Author Topic: St. Peter in Rome  (Read 14249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline filipinopilgrim

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
St. Peter in Rome
« on: November 05, 2009, 02:24:26 AM »
I've always thought that the Orthodox also consider St. Peter to have lived in Rome and to have founded the Church in Rome. However, the following essay from a Greek Orthodox website rejects this and even denies that the Apostle Peter ever went to Rome. What is the true Orthodox position?

http://eastern-orthodoxy.com/primacy.pdf

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2009, 02:37:20 AM »
I've always thought that the Orthodox also consider St. Peter to have lived in Rome and to have founded the Church in Rome. However, the following essay from a Greek Orthodox website rejects this and even denies that the Apostle Peter ever went to Rome. What is the true Orthodox position?

http://eastern-orthodoxy.com/primacy.pdf

1.  Is this really from a Greek Orthodox web site?  The web site really looks like a private site totally independent of and not sanctioned by any official Orthodox jurisdiction, though I could be wrong.
2.  Maybe someone can confirm this, since I don't have access to the feast's hymnography at home, but I believe the stichera of the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29) speak of BOTH having died in Rome.  I think this is about as close as you're going to find to the position traditionally recognized as Orthodox and most historically accurate.

IOW, I think the author of this article is so excessively zealous to prove Papism an evil heresy that he has disregarded historical accuracy to accomplish his goal.  This I find quite likely either ignorant or dishonest.  There's certainly plenty of reason to recognize Papism as heretical without having to trump up some ignorant charge that St. Peter never went to Rome, if the historical record and our Tradition say that he indeed did.


(Disclaimer for my fellow moderators, lest there be any misunderstanding:  "Papism" used above according to its sense as a formal doctrine and not as an attempt to insult our Roman Catholic posters)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 02:49:20 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,919
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2009, 02:45:46 AM »
I thought it was the Orthodox tradition among most of the Church Fathers, from fairly early on, that Peter had been in Rome. St. Ignatius (c. 107 CE) seems to allude to this in Epistle to the Romans, 4.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 02:46:07 AM by Asteriktos »

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,347
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2009, 03:14:40 AM »
As far as I have seen, the Orthodox tradition surrounding Sts. Peter and Paul matches that of the Western church concerning their martyrdom.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,589
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2009, 04:15:23 AM »
Quote
Maybe someone can confirm this, since I don't have access to the feast's hymnography at home, but I believe the stichera of the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29) speak of BOTH having died in Rome.  I think this is about as close as you're going to find to the position traditionally recognized as Orthodox and most historically accurate.

PtA, you may wish to look at my posts in the "Supremacy of Peter", where I reproduced much of the Vigil text for the feast of Apostles Peter and Paul:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14723.msg230684.html#msg230684

If this is insufficient, I have the entire service on file.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2009, 04:49:32 AM »
This is the understanding of Pope Shenouda and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Peter was in Rome only for two brief years before his death.

Go to Chapter IV. The Issue of the PRIMACY OF PETER:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050827230121/http://www.stmark-la.com/book.html

Excerpts:

7. Facts about Peter:

1. 44 AD.............Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem at 44 AD so how was
he present in Rome at that time?!

2. 45 AD.............Clodius Caesar exiled all the Jews and the Christians
from Rome at 45 AD, and the book of Acts made reference to this event (Acts
18:2). So it is again impossible for Peter to be in Rome then.

3. 50 AD..............In 50 AD, he attended the apostles council in
Jerusalem, so it was impossible for him to be in Rome then.

4. 57-58 AD.........St. Paul wrote to the Romans in 57-58 AD asking to be
given a chance to reach them and teach them about God. This is a proof that
Peter did not preach the Romans in Rome, otherwise Paul wouldn't have asked
to be given a chance to go.

5. 58 AD...............In 58 AD when Paul sent his epistle to Rome, he
greeted 20 people, and 2 families, and the name of Peter was not among them
which means that he (Peter ) was not there at that time.

6. 60 AD..............When St. Paul reached Rome at 60 AD, the Book did not
tell us that he met with Peter, but rather Paul met the leaders of the
Jews.. thus proving that Peter did not preach them with the Lord Jesus.

7. 62-63 AD.........St. Paul stayed in Rome for two years after preaching
the Romans, (62/63 AD) meaning that if Peter reached Rome then, the church
of Rome was founded, established and was strong by the works of the Holy
Spirit and Paul.

8. 65 AD..............Therefore we acknowledge what Origen said, that, St.
Peter came to Rome before he died, about 65 AD, to chase Simon the sorcerer,
who offered money to him (Peter) and John for the power of the Holy Spirit
(Acts 8:9-24), and Peter was crucified there and died.


Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2009, 05:27:30 AM »
This is the understanding of Pope Shenouda and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Peter was in Rome only for two brief years before his death.

Go to Chapter IV. The Issue of the PRIMACY OF PETER:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050827230121/http://www.stmark-la.com/book.html

Excerpts:

7. Facts about Peter:

1. 44 AD.............Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem at 44 AD so how was
he present in Rome at that time?!

2. 45 AD.............Clodius Caesar exiled all the Jews and the Christians
from Rome at 45 AD, and the book of Acts made reference to this event (Acts
18:2). So it is again impossible for Peter to be in Rome then.

3. 50 AD..............In 50 AD, he attended the apostles council in
Jerusalem, so it was impossible for him to be in Rome then.

4. 57-58 AD.........St. Paul wrote to the Romans in 57-58 AD asking to be
given a chance to reach them and teach them about God. This is a proof that
Peter did not preach the Romans in Rome, otherwise Paul wouldn't have asked
to be given a chance to go.

5. 58 AD...............In 58 AD when Paul sent his epistle to Rome, he
greeted 20 people, and 2 families, and the name of Peter was not among them
which means that he (Peter ) was not there at that time.

6. 60 AD..............When St. Paul reached Rome at 60 AD, the Book did not
tell us that he met with Peter, but rather Paul met the leaders of the
Jews.. thus proving that Peter did not preach them with the Lord Jesus.

7. 62-63 AD.........St. Paul stayed in Rome for two years after preaching
the Romans, (62/63 AD) meaning that if Peter reached Rome then, the church
of Rome was founded, established and was strong by the works of the Holy
Spirit and Paul.

8. 65 AD..............Therefore we acknowledge what Origen said, that, St.
Peter came to Rome before he died, about 65 AD, to chase Simon the sorcerer,
who offered money to him (Peter) and John for the power of the Holy Spirit
(Acts 8:9-24), and Peter was crucified there and died.


And what do you say about this, Father?
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2009, 06:07:04 AM »
And what do you say about this, Father?

I find it very interesting that this is the teaching of the Coptic Orthodox especially because I understand they have resolved most of their differences with Rome.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2009, 06:07:33 AM »
Quote
Maybe someone can confirm this, since I don't have access to the feast's hymnography at home, but I believe the stichera of the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29) speak of BOTH having died in Rome.  I think this is about as close as you're going to find to the position traditionally recognized as Orthodox and most historically accurate.

PtA, you may wish to look at my posts in the "Supremacy of Peter", where I reproduced much of the Vigil text for the feast of Apostles Peter and Paul:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14723.msg230684.html#msg230684

If this is insufficient, I have the entire service on file.
That's what I was looking for.  Thank you. :)
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,994
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2009, 11:40:12 AM »
Interesting, so the popes have apostolic succession from Saint Paul only and not from St.Peter ...So the Church of Rome was build on St. Paul's ministry. ;D

So  rome is speading a lie that it was established by St.Peter......

Why is Eastern Orthodoxy Accepting a Lie and just tell rome like it is ,that your Apostolic succession is recognized only From St.Paul and not from St. Peter...
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,285
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2009, 11:52:26 AM »
Why is Eastern Orthodoxy Accepting a Lie and just tell rome like it is ,that your Apostolic succession is recognized only From St.Paul and not from St. Peter...

The hymns and teachings of the Church on St. Peter going to Rome and dying there pre-date the schism, and very likely pre-date any claims of Papal authority.  The person who wrote the article is disputing the story which admittedly the Church has taught essentially all along.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,671
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2009, 12:16:30 PM »
Interesting, so the popes have apostolic succession from Saint Paul only and not from St.Peter ...So the Church of Rome was build on St. Paul's ministry. ;D

So  rome is speading a lie that it was established by St.Peter......

Why is Eastern Orthodoxy Accepting a Lie and just tell rome like it is ,that your Apostolic succession is recognized only From St.Paul and not from St. Peter...


You really will just grasp onto ANYTHING that is anti-Roman, won't you.

Here's a clue, Stashko.  YOUR OWN CHURCH ACCEPTS THAT A) ST. PETER DIED IN ROME AND B) UP UNTIL THE GREAT SCHISM, THE BISHOP OF ROME TRACED HIS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FROM ST. PETER.

Why don't you take your own advice and let Eastern Orthodoxy tell you "like it is".

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2009, 01:54:15 PM »
Interesting, so the popes have apostolic succession from Saint Paul only and not from St.Peter ...So the Church of Rome was build on St. Paul's ministry. ;D

So  rome is speading a lie that it was established by St.Peter......

Why is Eastern Orthodoxy Accepting a Lie and just tell rome like it is ,that your Apostolic succession is recognized only From St.Paul and not from St. Peter...

You might also want to read the article in question rather than trust solely to the commentary you read on an Internet discussion board.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2009, 10:42:35 PM »
And what do you say about this, Father?

I find it very interesting that this is the teaching of the Coptic Orthodox especially because I understand they have resolved most of their differences with Rome.

*raises eyebrow*

Where do you get that idea?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2009, 02:40:14 AM »
And what do you say about this, Father?

I find it very interesting that this is the teaching of the Coptic Orthodox especially because I understand they have resolved most of their differences with Rome.

*raises eyebrow*

Where do you get that idea?

Marduk, a Coptic Catholic, often writes about it.  Maybe he will see this and make a response.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2009, 02:43:07 AM »
And what do you say about this, Father?

I find it very interesting that this is the teaching of the Coptic Orthodox especially because I understand they have resolved most of their differences with Rome.

*raises eyebrow*

Where do you get that idea?

Marduk, a Coptic Catholic, often writes about it.  Maybe he will see this and make a response.

Oh brother. And you think the word of a Coptic Catholic is actually reliable on such a topic?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2009, 02:52:17 AM »
And what do you say about this, Father?

I find it very interesting that this is the teaching of the Coptic Orthodox especially because I understand they have resolved most of their differences with Rome.

*raises eyebrow*

Where do you get that idea?

Marduk, a Coptic Catholic, often writes about it.  Maybe he will see this and make a response.

Oh brother. And you think the word of a Coptic Catholic is actually reliable on such a topic?

Marduk is very insistent.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2009, 03:07:05 AM »
And what do you say about this, Father?

I find it very interesting that this is the teaching of the Coptic Orthodox especially because I understand they have resolved most of their differences with Rome.

*raises eyebrow*

Where do you get that idea?

Marduk, a Coptic Catholic, often writes about it.  Maybe he will see this and make a response.

Oh brother. And you think the word of a Coptic Catholic is actually reliable on such a topic?

Marduk is very insistent.

He has a very strong bias that often is not consistent with the truth.

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2009, 04:34:57 AM »
Father, with all due respect, the question was for you, not for Marduk. It seems like the poor fellow is being baited by reading the last few posts. I just don't think that is fair.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2009, 04:40:55 AM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline GammaRay

  • The Awful Preacher
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Alexandros Papadiamantis
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2009, 04:46:37 PM »
Quick question: do we still believe that the Pope is thesuccessor of St. Peter? Not that he is infallible, just that he is the successor.
I just want some clarification, because Schlutz said that UP UNTIL THE GREAT SCHISM, THE BISHOP OF ROME TRACED HIS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FROM ST. PETER.
Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

Offline Riddikulus

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,788
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2009, 09:10:50 PM »
Quick question: do we still believe that the Pope is thesuccessor of St. Peter? Not that he is infallible, just that he is the successor.
I just want some clarification, because Schlutz said that UP UNTIL THE GREAT SCHISM, THE BISHOP OF ROME TRACED HIS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FROM ST. PETER.

GammaRay, it is my understanding that once the Apostolic line was broken around the time of the Great Schism, the Roman Pope no longer has succession from St Peter; and Popes/Patriarchs have never been considered infallible, according to the Orthodox POV. 
I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,671
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2009, 09:35:11 PM »
Quick question: do we still believe that the Pope is thesuccessor of St. Peter? Not that he is infallible, just that he is the successor.
I just want some clarification, because Schlutz said that UP UNTIL THE GREAT SCHISM, THE BISHOP OF ROME TRACED HIS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FROM ST. PETER.

GammaRay, it is my understanding that once the Apostolic line was broken around the time of the Great Schism, the Roman Pope no longer has succession from St Peter; and Popes/Patriarchs have never been considered infallible, according to the Orthodox POV. 

It depends on what one means by "apostolic succession."  If one simply means that the bishop of Rome can trace the corporeal act of laying on of hands back to St. Peter, then yes, Rome still has it.

But it is my understanding that the Orthodox church's defintion of "apostolic succession" has another dimension, namely that the teachings of a said bishop must also be traceable back to the Apostles.  Therefore, as the Orthodox church believes that the bishop of Rome teaches error (namely the filioque and papal supremacy, to name just the "biggies"), then the bishop of Rome no longer maintains "apostolic succession." 

If am wrong in my understanding, I would love to be corrected. :)
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline Riddikulus

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,788
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2009, 09:47:04 PM »
Quick question: do we still believe that the Pope is thesuccessor of St. Peter? Not that he is infallible, just that he is the successor.
I just want some clarification, because Schlutz said that UP UNTIL THE GREAT SCHISM, THE BISHOP OF ROME TRACED HIS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION FROM ST. PETER.

GammaRay, it is my understanding that once the Apostolic line was broken around the time of the Great Schism, the Roman Pope no longer has succession from St Peter; and Popes/Patriarchs have never been considered infallible, according to the Orthodox POV. 

It depends on what one means by "apostolic succession."  If one simply means that the bishop of Rome can trace the corporeal act of laying on of hands back to St. Peter, then yes, Rome still has it.

But it is my understanding that the Orthodox church's defintion of "apostolic succession" has another dimension, namely that the teachings of a said bishop must also be traceable back to the Apostles.  Therefore, as the Orthodox church believes that the bishop of Rome teaches error (namely the filioque and papal supremacy, to name just the "biggies"), then the bishop of Rome no longer maintains "apostolic succession." 

If am wrong in my understanding, I would love to be corrected. :)

Yes, this is what I understand, too. You said it much better.  ;D
I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,347
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2009, 01:14:50 AM »
65 AD..............Therefore we acknowledge what Origen said, that, St.
Peter came to Rome before he died, about 65 AD, to chase Simon the sorcerer,
who offered money to him (Peter) and John for the power of the Holy Spirit
(Acts 8:9-24), and Peter was crucified there and died.

Why would anyone chase someone across the entire known world for asking them a question, no matter how offensive?  Is this the "official legend" surrounding St. Peter the Apostle?  That he chased the sorcerer Simon all the way from Palestine to Rome?

Offline Eugenio

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 459
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2009, 01:30:37 AM »
Related question:

I've heard some sources say that St. Linus was actually the first Bishop of Rome. Although St. Peter received the crown of martyrdom there, St. Linus was actually the first bishop to exercise actual episcopal authority there.

Has anyone else heard of this?

Here's what I've found on St. Linus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2009, 01:31:01 AM »
65 AD..............Therefore we acknowledge what Origen said, that, St.
Peter came to Rome before he died, about 65 AD, to chase Simon the sorcerer,
who offered money to him (Peter) and John for the power of the Holy Spirit
(Acts 8:9-24), and Peter was crucified there and died.

Why would anyone chase someone across the entire known world for asking them a question, no matter how offensive?  Is this the "official legend" surrounding St. Peter the Apostle?  That he chased the sorcerer Simon all the way from Palestine to Rome?

According to traditional accounts, after Simon Magus failed to buy the Holy Spirit, he had an extended career as a false prophet and cult leader. Many early Fathers refer to him as the 'first gnostic'. St. Peter came to Rome after he heard that Simon had set himself up there and was leading many astray.
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline witega

  • Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2009, 01:43:03 AM »
Related question:

I've heard some sources say that St. Linus was actually the first Bishop of Rome. Although St. Peter received the crown of martyrdom there, St. Linus was actually the first bishop to exercise actual episcopal authority there.

Has anyone else heard of this?

Here's what I've found on St. Linus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus

The Twelve occupied a unique position. The bishops are their successors, but the Apostles themselves are not usually counted as bishops--their missionary work meant that they did not remain in one place as was expected of the bishops they set up to oversee the local church once they moved on. Thus Peter resided for awhile in Antioch, then selected St. Evodius to be the first actual bishop while he moved on, ending up in Rome where he selected St. Linus to be the first bishop to continue to direct the church after his martyrdom.
Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,994
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2009, 01:59:41 AM »
Ill never accept after being awakened to the truth ,that the popes have their apostolic succession from St. Peter.
Only will accept that its From St. Paul Ministry Only....

If St. Paul was There First in rome for the gentiles ..why would St.Peter sow Plant in St. Paul Vineyard or in someone Else's field....
Now if a Jew in the middle east claimed to Be a successor to St.Peter that  would be more Believable....
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,347
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2009, 02:11:01 AM »
Ill never accept after being awakened to the truth ,that the popes have their apostolic succession from St. Peter.
Only will accept that its From St. Paul Ministry Only....

If St. Paul was There First in rome for the gentiles ..why would St.Peter sow Plant in St. Paul Vineyard or in someone Else's field....
Now if a Jew in the middle east claimed to Be a successor to St.Peter that  would be more Believable....

It's pretty obvious to me now that you are not a real person, but rather some kind of trollish creature.

The Holy Orthodox Church of Holy Serbia which uses the Holiest and Oldest of Calendars believes that the Patriarchate of Rome traces its lineage back to St. Peter the Apostle, the rock of the Orthodox, Catholic faith.

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,994
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2009, 02:16:37 AM »
Do we Orthodox really accept a Lie Come on be real....
Rome can say any thing it wants ,,scripture says otherwise...
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,347
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2009, 02:26:45 AM »
Do we Orthodox really accept a Lie Come on be real....
Rome can say any thing it wants ,,scripture says otherwise...

Look, if you really want to start using your brain I'd be careful, because plenty of the traditions in the Orthodox Church are contested by real historians. 

Are you going to move on to denying that St. Thomas went to India?  That St. Andrew really established a church in back-water Byzantium?  Oh, no!  But wait!  If the St. Andrew story is just a myth conjured up to give Constantinople patriarchal legitimacy at the height of its power some 400 years after the fact, then wouldn't that make the apostolic succession of the Serbian Church a lie as well?  That means all of its Mysteries are of no effect, and we are all deceived!  Woe to the cruel world!   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

But thank you for demonstrating that most people just believe whatever they want to.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 02:28:48 AM by Alveus Lacuna »

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,994
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2009, 02:34:51 AM »
Do we Orthodox really accept a Lie Come on be real....
Rome can say any thing it wants ,,scripture says otherwise...

Look, if you really want to start using your brain I'd be careful, because plenty of the traditions in the Orthodox Church are contested by real historians. 

Are you going to move on to denying that St. Thomas went to India?  That St. Andrew really established a church in back-water Byzantium?  Oh, no!  But wait!  If the St. Andrew story is just a myth conjured up to give Constantinople patriarchal legitimacy at the height of its power some 400 years after the fact, then wouldn't that make the apostolic succession of the Serbian Church a lie as well?  That means all of its Mysteries are of no effect, and we are all deceived!  Woe to the cruel world!   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Hey ! if they want to contest let them, put it all out on the table its fine...I suspect that your not even a Catechumen but a catholic troll pretending ..we serbs could do with out..Some of your posts  are something ....





 After further review by the moderator team, I deem it wise to give you this official warning that calling someone a "Catholic troll" is not tolerable behavior for the OC.net discussion forum.  (Alveus Lacuna may have baited you by accusing you of not using your brain, but that's technically not an ad hominem, since he's questioning your use of logic and not calling you stupid.)  You've certainly received many warnings in the past for your behavior, so your warned status will last for the maximum time permitted.  If, while on Warned status, you continue to insult our posters as you just did Alveus Lacuna, you will be placed back on Post Moderation.  If you have any questions or would like to appeal my decision, please feel free to express this to Fr. George or Fr. Chris in a private message.

(IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:  I am not trying to silence you because of your Traditionalist beliefs.  It is solely for your rude behavior that you are receiving this warning.)

- PeterTheAleut
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2009, 03:00:13 AM »
Do we Orthodox really accept a Lie Come on be real....
Rome can say any thing it wants ,,scripture says otherwise...

Look, if you really want to start using your brain I'd be careful, because plenty of the traditions in the Orthodox Church are contested by real historians. 

Are you going to move on to denying that St. Thomas went to India?  That St. Andrew really established a church in back-water Byzantium?  Oh, no!  But wait!  If the St. Andrew story is just a myth conjured up to give Constantinople patriarchal legitimacy at the height of its power some 400 years after the fact, then wouldn't that make the apostolic succession of the Serbian Church a lie as well?  That means all of its Mysteries are of no effect, and we are all deceived!  Woe to the cruel world!   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Hey ! if they want to contest let them, put it all out on the table its fine...I suspect that your not even a Catechumen but a catholic troll pretending ..we serbs could do with out..Some of your posts  are something ....
You two keep your discussion civil here.  I don't want to see you baiting each other anymore.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline GammaRay

  • The Awful Preacher
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Alexandros Papadiamantis
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2009, 09:16:28 AM »
GammaRay, it is my understanding that once the Apostolic line was broken around the time of the Great Schism, the Roman Pope no longer has succession from St Peter; and Popes/Patriarchs have never been considered infallible, according to the Orthodox POV. 
Is it okay for an Orthodox to call the Pope as the successor of St. Peter though?
Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2009, 09:47:46 AM »
GammaRay, it is my understanding that once the Apostolic line was broken around the time of the Great Schism, the Roman Pope no longer has succession from St Peter; and Popes/Patriarchs have never been considered infallible, according to the Orthodox POV. 
Is it okay for an Orthodox to call the Pope as the successor of St. Peter though?

I would say, strictly speaking, No! although it is a common way of speaking.

Look at the Church of Antioch which has an Orthodox Patriarch who is one of the successors to Saint Peter.   What should we make of the 3 Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch?  Are they also successors to Saint Peter?

Or look at the Church of Alexandria which is headed by the Pope of Alexandria, a successor of Saint Peter and Saint Mark.   What then of the Roman Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria?  Is he also a successor?

As the Fathers and the Canons tell us, apostolic succession and the holy sacraments come to an end when a bishop goes into schism from the Church and all his acts become null and void.  He cannot ordain priests, he cannot consecrate new bishops.  There can be no parallel episcopate or priesthood outside the Church and in competition with it.  The Church is One.  The episcopate is One.


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2009, 09:53:42 AM »
GammaRay, it is my understanding that once the Apostolic line was broken around the time of the Great Schism, the Roman Pope no longer has succession from St Peter; and Popes/Patriarchs have never been considered infallible, according to the Orthodox POV. 
Is it okay for an Orthodox to call the Pope as the successor of St. Peter though?

And an intriguing thought..... if one of the Orthodox Churches, Greek, Russian, Romanian, decided they had sufficient people in Rome to ordain a Bishop of Rome, would he become the true and authentic Bishop of Rome?   Would he somehow receive the mantle of the succession of Saint Peter in that city?  Would the succession be brought back into life by an Orthodox Bishop of Rome?

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,671
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #36 on: November 30, 2009, 12:28:58 PM »
Do we Orthodox really accept a Lie Come on be real....
Rome can say any thing it wants ,,scripture says otherwise...


The Prologue of Ohrid, written by a Serbian, I might add, says the same thing Rome has always said:

Quote

June 29

1.   THE HOLY APOSTLE PETER

Peter was the son of Jonah and the brother of Andrew, the First-called. He was of the Tribe of Simeon from the town of Bethsaida. He was a fisherman and, at first, was called Simon but the Lord was pleased to call him Cephas or Peter: "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jonah: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a rock" (St. John 1:42). He was the first of the disciples to clearly express faith in the Lord Jesus saying: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (St. Matthew 16:16). His love for the Lord was great and his faith in the Lord gradually strengthened. When the Lord was brought to trial, Peter denied Him three times but after only one glance into the face of the Lord, Peter's soul was filled with shame and repentance. After the descent of the Holy Spirit, Peter appears as a fearless and powerful preacher of the Gospel. Following one of his sermons in Jerusalem, three-thousand souls converted to the Faith. He preached the Gospel throughout Palestine and Asia Minor, throughout Illyria and Italy. Peter worked many powerful miracles; he healed the sick, resurrected the dead; the sick were healed even from his shadow. He had a great struggle with Simon the Magician who proclaimed himself as god but in reality Simon was a servant of Satan. Finally, Peter shamed and defeated him. By order of the evil Emperor Nero, Simon's friend, Peter was condemned to death. Installing Linus as Bishop of Rome, counseling and comforting the flock of Christ, Peter proceeded joyfully to his death. Seeing the cross before him, he begged his executioners to crucify him upside down for he considered himself unworthy to die as did his Lord. Thus the great servant of the Great Lord reposed and received the wreath of eternal glory.
(emphasis mine)

What say you, stashko?  Are you now above St. Nikolai Velimirovich?  Do you know more than he based on a single article?  Or is he a crypto-Catholic in Serbian Orthodox clothes?
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline John Larocque

  • Catholic
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 529
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #37 on: November 30, 2009, 12:34:56 PM »
In Cyprianic ecclesiology - in a broad sense, every bishop, in theory, is a successor of St. Peter, and that they collectively hold the chair of St. Peter. St. Cyprian even uses the famous St. Matthew text ("upon this rock") to refer to EVERY bishop. This presentation of Cyprian's views are affirmed by Roman Catholic scholar Johannes Quasten. Another Catholic commentator interpreted a remark by St. Christostom to "Peter's successors" to say that Chrysostom is referring to all the bishops. When you mention this on Catholic message boards many don't know how to react to that.. "Only the pope is Peter!"

In the narrower sense of "sees founded by St. Peter", it is a historical amnesia by which Alexandria and Antioch, which used to be commemorated as Petrine sees within Rome itself, are no longer thought of as such. I came across a quote in "His Broken Body" from one of the popes. It was part of the pope's campaign against, I think, against Byzantium being placed as second after Rome (or was it Rome's capaign against a universal bishop or the ecumenical patriarch? I'm not 100% sure). He was writing to Alexandria, specifically referencing the shared Petrine heritage of both sees. It is the contention of the author that Rome's understanding of itself has always placed great importance on the see itself being a Petrine see in this narrow sense. Part of its oppositiuon to Byzantium displacing Antioch and Alexandria was that the latter were Petrine sees, and Byzantium was not. It was a losing argumentt, and the author noted that Alexandria didn't take up Rome's cause.

I was introduced to St. Cyprian through a dissenting Catholic, but since then, have been looking at this more and more in an Orthodox context, and more specifically the main thesis of +John of Pergamon's historic thesis "Bishop Eucharist Church." I don't want to be a blind, unthinking supporter of the theisis, yet it has greatly improved my understanding of the role of the bishop as apostolic successor, local "protos" (president of the Eucharistic assembly), and guardian of orthodoxy.

I don't think there's anything wrong in affirming the apolosticity of a See. It is IMHO absurd to pick up where Protestant apologists left off and try to place doubt on the Roman succession claims. One should be very careful in questing beliefs and traditions that stretch as far back as the first century.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 12:37:45 PM by John Larocque »

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,994
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #38 on: November 30, 2009, 01:18:30 PM »
Ill Stick with Fr.Ambrose in what he has posted about it...If they were hard for me accept it though they arn't now they lost it including what they recieved from St. Paul.... ;D
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,671
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #39 on: November 30, 2009, 01:28:45 PM »
What does what Fr. Ambrose wrote have to do with the historical reality that, until 1054, the Bishop of Rome was universally understood as being able to trace his line of succession back to St. Peter?

You're just being obstinate and, one again, indulging us with your virulent anti-Catholicism which you still fail to recognize as detrimental to inquirers and seekers who may come to this site for information.  By all means, believe that Rome no longer has apostolic succession and is outside the Church (I would agree with you), but I will not idly sit by while you scatter the seeds of ignorance and prejudice near a path where some flowers may be choked because of the thorns you have sown.
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline GammaRay

  • The Awful Preacher
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Alexandros Papadiamantis
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2009, 02:59:20 PM »
Irish Hermit, thank you; I was troubled lately. I saw a speech from our Patriarch, Bartholomew, who referred to the current Pope as the successor of Peter, I believe.
(It's right here - at 33:08...)

In my opinion, since we are supposed to be the True Church, our Bishop would be the true successor. So, to call the Pope a successor may not be that good, after all.
Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,285
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2009, 03:08:01 PM »
In my opinion, since we are supposed to be the True Church, our Bishop would be the true successor.

All faithful Christians are successors of St. Peter.  But w/regards to the Pope, we don't have a competing "bishop of Rome," so either he's a successor of St. Peter who has fallen off track (i.e. is not in/with the Church), or there is no successor to St. Peter in Rome.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 03:08:19 PM by Fr. George »
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2009, 05:01:19 PM »
GammaRay, it is my understanding that once the Apostolic line was broken around the time of the Great Schism, the Roman Pope no longer has succession from St Peter; and Popes/Patriarchs have never been considered infallible, according to the Orthodox POV.  
Is it okay for an Orthodox to call the Pope as the successor of St. Peter though?

And an intriguing thought..... if one of the Orthodox Churches, Greek, Russian, Romanian, decided they had sufficient people in Rome to ordain a Bishop of Rome, would he become the true and authentic Bishop of Rome?   Would he somehow receive the mantle of the succession of Saint Peter in that city?  Would the succession be brought back into life by an Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
Father, do you mean an antipope? We all know that has happened before. But I am curious to your statement,"mantle of succession". Who has that mantle now and which Bishopric might be next, Alexandria? Unless you see the Chair of Peter as "Sede Vacante", then I can see your point of view.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 05:20:14 PM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #43 on: November 30, 2009, 07:46:02 PM »
I can't believe there hadn't  been any Christians in Rome before St. Peter went there. They must have had a Bishop (St. Linus ?) and is unbelievable that St. Peter took his place.

He came to Rome and was martyred there - that's for sure but I don't believe he was a Bishop there.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: St. Peter in Rome
« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2009, 07:51:20 PM »
What does what Fr. Ambrose wrote have to do with the historical reality that, until 1054, the Bishop of Rome was universally understood as being able to trace his line of succession back to St. Peter?

But I totally agree with that.  Until the Schism *all* the bishops of the Church of Rome held apostolic succession.  The bishops of Rome were able to trace their succession back to Saint Peter.

But when the Church of Rome removed itself from the communion of the One True Church it fell into schism and the corollary of schism is a loss of the episcopacy and of course the sacaments.   This applies to the Bishop of Perugia, the Bishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Oporto as much as it applies to the Bishop of Rome.

This theology is expressed by Saint Basil the Great and not just Saint Cyprian. It is embodied in the canons of the Councils and, lately, it is eloquently expressed by the Russian Archbishop Saint Hilarion the New Martyr ("Christanity or The Church?") and the Serbian Saint and theologian Justin Popovic.