OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 11:10:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supremacy of Peter  (Read 45317 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #450 on: May 31, 2008, 02:12:41 PM »

Just for the sake of discussion, would you care to show us this historical record.  I agree with you, but I would just like our friend skippy to see exactly what he's up against.
Please show us the historical records which show that James was in charge.
 I am saying that no historical records show either viewpoint. Both assertions are just that assertions.

Acts doesn't say either way.  Acts doesn't say who was in charge just who spoke and when the debate ended. The debate ended when Peter had spoken. And as I see it, then James spoke to sum up what Peter had said and therefore give directions to his people. So to speak, the corporation boss spoke and the local manager gives the assignments for the day to the locals.

There is no clear person in charge but it leans towards Peter since the debate ended after he had spoken.

PetertheAleut's  summary from Orthophotos an Orthodox site says.
"After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter."
It is an Orthodox opinionbut it sure sounds like what I said.  I didn't remember the part about James being a strict  adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet "righteous."

An aside from the summary, which says "Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem, placed there by the Lord Himself." When and where was it done by the Lord himself?  Is that scriptural? or from the Fathers? from apocryphal sources? Not germane to the topic at hand , just wondering.

Can some one comment on any possible reason that Jesus went through all the bother (traipse all the way to the big Rock formation at Caesarea Phillipi, change Simon's name, give him keys, tell him to feed the lambs and sheep, tell him to strengthen his brothers) just to honor Peter (primacy of honor) and then call him Satan? (contrasting his divine revelation and his human opinion.) Seems counterproductive. But I gather you will, at least, give him primacy of honor. Please do correct me if I am wrong on giving him primacy of honor as I am sure you will be more than happy to let me know the error of my ways.



Thanks for your input.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #451 on: May 31, 2008, 02:30:49 PM »

More straw man arguments.. No one denies Peter's leadership of the disciples. We deny he had universal and sole jurisdiction over the Church. He had honorary power, not the Monarchical power of today's Roman Pope. Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope wasn't even mildly suggested by Rome until the fourth century.

I don't think this is a strawman argument but is one not well argued. It is obvious to me Peter is referring to Christ telling him to "feed his sheep" (Hebrews) and "feed his lambs" (Gentiles) which incident itself does not promote Peter over the others, nor here either.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
skippy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #452 on: May 31, 2008, 02:49:18 PM »

PetertheAleut's  summary from Orthophotos an Orthodox site says.
sorry Marc and Peter. My bad.
 Should read: Marc's summary from Orthophotos
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,649


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #453 on: May 31, 2008, 03:24:55 PM »

Please show us the historical records which show that James was in charge.
Speaking of yourself in the plural?  Why don't you just say, "show ME the historical record."

Quote
I am saying that no historical records show either viewpoint. Both assertions are just that assertions.

Acts doesn't say either way.  Acts doesn't say who was in charge just who spoke and when the debate ended. The debate ended when Peter had spoken.
Actually, the debate ended after James had spoken, too.  It's just that James had the last last word.  Otherwise, the view you express above is much closer to the truth of the matter than what you have argued before.  That either Peter or James was in charge of the council is not clear from St. Luke's record alone and must be read into the account from outside traditions.  If anything, what is obvious in Chapter 15 of Acts is the biblical precedent for a conciliar approach to resolving great difficulties within the Church.  This approach alone, though, seems to speak against the papal monarchy you advocate as being clearly established in the Scriptures.

Quote
And as I see it, then James spoke to sum up what Peter had said and therefore give directions to his people. So to speak, the corporation boss spoke and the local manager gives the assignments for the day to the locals.

There is no clear person in charge but it leans towards Peter since the debate ended after he had spoken.
You still have to establish from the historical record that the Apostles actually did see Peter as supreme Apostle over all others.  You still have to prove that your interpretation of the Scriptures (e.g., Matthew 16:18) is what the Apostles always taught and what the Church always believed from the start.  So far all you have given us is your interpretation, which is easily refutable.

Quote
PetertheAleut's  summary from Orthophotos an Orthodox site says.
"After long discussions, the issue was settled by the words of the Apostle Peter."
It is an Orthodox opinionbut it sure sounds like what I said.  I didn't remember the part about James being a strict  adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet "righteous."

An aside from the summary, which says "Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem, placed there by the Lord Himself." When and where was it done by the Lord himself?  Is that scriptural? or from the Fathers? from apocryphal sources? Not germane to the topic at hand , just wondering.

Can some one comment on any possible reason that Jesus went through all the bother (traipse all the way to the big Rock formation at Caesarea Phillipi, change Simon's name, give him keys, tell him to feed the lambs and sheep, tell him to strengthen his brothers) just to honor Peter (primacy of honor) and then call him Satan? (contrasting his divine revelation and his human opinion.) Seems counterproductive. But I gather you will, at least, give him primacy of honor. Please do correct me if I am wrong on giving him primacy of honor as I am sure you will be more than happy to let me know the error of my ways.

Thanks for your input.
Much closer to the truth than what you've projected onto us before.  We certainly don't deny Peter a primacy of honor and even authority.  We just have never seen him desiring to lord any authority over any of the other apostles in violation of Luke 22:25-26, nor have we ever believed that St. Peter bestowed his primacy upon Rome in perpetuity or that Rome inherited its primacy from St. Peter by divine fiat.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 04:51:13 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,649


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #454 on: May 31, 2008, 05:16:59 PM »

Something else to think about:  I think it was Henry Chadwick (The Early Church (The Penguin History of the Church), Revised Edition; Penguin Books; 1993) who pointed out that Pope St. Stephen (during his conflict with Bishop St. Cyprian of Carthage regarding how to receive those who had been baptized by the Novatian schismatics, this in the mid 3rd Century) was the first to interpret Matthew 16:18 in the manner currently accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.  Prior to this, no bishop of Rome is recorded as having spoken anything different from the belief that the rock on which Christ promised to build His Church was the faith that St. Peter confessed, the belief that the Orthodox Church has preserved to this day.  If it wasn't in Henry Chadwick's work, it was in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity, an earlier edition published by Oxford University Press many years ago.
Logged
Ignatius of Antioch
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 10

Saint Ignatius of Antioch Pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #455 on: June 02, 2008, 04:05:08 AM »

I just wanted to add something about Roman Papacy. The Papal Papacy is not supported in either Scripture or Church History. What holds the Roman Idea of Papacy is there doctrines of Saint Peter being both the Leader of the Apostle and the Rock to which to Christ' Church was built. But neither can support the Roman position. To Rome, "Peter=Rome", a bad equation I might add.

The idea that Saint Peter is the leader of the Apostles is clear through Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers of the Church. No argument here. But he wasn't "vicar of Christ" nor was he infallible nor was he "supreme leader" (or a dictator). He had a primacy of honor and authority.

Now lets say for the stake of the argument, that Saint Peter was the Rock that the Church was build, whats difference does it make in discussing Papal Papacy? Saint Peter did not start the Roman Church first, rather he started the Church of Antioch and Alexandria. Each Bishop can claim that he is the successor of Saint Peter. Rome isn't special in this regard. Why isn't the Bishop of Antioch the "Church Leader"? Petrine Authority doesn't prove anything. Why Roman Catholics need to mention Saint Peter as being the Church leader and the rock to which the Church was build every time they talk about "Roman Papacy" is beyond my understanding. The Early Church Fathers "consensus" teachings is far from Rome idea. All bishops, are in fact, a successor to Saint Peter and the Apostles.

Did Rome had any special primacy in the Early Church? Yes (He was first among equals), but the Church never regarded the Bishop of Rome as there "leader" nor acknowledge that he was infallible when He spoke about Faith and Morals. Rome's authority was very limited. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (Canon III) states very clearly that Constantinople have prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome. These honors were given to them, they never "own" it (as a God-given right). The Bishop of Rome receive honor first because Rome was the capital, until Constantinople became the New Rome. Rome spoke agaisnt this canon but it didn't make a difference. Rome never accepted canon 28 of Chalcedon(451) (until 1215), but the canon still remained regardless of what Rome thought. This proves that Rome wasn't special, nor was she "Church Leader". The fact that the Early Church held "Ecumenical Councils" proves, again, that the Church never regarded Rome as "Church Leader" or else they would have run to Rome and allow the Pope to settle the matter. No the Early Church was "This is was good for the Holy Spirit, and thus this is good for us". On a side note, the Pope wasn't invited nor was He part of one of the (or two, kinda forgot this) Ecumenical Council.

The Council of Quinisext (AD 692) (the canons is said to be part of the sixth council, to which the 5th and 6th councils never did any "Canons" for the Church, thus this Council was called to correct that. The 7th Ecumenical council ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council) spoke out agaisnt many of Rome's practices that were wrong.

The Holy Orthodox Church Leader is Christ.

Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner.
In IC.XC,
Ignatius
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 04:12:31 AM by Ignatius of Antioch » Logged

Virgin Theotokos, rejoice!
O Mary, Full of Grace;
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
For thou hast borne the Savior of our souls.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!
O Giver of Life, Glory to Thee!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #456 on: June 02, 2008, 11:40:45 AM »

Hi Skippy,

I just saw this:

Yes I do mind Please remove it.

(I've been busy with other things. No offense intended, but this thread isn't exactly on the top of my priority list.) Thank you for letting me know. If you check my website again, you'll see that you are now no longer quoted.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 11:41:56 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: St. Peter ecclesiology Petrine Primacy Pope Troll Primacy of Peter Supremacy of Peter 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 34 queries.