Author Topic: Where in the Bible does it say that all of the Apostles were given the keys...  (Read 5328 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Where in the Bible does it say that any other apostle besides Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven?

Catholig

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
What have you to say about Matthew 18:18, where Jesus, speaking to all the disciples, says this:  "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  Jesus doesn't mention the "keys of the kingdom" explicitly in this passage, yet I'm sure you'll agree that the remaining language is identical to what He says of the authority of the keys to Peter specifically in Matthew 16:19.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
And Remember the words of Christ:

"The Gentiles seek chieftainship one over the other.  But it shall not be so with you.  The greatest among you must be the servant of all."
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
What have you to say about Matthew 18:18, where Jesus, speaking to all the disciples, says this:  "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  Jesus doesn't mention the "keys of the kingdom" explicitly in this passage, yet I'm sure you'll agree that the remaining language is identical to what He says of the authority of the keys to Peter specifically in Matthew 16:19.

I was just asking a question, because I honestly didn't know where the idea that they all received the keys of the kingdom of heaven came from. I had heard it, but hadn't been given a verse.

Just for the sake of argument, however, I would reply with a question, namely, why then would Christ single out Peter in front of the other disciples and say "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. "? And since he did what does that mean?

Catholig

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Well consider what St. Peter was about to go through.  God loves us all, but we are all different.  St. Peter needed the encouragement for the dark days ahead, inculding the end, when he was crucified upside down.  Christ was preparing him because He didn't want to loose him.
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
I was just asking a question, because I honestly didn't know where the idea that they all received the keys of the kingdom of heaven came from. I had heard it, but hadn't been given a verse.

Just for the sake of argument, however, I would reply with a question, namely, why then would Christ single out Peter in front of the other disciples and say "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. "? And since he did what does that mean?

Catholig
Maybe you misunderstand the Orthodox.  We certainly don't deny the primacy of Peter among the college of the Holy Apostles, for we recognize very clearly the Scriptural witness to this.  We just assert that the Papacy of Rome has deviated from what Jesus intended Peter's primacy to be and made St. Peter to be an authoritarian master and ruler over his fellow Apostles.  This the Bible clearly DOES NOT show.

IOW, we also see that the foundation upon which Christ has established Peter's authority is his orthodox confession of faith.  If any bishop, yea, even the bishop of Rome, deviates from this orthodox faith of the Apostles, then we have to recognize that said bishop has forfeited the keys given to Peter.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 02:17:09 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Well consider what St. Peter was about to go through.  God loves us all, but we are all different.  St. Peter needed the encouragement for the dark days ahead, inculding the end, when he was crucified upside down.  Christ was preparing him because He didn't want to loose him.

St. Peter's crucifixion occurred later so there is no reason why Christ could not give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven at the same time as the others. And besides that I don't see why Christ would give St. Peter universal control over the keys of the kingdom of heaven only to divide it up later among the others.

Catholig

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
And besides that I don't see why Christ would give St. Peter universal control over the keys of the kingdom of heaven only to divide it up later among the others.
Of course you wouldn't.  This is how you've been trained to think in your period of catechism. ;)
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Then consider that it was revealed to Peter first of a response to his confession of faith.  The Rock that Christ built His Church was not St. Peter, but St. Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."  This is what the gates of Hell shall not prevail against, not the person of St. Peter.
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Then consider that it was revealed to Peter first of a response to his confession of faith.  The Rock that Christ built His Church was not St. Peter, but St. Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."  This is what the gates of Hell shall not prevail against, not the person of St. Peter.

I simply don't believe this. I mean Christ gave Peter the name of 'rock' (Cephas), and in the same sentence mentioned his Church being built upon a rock.

Catholig

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Of course you wouldn't.  This is how you've been trained to think in your period of catechism. ;)

You can always tell me what event there was between Christ's giving Peter the keys and then redistributing them equally among the other apostles that required this great privilege.

Catholig 

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
I simply don't believe this. I mean Christ gave Peter the name of 'rock' (Cephas), and in the same sentence mentioned his Church being built upon a rock.
Wordplay?
Not all who wander are lost.

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
You can always tell me what event there was between Christ's giving Peter the keys and then redistributing them equally among the other apostles that required this great privilege.
Was it a privilege for the other Apostles to be given the authority to "bind and loose" (the real power of the keys), or was this Christ's plan from the beginning?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 02:58:00 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Well, lets consider the Latin:

Tu est Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo aeclesiam meam.

Thou art the little rock, and upon the BIG ROCK I will build my church.

Peter is cut from the Stone of faith, and not the faith himself.
"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Well, lets consider the Latin:

Tu est Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo aeclesiam meam.

Thou art the little rock, and upon the BIG ROCK I will build my church.

Peter is cut from the Stone of faith, and not the faith himself.

Actually you're applying a common protestant argument revolving around the Greek text (Petros/Petra) to the Latin text (Petrus/Petram), but in any case I'll give the answer that in Aramaic there would not have been this distinction. Jesus would have used the word Cephas. And that the reason why the translator decided to use the word Petros rather than Petra was probably something to do with not giving a guy a feminine noun as a name.

Catholig
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 03:22:24 AM by Catholig »

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Wordplay?

I think that when God gives a person a name it is often something very special such as in the case of Abraham, and that Christ wouldn't use this opportunity to make a wordplay that would confuse Christians for several hundred years, and possibly the disciples themselves.

Catholig

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Was it a privilege for the other Apostles to be given the authority to "bind and loose" (the real power of the keys), or was this Christ's plan from the beginning?

If Christ gave them the same keys as he gave Peter it would obviously have been his plan from the beginning, but that doesn't answer my question of why Peter would need the keys before the other disciples. What event or crisis/situation he would have to deal that would happen before he could attain them with the rest of the disciples.

Catholig

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
If Christ gave them the same keys as he gave Peter it would obviously have been his plan from the beginning, but that doesn't answer my question of why Peter would need the keys before the other disciples. What event or crisis/situation he would have to deal that would happen before he could attain them with the rest of the disciples.

Catholig
Back to this post:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13495.msg186879.html#msg186879

I think you may be arguing with a strawman.


Echoing something ozgeorge said on another thread you started today, we've talked about the issue of Peter's primacy many times on this forum.  You might want to check out those threads and comment on those rather than start a new thread to rehash this subject.  Just do a search for threads containing "Peter" and "Primacy" on the Orthodox-Catholic board, and I'm sure you'll find some.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 04:01:58 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Where in the Bible does it say that any other apostle besides Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven?
*
Where in the Bible does it say that these keys (which you need to explain) would

1. be given only to the bishops who "succeeded" Saint Peter in the distant city where he died?

2. only live in Rome?


Offline prodromos

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Sydney, Australia
St. Peter's crucifixion occurred later so there is no reason why Christ could not give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven at the same time as the others. And besides that I don't see why Christ would give St. Peter universal control over the keys of the kingdom of heaven only to divide it up later among the others.

In Matthew 16:18 Christ does not give the keys to Peter, He promises that He WILL give Peter the keys. That promise is fulfilled in Matthew 18:18 when He gives the keys to all the Apostles including Peter.

Offline pathofsolitude

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Hello Catholig.

Go to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article for this topic. The article is very honest. It actually says that the idea of the keys not being given to all the Apostles was first promoted by Jesuit apologists in the 16th century. It says that the Fathers taught that the keys were given to the Apostolic college. And it says that St Thomas Aquinas wrote that the keys were given to them as well. Very very revealing article for Roman Catholics.

New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

Summa: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5017.htm

 
The great apostasy has occured. Get out of there while you can!!! Its better to be priestless than to have a heretic bishop. The apostles taught that the church consists of saints only. There are about 7,000 Spirit-bearers currently in the catacombs.

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
*
Where in the Bible does it say that these keys (which you need to explain) would

1. be given only to the bishops who "succeeded" Saint Peter in the distant city where he died?

2. only live in Rome?

For number one I'll have to look, but number two is irreverent, because the Pope doesn't have to live in Rome to be the Pope or to poses the keys.

Catholig

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Hello Catholig.

Go to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article for this topic. The article is very honest. It actually says that the idea of the keys not being given to all the Apostles was first promoted by Jesuit apologists in the 16th century. It says that the Fathers taught that the keys were given to the Apostolic college. And it says that St Thomas Aquinas wrote that the keys were given to them as well. Very very revealing article for Roman Catholics.

New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

Summa: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5017.htm

That's fair enough. I did say after all "just for the sake of argument".  ;D If the keys were given to all of the apostles that's fine, however I still wonder why Christ would promise them to Peter first.

Catholig

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
For number one I'll have to look, but number two is irreverent, because the Pope doesn't have to live in Rome to be the Pope or to poses the keys.

Catholig
I think the important word here may be "irrelevant".

The earliest histories of the Church will show, though, that the concept of papal primacy grew out of the early Church's understanding of the primacy of Rome's position within the Church.  Only later did the Roman bishops make Scriptural claims to separate their supremacy from the primacy of the local Church of Rome.


That's fair enough. I did say after all "just for the sake of argument".  ;D If the keys were given to all of the apostles that's fine, however I still wonder why Christ would promise them to Peter first.
Actually, what I read pathofsolitude saying is that your biblical exegesis that Christ gave the keys to Peter first is not shared by the early Church Fathers.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 05:42:45 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Well, lets consider the Latin:

Tu est Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo aeclesiam meam.

Thou art the little rock, and upon the BIG ROCK I will build my church.

Peter is cut from the Stone of faith, and not the faith himself.

Ian,

I would also like to say that if you look up Mattai 16 at http://www.peshitta.org/ you'll find that apparently they use the same word for "peter" and for "rock" (i.e. Keepa)

Catholig

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Ian,

I would also like to say that if you look up Mattai 16 at http://www.peshitta.org/ you'll find that apparently they use the same word for "peter" and for "rock" (i.e. Keepa)
You can argue the meanings of biblical words all you want, but the most important issue for us Orthodox is how the Holy Fathers understood the texts in question.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
I think the important word here may be "irrelevant".

The earliest histories of the Church will show, though, that the concept of papal primacy grew out of the early Church's understanding of the primacy of Rome's position within the Church.  Only later did the Roman bishops make Scriptural claims to separate their supremacy from the primacy of the local Church of Rome.

Actually, what I read pathofsolitude saying is that your biblical exegesis that Christ gave the keys to Peter first is not shared by the early Church Fathers.

You're right I did mean irrelevant - I used a spell checker, and used it incorrectly.

As for what the early Church Fathers believed - I haven't really read the early Church fathers, however while browsing Wikipedia's article on papal primacy I found out that "The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I", and when trying to confirm this found a website claiming that Pope Stephen I overruled an African Synod. I'll look a bit more to see if I can find a more authoritative source for you, because assuming that this is true that'd show that the early popes understood papal primacy.

Also another thing that is slightly interesting, considering Pope Honorius who was brought up yesterday, is that Pope Leo I apparently infallibly proclaimed Christ's two natures (according to wikipedia). I checked this and found a quote that says "Leo imposed his doctrine of the dual human and divine nature of Christ" - source) Maybe I can find other sources.

Catholig

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
You can argue the meanings of biblical words all you want, but the most important issue for us Orthodox is how the Holy Fathers understood the texts in question.

I'm not knocking the Early Church Fathers, and if you want to argue their views that's fine, but I don't think that we should disregard the words used in the bible. If you want to discuss the Early Church Father's view what do you think about St. Cyprian? I mean I know he said one thing and did another, but didn't he claim that the other sees should be in union with Rome?

Catholig

Online PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,464
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
As for what the early Church Fathers believed - I haven't really read the early Church fathers, however while browsing Wikipedia's article on papal primacy I found out that "The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I", and when trying to confirm this found a website claiming that Pope Stephen I overruled an African Synod. I'll look a bit more to see if I can find a more authoritative source for you, because assuming that this is true that'd show that the early popes understood papal primacy.
This is, in fact, what worries me.  IMO, popes are not the persons who should be "understanding papal primacy", at least not by themselves.  If all the other bishops and faithful of the Church show a willingness to grant the pope this authority, then more power to him.  Otherwise, the pope preaching his understanding of Roman primacy as granting himself special prerogatives of supreme jurisdiction has the appearance of nothing more than an imperialist grab for power.

Quote
Also another thing that is slightly interesting, considering Pope Honorius who was brought up yesterday, is that Pope Leo I apparently infallibly proclaimed Christ's two natures (according to wikipedia). I checked this and found a quote that says "Leo imposed his doctrine of the dual human and divine nature of Christ" - source)
Are you aware that this Tome of Leo was summarily rejected by the Oriental Orthodox?  All you have to do is search our public (and private, if you have access to the private forum) Eastern-Oriental Orthodox discussion boards to see this.  There's certainly no understanding there that Pope Leo's proclamation of the dual divine-human nature of Christ bears any infallibility simply because it was a Roman pope who proclaimed it!  The Tome of Leo is, in fact, one of the most important reasons for the current schism between the EO and the OO.  (MODERATION:  If you want to start a thread preaching that the Oriental Orthodox are heretics for rejecting the Tome of Leo, then please PM FrChris to request access to the Private Eastern-Oriental Discussions board, for we won't allow such polemical discussions on the public forum.)


BTW, for your words to have any weight in an intellectual discussion, you need to rely on sources more reliable than just Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is a good starting point to show you where to get the real informational gold, but that's all it is.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 07:09:34 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Christodoulos

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 396
God bless !

The church fathers believed that all Apostels received the keys/the same blessing:

St. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.

"We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth. If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces, render a Bishop neither greater nor less."

It cannot be more distinctly stated that the rule of truth dwells only in the entire episcopal body, and not at Rome; that the Bishop of Rome is no more, as bishop, than the humblest bishop of the Church;

St. John Chrysostom:
"Behold," he says, "how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. . . ." Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

If you believe," he says, Origen, Commentary on St. Matt. "that God has raised the whole building of his Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the son of the Thunder? What will you say of each of the Apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail against the others? Are not the words, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, addressed to them all? Have not these words had their fulfillment in each one of the Apostles?"

St. Ambrose, On the Incarnation. "Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell." The truth confessed by St. Peter is, therefore, the foundation of the Church, and no promise was made to his person, nor, consequently, to his subjective faith.

In explaining these words in the epistle to the Galatians, "I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter," he says: "It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superiour to him and to the other Apostles? No; but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be intrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No; but that Peter might know that Paul had received "the power which had also been given to himself."

St. Augustine Retractions, Book I. ch. 21. "In that book, I said in one place, in speaking of St. Peter, that the Church had been built on him as on the rock. This thought is sung by many in the verses of the blessed Ambrose, who says of the cock, that "when it crew the Rock of the Church deplored his fault.' But I know that subsequently I very frequently adopted this sense, that when the Lord said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' he meant by this rock, the one which Peter had confessed in saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son, of the living God;' so that Peter, called by the name of this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon that rock, and which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In fact, it was not said to him, Thou art the rock; but thou art Peter. The rock was Christ. Peter having confessed him as all the Church confesses him, he was called Peter.

A few of hundrets or thousends similar !

No one thought of Peter or the Pope that they only have the keys or are infallable...but if you like I can post more also from Councils and Synods.
And also from St. Greogory the great (he is often used as witness for the Primacy but in reality he was against such teaching)

IN CHRIST


Offline Ian Lazarus

  • The Main Man!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,545
  • yIjah, Qey' 'oH!
Catholig,

There is a very good book on the way that the fathers viewed things and how they have ended up.  It's called "Two Paths" by Michael Welton.  But the main reasons why the schism was prompted was a combination of both doctrine and miscommunication, as well as misinformation, the book goes on to explain.  One of the main culprits is a document called the Donation of Constantine, an erronious and falsified document wherein, according to the forger, Constantine give all of the sees of Christendom to Pope St. Silvester for curing him of Leprosy.  It was unknown in the East and found to be erroneous in the west.

As for the Aramaic, forgive me, but I am no scholar of that language, nor do I know the subtlties of the language.  It could be totally different than what either of us think.  A example of this is that the Greek "anaminsis" is translated into memory by an English scholars, but Greek Priests read more into it an say " To live it again".  

Aside from this, remember that the original Gospels were written in Greek, not in Aramaic, if memory serves.  Both the EO and the OO see the Eucharist as the true partaking as the Body and Blood of Christ, as you Roman Catholics do not because of language, but because of Holy Tradition backed by Scripture and Apostolic Teachings.  

So the question is not a matter of soley scripture or tradition, but a jelling of both.  The Orthodox have never understood the primacy of Peter in the same way that the present Roman Church does.  So the question lies, "What is more faithfull to the tradition of the Fathers?"

Peace be the search and the Journey.

Dont eat any bad chicken. ;)

"For I am With thee, withersoever thou goest"

Joshua 1:9

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
I would also like to say that if you look up Mattai 16 at http://www.peshitta.org/ you'll find that apparently they use the same word for "peter" and for "rock" (i.e. Keepa)
Oh come on Catholig!, even you would have to admit that things are desperate if the Roman Catholic Church has to resort to subscribing to the theory of  peshitta primacy to support it's doctrines!
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Catholig

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Oh come on Catholig!, even you would have to admit that things are desperate if the Roman Catholic Church has to resort to subscribing to the theory of  peshitta primacy to support it's doctrines!

Ozgeorge, I wasn't speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, and I wasn't supporting peshitta primacy (i.e. the idea that the peshitta is the original version of the gospels) by quoting it. I was simply illustrating that it would be the same word in those languages.

Catholig
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 11:39:17 PM by Catholig »

Offline pathofsolitude

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Hello Catholig.

Let me save you a lot of time O man.

First of all I highly commend you for trying to begin with a neutral stance to this. I have been studying the issue for years. It can be very treacherous ground for people who dont have experience reading the Fathers. For instance I have personally read the sermons and letters of Pope Leo I and he teaches: that the Petrine office was instituted by the Lord, that its essential to the constitution of the Church, and that its practically infallible. If an ill educated person read this he would go jump into the Papal ship. But we must understand that the Fathers were not in agreement on everything. Take the Filioque issue. Most of the West after Augustine believed it. But the East did not. So then who are we to believe? Sometimes there actually is no consensus of the Fathers but there is rather equal opinion either way. What we can do, however, is look at the claims of the medieval popes and see how much they diverged from the Christian way. Actually what we find is a new religion. That makes the "bible" and "patristic" debate irrelevant. This puts the whole thing in a new perspective.

Please read these papal documents and carefully consider them:

Unam Sanctum: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Dictatus Papae: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html

Turn off the scholar and turn on the spiritman. By Christian discernment you will see that this is not the way of Jesus. Even if the above documents were traditions going back to the very first centuries [of course they were not, but hypothetically speaking] I would be bound in conscience to reject them. Thats how seriously the papacy departed from the spirit of the gospel. The quickest means to understand this is by participation in the divine energies of the risen Lord.
The great apostasy has occured. Get out of there while you can!!! Its better to be priestless than to have a heretic bishop. The apostles taught that the church consists of saints only. There are about 7,000 Spirit-bearers currently in the catacombs.

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,281
  • City of Light
God bless !

The church fathers believed that all Apostels received the keys/the same blessing:

St. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.

"We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth. If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces, render a Bishop neither greater nor less."

It cannot be more distinctly stated that the rule of truth dwells only in the entire episcopal body, and not at Rome; that the Bishop of Rome is no more, as bishop, than the humblest bishop of the Church;

St. John Chrysostom:
"Behold," he says, "how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. . . ." Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

If you believe," he says, Origen, Commentary on St. Matt. "that God has raised the whole building of his Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the son of the Thunder? What will you say of each of the Apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail against the others? Are not the words, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, addressed to them all? Have not these words had their fulfillment in each one of the Apostles?"

St. Ambrose, On the Incarnation. "Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell." The truth confessed by St. Peter is, therefore, the foundation of the Church, and no promise was made to his person, nor, consequently, to his subjective faith.

In explaining these words in the epistle to the Galatians, "I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter," he says: "It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superiour to him and to the other Apostles? No; but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be intrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No; but that Peter might know that Paul had received "the power which had also been given to himself."

St. Augustine Retractions, Book I. ch. 21. "In that book, I said in one place, in speaking of St. Peter, that the Church had been built on him as on the rock. This thought is sung by many in the verses of the blessed Ambrose, who says of the cock, that "when it crew the Rock of the Church deplored his fault.' But I know that subsequently I very frequently adopted this sense, that when the Lord said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' he meant by this rock, the one which Peter had confessed in saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son, of the living God;' so that Peter, called by the name of this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon that rock, and which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In fact, it was not said to him, Thou art the rock; but thou art Peter. The rock was Christ. Peter having confessed him as all the Church confesses him, he was called Peter.

A few of hundrets or thousends similar !

No one thought of Peter or the Pope that they only have the keys or are infallable...but if you like I can post more also from Councils and Synods.
And also from St. Greogory the great (he is often used as witness for the Primacy but in reality he was against such teaching)

IN CHRIST




It's obvious to anyone who spends any amount of time on Christian discussion forums that Catholics spend copious amounts of time compiling patristic quotes supporting their ideas of papal primacy (just google "Peter the rock" and you'll see what I mean). Setting aside the fact that as Orthodox we have to prove a negative i.e. that the pope wasn't something, there are far fewer readily available resources for us. May I ask where you got these quotes?

Thank you....

Yours in Christ
Paisius
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 12:47:29 AM by Paisius »

Offline Magicsilence

  • CAF driftwood
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • Maronite Catholic

St. John Chrysostom:
"Behold," he says, "how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. . . ." Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.


I am very busy studying for exams right now, but wanted to address at least this one quote from St John Chrysostom.

The alleged homily is here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210108.htm

And the above quote is not in it. The only thing that comes remotely close is:

Do you remark how unassuming Peter is, how he makes no display even to the object of his beneficence?

Please could you substantiate your quote?

In Jesus Christ,



Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,497
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Actually you're applying a common protestant argument revolving around the Greek text (Petros/Petra) to the Latin text (Petrus/Petram), but in any case I'll give the answer that in Aramaic there would not have been this distinction. Jesus would have used the word Cephas. And that the reason why the translator decided to use the word Petros rather than Petra was probably something to do with not giving a guy a feminine noun as a name.

Catholig

It doesn't matter what it was in Aramaic; the Apostles wrote in Greek and it is this text which is inspired. The Gospel is not a word for word biography but rather a theological reflection on certain aspects of Christ's earthly ministry.

I have no problem accepting Peter is the rock as long as it is in the context of his proper confession of faith (which was the context he received the new name in anyway).
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Christodoulos

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 396


It's obvious to anyone who spends any amount of time on Christian discussion forums that Catholics spend copious amounts of time compiling patristic quotes supporting their ideas of papal primacy (just google "Peter the rock" and you'll see what I mean). Setting aside the fact that as Orthodox we have to prove a negative i.e. that the pope wasn't something, there are far fewer readily available resources for us. May I ask where you got these quotes?

Thank you....

Yours in Christ
Paisius

God bless u Paisios !

They are only a few of perhaps thousends........like St. Gregory the great often is quoted for the Primacy of the Pope but from his letters it is clear that he was against such Super Primacy or Monarchy in the Church. Or one only has to study the Synods and Councils -local and Ecumenical and it is clear that they never thought of the infallability of the roman Pope !

In CHRIST,our true God

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,795
I know, if only the Catholics weren't such ignorant peasants, they could learn to read and then see how clear and obvious it is. If only rustic folk like Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman and Joseph Ratzinger had been taught to read!  ;)

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,497
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
I've actually been revisiting this issue lately due to running into a few Roman Catholic apologists as of late and wanting to brush up.

When I first used to look at the extensive pages of patristic quotes allegedly supporting the papacy in such books as "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys" and "Upon this Rock" I must admit I was swayed (this was back around 1999-2000).  But then I started noticing some problems:

1) Many of the quotes are from popes themselves claiming these rights. That doesn't mean they were actually accepted by the other bishops.

2) Many of the appeals to Rome were also part of simultaneous appeals to other bishops of the West of importance.

3) When Pope Vigilius was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council I believe it was under St Justinian, I believe it was his own Metropolitan in Milan who broke communion with him (I am getting this from the book Imperial Unity by John Meyendorff).  While the case of Vigilius was complex, I find it interesting that the Western bishops at this time still believed they could break communion with a Pope and still be Catholic.

4) The arguments for Pope Honorius not really being a heretic rest on a legalistic distinction between a "Private letter" not being a "public teaching" even though Patriarch Sergius was asking him for the correct teaching that he should publicly teach, which he did. In one RC apologetics book I am reading, the author, who has a doctorate yet quotes apologists Karl Keating, Steve Ray, and the wildly eccentric James Likoudis (!) as sources (which in itself seems a bit odd), states that no popes accepted Honorius's condemnation by the Council. That is a blatant lie, as it was not only accepted, but the condemnation of Honorius was placed in the papal oath against heretics for the next six hundred years!

5) Several of the quotes used are actually spurious.

6) Quotes against papal primacy are ignored, for instance, the quotes of St Basil against Pope St Damascus are never reported.

7) Oftentimes the forgeries of the Psuedo-Decretals of Isidore and the Donation of Constantine's role in the development of the Papacy is ignored.

While I think that Orthodox often deny there was any primacy of Rome, which I think is itself a bit dishonest, I think to go from a primacy of somewhat spiritual but also clearly political provenance to the infallible, divine-right, universal jurisdiction of Vatican I is clearly a stretch.  That brings up the question of "development of doctrine" which I find to be problematic as well but subject for another discussion.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.