIEW.




ahhh allow me to disagree..... EO does not agree on the primacy of Peter neither the Primacy of the Pope.... Please find me evidence that we as EO agree on the primacy of Peter....... where? .only as a personal primacy at best..:sorry: ... Do not let it get you into the "trap" .... .Primacy of Peter is a "personal primacy..." not universal...



Read this and if you all can read the rest... also... NOWHERE in the Bible there is support for primacy of the Apostolic Successors of Rome... rather their primacy of ALL Apostolic successors.....


An examination of the writings of the fathers does reveal the expression of a consistent viewpoint, but it is not that of the Roman Catholic Church, as the documentation of the major fathers of the East and West in this article will demonstrate. This particular article is strictly historical in nature. Its purpose is to document the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18. And the evidence will demonstrate that the Protestant and Orthodox understanding of the text is rooted in this patristic consensus. From a strictly scriptural point of view, the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is divorced from its proper biblical context. The Roman Church states that Matthew 16 teaches that the Church is built upon Peter and therefore upon the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching. And in addition, the Roman Catholic interpretation imports a meaning into the Matthew 16 text that is completely absent. This text says absolutely nothing about infallibility or about successors.
The fathers of the Church did not isolate particular verses from their overall biblical context and consequently they have a biblical perspective of the foundation of the Church, not that which is Roman. The documentation of the interpretation of the fathers will also be supplemented by the comments of major Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox historians in order to provide a scholarly consensus on the true understanding of the church fathers cited. In particular we will examine the comments of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Augustine, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Epiphanius, Basil of Seleucia, Paul of Emesa and John of Damascus.

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

And there is more .... But in Ephisians it is there in black and white and convienietly ommitted for the purpose of establishing a false doctrine that has been purpetuated now for all these centuries.......:doh: :sigh:

I am no spokeman for any Bishop rather from my conversations with many of them ... my understanding is that the whole subject of the Rock and the Keys is a doctrine of the RC developed by Rome...
We cannot bypass it by saying we "have too many opinions on it" we do not.... EO dogmatics would never "tolerate" for such a "man made" fallacy...of any kind of primacy in leadership the way the papacy is practiced and percieved.

Philothei

:crosseo:

[WarriorAngel]

The Bishop of Rome has primacy, not total authority.

This is what I have read...from the Catholic Encyclopedia...

That the Pope has supreme power only over his own region....and primacy power over the whole Church..so that when an issue in the East needs rectified they will go to the Pope when they cannot work it out amongst themselves.

And basically, when heresies have cropped up, the Bishop of Rome made a statement to either excommunicate the heretic or to defend the orthodoxy of the faith. [In all regions]

So, half correct, he never acted as supreme ruler of other regions, but then again, he does have supreme rule of the Roman Rite. IE, he is my supreme Bishop...but not the whole Church's. But he does have the leadership role to help the whole Church sustain the ancient Traditions. [and in cases of necessity define them]

However the whole Church is led [or was] by the knowledge that he is always available to sort out the differences and maintain stability and moral teachings.
This is why the Eastern Catholics see that it works for them.

I know this is a debate section, but i defer from giving any cause to disrupt you good folks.
Just wanted to give the info i have found. And i think i have the correct understanding of his role from the Catholic perspective.

[Assisi]

I'm not here to debate. But WA, you might like to read CCC882.

[Philothei]

This is what I have read...from the Catholic Encyclopedia...

That the Pope has supreme power only over his own region....and primacy power over the whole Church..so that when an issue in the East needs rectified they will go to the Pope when they cannot work it out amongst themselves.

And basically, when heresies have cropped up, the Bishop of Rome made a statement to either excommunicate the heretic or to defend the orthodoxy of the faith. [In all regions]

So, half correct, he never acted as supreme ruler of other regions, but then again, he does have supreme rule of the Roman Rite. IE, he is my supreme Bishop...but not the whole Church's. But he does have the leadership role to help the whole Church sustain the ancient Traditions. [and in cases of necessity define them]

However the whole Church is led [or was] by the knowledge that he is always available to sort out the differences and maintain stability and moral teachings.
This is why the Eastern Catholics see that it works for them.

I know this is a debate section, but i defer from giving any cause to disrupt you good folks.
Just wanted to give the info i have found. And i think i have the correct understanding of his role from the Catholic perspective.
The reason the "rest" of the Church needed the Pope's vote was not because .... he was infallable... rather because ... the Church needed concensus in order to vote. Conciliarity as in the Church since its inception has operated that way. All sees, Patriarchates, needed to vote in order for the whole body of the Church to "move" forward. The information about the Pope as a "sole" leader .. and the ultimate decision maker.... among the other...inferior patriarchates that "always" run off to Rome for advice .....is a RC slanted view of the Roman Bishop.... and the Church of Rome.


The Pope of Rome although repsected, as the Partiarch of Jerusalem (which is the first see actually and older in rank) was esteeemed.... never singled out as the Prime see though... that was a fabrication and playing up the power and honor of a bishop who was equal among his brothers...


God bless,
Philothei

[Philothei]

However the whole Church is led [or was] by the knowledge that he is always available to sort out the differences and maintain stability and moral teachings.
This is why the Eastern Catholics see that it works for them.


Why? Like the Orthodox Churches cannot take care off its faithfull? That is excatly the "missinformation" that the west gave as an excuse for reining over the Eastern rite catholic churches.... in order to keep them under their hold.... Stability.... stability of what excatly does the ER C church offers their faithful?
Sorry if that does not make any sense to me.... but it does not... any way I have tried to understand it ..... It always seemed that it was a power game played by the RC .... to keep its foot in the ER churches.....Same old UIniate argument to me....


Forgive me,
Philothei

[WarriorAngel]

Hey i would love to take this to Apostolic Churches section, if you like. :wave:

[Philothei]

It is not up to me .... ask Akathist.

God bless,
Philothei

[WarriorAngel]

Well, i meant a different thread in AC.
As this is a seekers thread, I have no intention of wanting it in a debate.

I would really rather that RTM feel at ease in her seeking.

God Bless.

[Philothei]

ah.... well I am not interested to venture to the AC and I really I do not feel there is any point to it... The EC stand on this is pretty clear cut. Maybe others would like to participate but I would not be interested....

Nothing to do with the topic really it just does not interest me to debate over any issues between RC and EC .... I do not feel at ease to do that anylonger.


Forgive me.

And God bless,:) sister,
Philothei

[Philothei]

If the Orthodox church is the one true church WHY can they not agree on stuff like this?
who does not agree on what? What do you mean we ":do not agree"? We do agree that the primacy of the Pope is not valid. All EO churches agree to that.


Why is there not ONE Orthodox view on Peter and the keys and his leadership? When looking for the true church, UNITY is one thing i am looking for.
That is because in the EO church we do not have a Pope to hand down "rules" of excatly what we are to do ... instead we have Bishops who are the interpreters of the Holy Canons and the ethos of the Christian dogma. Leadership as in consiliarity is still unity... Unity does not presupposes one leader... it can be conciliar.

We are united in dogma, and worship. Everywhere you go on Sunday we are uniformed. The only exception the calendar.... We also have a western rite and eastern rite here in USA.



By having ONE leader rather than a bunch of leaders, there is someone to give answers set in stone.

If that bothers you... then look at our canons in the rudder. They are set.... but not in stone. The ethos of the first Chsitian community and practice was not "writtne on stone" rather dealed case by case.... and under the guidance of a spiritual father, who would guide the catechemenos or the faithfull in their spiritual journey. The reason the EO church does not have a "uniform" opinion on current moral issues is that we beleive in divine dispensation ... as in our times moral issues are way too complex to be all bunced up and categorized... that was never the mind of the fathers anyways.... as they spoke freely about moral issues and there was a variety of approach...

I am wondering why the Orthodox church doesnt have a Catechism?
who said we do not? We do and again it varies. Some churches have an ongoing catechumenoi class others do not as they are small churches and do a free study... The EO church has remained the second (in population )christian denomination of the world and has done wonderful evangelizing the world... so far and no matter what we say about EO it stands alone for keeping the tradition of the first Christian community historically trased all the way to the Apostles....

These are just things popping out as me as this discussion continues. :sorry:

I am glad we can help you .... Hope my reply was helpful to you and edifying...

if I have offended anyone please forgive me. :o :sorry:


God bless,:crosseo:
Philothei

[MariaRegina]

I'm not saying that they didn't have Sacramental powers. I'm not saying they were just like any layman (I can see how it would seem I was saying that).

I've heard it said this way. The Apostles were like Proto-Bishops. They weren't bishops. They were Apostles. The bishops were a separate office created by the Apostles.

Yes, the Apostles were more than Proto-Bishops, they were specially commissioned by Christ to spread the good news of salvation. They were primarily missionaries.

The Apostles and St. Paul (including Peter, James, John, Thomas, Andrew, Philip, etc.) went throughout the world, instructing and ordaining (laying on of hands) those men whom they found worthy to oversee the dioceses which were being set up. OVERSEERERs (Bishops or Episcopos) were set up in charge of each church.

From what my priest told me, there were only Bishops and Deacons being ordained at first. Later on, Priests were ordained to help the Bishops.

[Rowan]

By having ONE leader rather than a bunch of leaders, there is someone to give answers set in stone.


Honestly, I don't understand this argument when it is levied against the Orthodox Church. Within Catholicism, there are a different opinions on things, at least in practice. Just like in real world Orthodoxy, real world Catholicism is less uniform (and just plain different in some cases) than the online "version" claims, sometimes to the point of being outdated in comparison to modern practice.

They're not denying Christ's divinity or anything to that scale, but whether you decide on Orthodoxy or Catholicism, Red, neither will be some sort of a Christian utopia that the internet and its forums can make them out to be at times.

[MariaRegina]

To clear up some serious misinterpretations in OBOB:


John 21: 15-17

The restoration of Peter to the ministry of the Church

Christ singled out Peter after the Resurrection and asked him who had betrayed Christ three times if Peter loved Him, "Peter, do you love Me." Christ asked Peter this question three times and then restored him to the ministry.

This gospel passage has everything to do with Peter's denial of Christ and his reconcilation with the Church.

I think this is a key passage that reminds us to show mercy when other Christians deny Christ out of weakness instead of suffering martyrdom willingly. Christ forgave Peter three times, could the Church do less with repentant sinners?

Of course, it is interpreted differently by the Catholic Church as if papal powers were bestowed on Peter at that time. That is an exaggeration.

Peter was only being restored to the ministry after he denied Christ three times.

Again, this passage has nothing to do with papal powers or the Petrine Ministry as the Catholics misleading claim.


Acts 15: 6 - 29

The Council of Jerusalem

Before this council, St. James the Apostle is martyred.

James, the brother of the Lord (a cousin) is Bishop of Jerusalem.

Note how James speaks with authority in Acts 15: 19

"Therefore, I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God." NKJV

The Decree in Acts 15:22

Acts 15:22-29

Notice: This decree was not signed by Peter, Pope of Rome.

No, most importantly, it was signed by:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren.


Again, this passage in Acts has nothing to do with Peter exercising his so-called Petrine Ministry.
Peter is humble and defers to James, the Bishop of Jerusalem.
All the Apostles together send out this decree.
Peter simply does not exercise any Petrine Ministry here at all.

[HisKid1973]

Here's something I always wondered...We know Peter fell pretty bad with denying Christ three times hence the response to him three times by the Lord if He loved Him...Paul took the gospel to Rome originally.. Peter as the person carried that resposiblity for his actions...How is it that whoever was put in charge after him at church of Rome would still carry that primacy..It was Peter personally that the Lord dealth with ...See where I am coming from.. The all carried the same annoiting..The all were accountable to each other...What makes the location different..After all logic would tell me that the church started in Jerusalem and if a city would carry authority for the church it would be Jerusalem..

[MariaRegina]

In the Orthodox Church, traditionally we see the Apostles as having created bishops. Certainly in doing so they gave others many of the gifts they held has apostles (like, the keys), but they didn't pass on their personal qualities and gifts. While St John was the Apostle Christ loved most, are we to assume that He loved most St John's successors?

There were Apostles and FROM (meaning AFTER) Apostles came bishops. The bishops did NOT replace the apostles. And while in some ways they were extentions of the Apostles, they were not extentions of those individuals. The Bishopric was a separate and new office created.

It's only in the ... third century? when we first find a bishop referring to an apostle as a bishop. I believe they may have been speaking of St Peter being a bishop of Rome. It had nothing to do with infallibility or supremacy but actually something totally unrelated with this discussion. I apologize for the sketchy details. i need to get back with you on that.

Anyway, it was not until then that there was even an idea that the Apostles were some how considered first bishops.

The First bishop of Rome was Pope Linus in the earliest Church, never peter. Evodius is the first bishop of antioch. Peter was not. He was an Apostle.

It's a separate institution. There is nothing in the early Church to suggest that any of the first bishops somehow mystically inherited the personal charismas of this or that Apostle. Perhaps they inherited a certain amount of respect and honor much as Martin Luther Kings Children recieve.

St Linus was St Linus... not St Peter.

I know that is really sketchy and more than to convince you I am only posting this to let you know where I am coming from. I will hopefully remember to come back with a better and more detailed version to back up what I claim to have read before.

Xpy

Exactly, Xpy

St. Linus was the first Bishop (Pope) of Rome, not St. Peter.

Again, the Catholics are simply reading history from their point of view.

[MariaRegina]

Here's something I always wondered...We know Peter fell pretty bad with denying Christ three times hence the response to him three times by the Lord if He loved Him...Paul took the gospel to Rome originally.. Peter as the person carried that resposiblity for his actions...How is it that whoever was put in charge after him at church of Rome would still carry that primacy..It was Peter personally that the Lord dealth with ...See where I am coming from.. The all carried the same annoiting..The all were accountable to each other...What makes the location different..After all logic would tell me that the church started in Jerusalem and if a city would carry authority for the church it would be Jerusalem..

James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

Linus was the first Bishop of Rome.

Peter and Paul were too busy to be a sitting Bishop.
They were missionary Apostles.

[Philothei]

Here's something I always wondered...We know Peter fell pretty bad with denying Christ three times hence the response to him three times by the Lord if He loved Him...Paul took the gospel to Rome originally.. Peter as the person carried that resposiblity for his actions...How is it that whoever was put in charge after him at church of Rome would still carry that primacy..It was Peter personally that the Lord dealth with ...See where I am coming from.. The all carried the same annoiting..The all were accountable to each other...What makes the location different..After all logic would tell me that the church started in Jerusalem and if a city would carry authority for the church it would be Jerusalem..
Excatly I agree with you the Patriarchate of Jerusalem should have that honor as it is the first see of Christ.... Not even Constantinople either Rome... Both of whom were just capitals of the secular world.... not the "birthplace" of Christ..... That is the reason in a way it is not right to say that even the Patriarch of Constantinople is the first amond equals in HONOR always... since the first one in honor should be out of respect the Patriarch of Jerusalem.... just to set the record straight.


God bless,
Philothei

[MariaRegina]

Ah, but the Church was given words of wisdom and knowledge that Jerusalem was going to fall, there was to be a serious famine there, and that the Temple itself would be destroyed.

Rome was the Capital at that time. Therefore, it made sense to have Rome as the center of the Church.

Later it was moved to Constantinople as the Second Rome.

[Philothei]

Yes... that is true Aria. The center in spiritual sense was really the ....desert... since it produced many more saints than all these capitals...put togehter. Maybe in secular terms Rome and Constantinople were 'centers' but in reality the spiritual giants rose from the East.... and northern Africa....

Philothei

[HisKid1973]

Technically Christ is the center..His kingdom is not earth....Leadership and the moving of the Holy Spirit is fluid..We don't operate by a temple as all in Chist are temples of the Holy Spirit..The church leadership was acountable to each other there was not a specific power seat set up that I se in the sacred scriptures...Man always wanted rule over type power..That why they were told to be a servant and not "lord over" one another.Leadership should be the ultimate in humility and a servant heart..There is alot in history that proves this want the case many times... Look at today we still have people looking to rule and fight each other with brooms and sticks...shalom..Kim

[MariaRegina]

In the Orthodox Church, Christ is the Head of the Church.

People went out into the deserts to get away from the debauchery of the city life and to focus on the one thing needful -- the kingdom of heaven.

Maybe I should trash this computer and focus on Christ.

[Akathist]

Well, i meant a different thread in AC.
As this is a seekers thread, I have no intention of wanting it in a debate.

I would really rather that RTM feel at ease in her seeking.

God Bless.

WarriorAngel, you are always welcome in TAW.

This thread is now in the Debate area and we allow nonEO's to debate here:


In the debate sub-forum St. Justin-Martyr's Corner non-Orthodox may debate Orthodox theology as long as they do not proselytize. No one is to proselytize non-EO beliefs any where in TAW.
http://christianforums.com/t6613009-the-ancient-way-forum-guidelines.html

You are clearly not proselyizing so no worries.

[Montalban]

I have a serious question of all of you. There is scripture in the NT where Jesus gave Peter the keys and calls him the Rock. If Peter is the head of the church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church, then how does the church prevail without Peter's chair? :confused:
This is very bothersome to me.

Jesus gave all that he gave to Peter to the other Apostles, so that they all had the keys.
Matthew 18:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2018:18&version=31)
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:23&version=31) "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Although the word 'keys' is absent, it's understood by the ECFs that all had them. For example John "The Son of Thunder" had them...
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”
John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

Even Origen understood this
see
11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
Origen
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew: Book XII.11

"...Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."
Augustine
On the Gospel of John
Tractate CXXIV.7

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”
Augustine
On Christian Doctrine Book I.
Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.

"...the keys that were given to the Church,"
Augustine
A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists
Chapter 10.45

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."
Augustine
Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John
Homily X.10

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”
On Christian Doctrine Book I.
Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church


“This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature
Hilary of Poitiers
On the Trinity. Book VI.37


Secondly there's several 'chairs' of Peter, including Antioch, which we don't 'go against'.

Pope Gregory the Great recognised this
"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors
...
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one
...
He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "
To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria
Book VII, Epistle XL

[Montalban]

Here's something I always wondered...We know Peter fell pretty bad with denying Christ three times hence the response to him three times by the Lord if He loved Him...Paul took the gospel to Rome originally.. Peter as the person carried that resposiblity for his actions...How is it that whoever was put in charge after him at church of Rome would still carry that primacy..It was Peter personally that the Lord dealth with ...See where I am coming from.. The all carried the same annoiting..The all were accountable to each other...What makes the location different..After all logic would tell me that the church started in Jerusalem and if a city would carry authority for the church it would be Jerusalem..

Don't you think Peter was forgiven?

[HisKid1973]

Don't you think Peter was forgiven?

Sure..I'm just saying why Jesus spoke to him the way He did...

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

Honestly, I don't understand this argument when it is levied against the Orthodox Church. Within Catholicism, there are a different opinions on things, at least in practice. Just like in real world Orthodoxy, real world Catholicism is less uniform (and just plain different in some cases) than the online "version" claims, sometimes to the point of being outdated in comparison to modern practice.

They're not denying Christ's divinity or anything to that scale, but whether you decide on Orthodoxy or Catholicism, Red, neither will be some sort of a Christian utopia that the internet and its forums can make them out to be at times.

LOL..good point and so true. Internet Christianity is much more of a utopia than the real thing^_^ :P

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

In the Orthodox Church, Christ is the Head of the Church.

People went out into the deserts to get away from the debauchery of the city life and to focus on the one thing needful -- the kingdom of heaven.

Maybe I should trash this computer and focus on Christ.
We probably all should Aria ^_^

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

Jesus gave all that he gave to Peter to the other Apostles, so that they all had the keys.
Matthew 18:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2018:18&version=31)
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:23&version=31) "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Although the word 'keys' is absent, it's understood by the ECFs that all had them. For example John "The Son of Thunder" had them...
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”
John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

Even Origen understood this
see
11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
Origen
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew: Book XII.11

"...Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."
Augustine
On the Gospel of John
Tractate CXXIV.7

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”
Augustine
On Christian Doctrine Book I.
Chapter 18.17 The Keys Given to the Church.

"...the keys that were given to the Church,"
Augustine
A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists
Chapter 10.45

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."
Augustine
Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John
Homily X.10

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance