OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 12:45:45 PM *
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 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Thou Art Peter"  (Read 44837 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #90 on: November 17, 2003, 07:55:59 PM »

Just a random thought...for the most part, everything that moderns villify the Church by, the crusades, the inquisition, etc, represents something lacking in the modern West, and that is the idea that the Truth is worth fighting for.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #91 on: November 17, 2003, 09:24:48 PM »


One comment, however.

You seem to be critiquing a Roman Catholic strawman rather than what I believe.

I do not believe the popes are or ever were infallible, just as St. Peter himself was not infallible.

I do not believe the early popes exercised autocratic authority.

I do believe they acted as presidents or executive officers within the College of Bishops, however. Councils could overrule or depose them if necessary.

I am not finished learning and studying, so I cannot supply the exact limits of papal authority within the Church. I think that authority went further than most Orthodox will acknowledge and not near as far as modern RCism asserts.

That last sentence of yours could be altered slightly and applied to the authority of bishops in general.

Why bother with presbyters?


I don't know about the 'strawman', frankly, but the next three sentences above I agree with.
I do believe Christ appointed Peter as 'leader'. Let's face it, only Peter's rock-steady faith could hold the apostles together. I cannot imagine what would have happened without a steady leader.
Our apparent argument centers on whether Christ meant for that authority given Peter was to extend to his successors. Your opinion is that He did. My opinion is that He did and that that authority was defined by the Church in the manner I've already stated. My objection is that I still do not believe the Popes' authority ever extended to within another patriarchal see. (Please show me otherwise from your continued studies).
I'm not going to address your last statement as it is based on opposing opinions which themselves are subjective to whomever is opining from each side and I'm too tired to alter anything right now.

In closing, every single time I get imbroiled in this topic -either on forum or in private- I realize that Christ did state EXACTLY what He intended by way of dramatic demonstration in John; Ch 13. Especially verse 14 where His wishes for how He wanted relations between the apostles (including Peter) are clearly shown. I always extend this to all apostolic successors.

{Last post on this topic , hopefully, as Mrs. Demetri has directed me to engage in an activity known of as "work" and accumulate an increased amount of billable hours.}   Smiley

Demetri
Logged

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

Posts: 54



« Reply #92 on: November 17, 2003, 09:59:07 PM »

I think that arguing about past wrongs, as a central issue, is a waste of time and ends up being an endless tennis match of tit-for-tat.  It seems to serve no purpose, except to argue for argument's sake.  I'm Orthodox, not because the Roman Catholics sacked Constantinople in 1204 A.D., but because I believe that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.  

gbmtmas
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #93 on: November 17, 2003, 10:08:41 PM »

Just a random thought...for the most part, everything that moderns villify the Church by, the crusades, the inquisition, etc, represents something lacking in the modern West, and that is the idea that the Truth is worth fighting for.

Do you really think so--relatively speaking?  The modern West fights for a lot of things it believes to be "truth."  The difference is not in the willingness to fight, so it seems, but in the object (or "truth") that is being fought for.

gbmtmas
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #94 on: November 17, 2003, 10:12:33 PM »

I think that arguing about past wrongs, as a central issue, is a waste of time and ends up being an endless tennis match of tit-for-tat.  It seems to serve no purpose, except to argue for argument's sake.  I'm Orthodox, not because the Roman Catholics sacked Constantinople in 1204 A.D., but because I believe that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.  

gbmtmas

Good point.

I also do not think it is entirely correct to say "the Roman Catholics sacked Constantinople," as if the sacking of Constantinople was a religious enterprise planned by the RCC. It was not. It was something done primarily by the French, who happened to be Roman Catholics (in name, at least, if not in behavior).

I am sure we could dredge up atrocities committed by Russians, but I hope we wouldn't say, "the Orthodox massacred that Jewish village," as if the Church planned a pogrom.

A lot of terrible things were done in the distant past, like the Sack of Constantinople.

But, like gbmtmas, I am Orthodox because the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #95 on: November 17, 2003, 10:27:05 PM »

I do believe they acted as presidents or executive officers within the College of Bishops, however. Councils could overrule or depose them if necessary.

How would you reconcile the last sentence with Vatican I's statement that said:

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.


Or the dictatus papae that said:

That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
That this is the only name in the world.
...That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.


This seems to enforce the idea that the Pope can be judged by one and that his power is absolute.  In fact, except for the portion of Sedevacantists who have elected their own pope, this is the quandry that most traditionalist Catholics find themselves in--namely, what exactly to do with a pope they believe is a heretic.  The Roman Catholic Church does not seem to have a process that is congruent with its modern concept of the Papacy, on how to remove/depose/condemn a pope.

gbmtmas
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #96 on: November 17, 2003, 10:37:16 PM »

I also do not think it is entirely correct to say "the Roman Catholics sacked Constantinople," as if the sacking of Constantinople was a religious enterprise planned by the RCC. It was not. It was something done primarily by the French, who happened to be Roman Catholics (in name, at least, if not in behavior).

That's certainly a valid point, and your statement is perhaps more accurate than my initial statement.

Quote
I am sure we could dredge up atrocities committed by Russians, but I hope we wouldn't say, "the Orthodox massacred that Jewish village," as if the Church planned a pogrom.

This is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote my first post about dredging up the past, and thanks for mentioning that.  It's a reminder that our calling as Christians is not to dwell on past wrong-doings, but (at least try) to love even those who don't love us--as a witness in the Truth.

gbmtmas
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #97 on: November 17, 2003, 10:51:16 PM »

Quote
Do you really think so--relatively speaking?  The modern West fights for a lot of things it believes to be "truth."  The difference is not in the willingness to fight, so it seems, but in the object (or "truth") that is being fought for.

gbmtmas


This is a good point, but I wasn't speaking relatively. And one could conject that while the people fighting for their relative truths may be doing so in good conscience, they are no idealists, sending in the troops.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #98 on: November 25, 2003, 03:17:13 PM »

I do believe they acted as presidents or executive officers within the College of Bishops, however. Councils could overrule or depose them if necessary.

How would you reconcile the last sentence with Vatican I's statement that said:

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.


Or the dictatus papae that said:

That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
That this is the only name in the world.
...That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.


This seems to enforce the idea that the Pope can be judged by one and that his power is absolute.  In fact, except for the portion of Sedevacantists who have elected their own pope, this is the quandry that most traditionalist Catholics find themselves in--namely, what exactly to do with a pope they believe is a heretic.  The Roman Catholic Church does not seem to have a process that is congruent with its modern concept of the Papacy, on how to remove/depose/condemn a pope.

gbmtmas

Well, since I am Orthodox, I am not bound by Vatican I or the dictatus papae you quoted.

I would also cite the Council of Constance (1415, if I recall correctly) historically as acting to clear up a tangled papal mess.

What pope (or what three, I should say), acting alone, could have cleared up that difficulty?

Don't get me wrong; I am not knocking the idea of an orthodox catholic Pope as the leader of the Church. I am merely trying to find the correct via media between the extremes.

The Bishop of Rome as President of what amounts to a primarily conciliar system of governance; that is how I see it thus far.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2003, 03:56:51 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #99 on: November 25, 2003, 06:47:07 PM »

[I think that arguing about past wrongs, as a central issue, is a waste of time and ends up being an endless tennis match of tit-for-tat.  It seems to serve no purpose, except to argue for argument's sake.  I'm Orthodox, not because the Roman Catholics sacked Constantinople in 1204 A.D., but because I believe that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ]

Very good point.  I'm RC not because the Orthodox (insert awful event from the past here) but because I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #100 on: November 25, 2003, 06:51:41 PM »

[I think that arguing about past wrongs, as a central issue, is a waste of time and ends up being an endless tennis match of tit-for-tat.  It seems to serve no purpose, except to argue for argument's sake.  I'm Orthodox, not because the Roman Catholics sacked Constantinople in 1204 A.D., but because I believe that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ]

Very good point.  I'm RC not because the Orthodox (insert awful event from the past here) but because I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ.

Carpo-Rusyn


Me too.  Wink
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #101 on: November 25, 2003, 08:47:23 PM »

I have found  increasing difficulties in accepting statements like the last sentence of Vatican I and Dictatus Pape after studying the Eastern Church during the past year and a half, so where does that leave me ?

Remember Acts 10: 24-26

" And on the following day they entered Caesarea . Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his kinsmen and close friends. When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up , saying "Stand up, I too am a man."

I doubt if Peter would agree with the Vatican I &  Dictatus Pape statements.

james
« Last Edit: November 25, 2003, 09:21:03 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #102 on: November 25, 2003, 10:07:52 PM »

James

[I have found  increasing difficulties in accepting statements like the last sentence of Vatican I and Dictatus Pape after studying the Eastern Church during the past year and a half, so where does that leave me ?]

That's a question only you can answer.  Does this affect your salvation?  Peter was a man so is the current pope so were the popes who authored the 2 documents you're concerned about.  But seriously is the place of Peter going to affect you salvation?

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #103 on: November 25, 2003, 11:27:16 PM »

Ah, brother Carpo,

I do not think that the Pope should reflect Imperial Rome, the Church does not need a Caesar, but a shepard.

I do not think my salvation is in danger due to my feelings regarding the Pope.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #104 on: November 25, 2003, 11:30:27 PM »

hey everyone..I haven't read thru this whole topic but...I was wondering if anybody brought up that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic and named him Cephas, which to my knowledge means rock, this is important in proving Peter is the rock because St. Paul in Gal 1:18; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5 names Peter, not Simon, not Peter, but Cephas.

So I am wondering if Peter is not the rock, why was Paul calling him the rock. Or am I just wrong and Cephas does not mean rock?

ps. Is it Cephas or Kephas?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2003, 11:37:39 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #105 on: November 25, 2003, 11:37:29 PM »

hey everyone..I haven't read thru this whole topic but...I was wondering if anybody brought up that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic and named him Cephas, which to my knowledge means rock, this is important in proving Peter is the rock because St. Paul in Gal 1:18; 2:7,11,14; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5 names Peter, not Simon, not Peter, but Cephas.

So I am wondering if Peter is not the rock, why was Paul calling him the rock. Or am I just wrong and Cephas does not mean rock?

Yes it has been pointed out. Some Ortho's agree that Jesus picked Peter to be the rock. However they disagre as to how much authority a Pope should have in comparison to the other Patriarchs etc. To a certain extent I agree with them on that one particualr point. Yet I submit to the authority of The pope myself.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #106 on: November 25, 2003, 11:42:02 PM »

OK thanks Polycarp...it just seems that so much points to Peter being the Rock, but then again he wouldn't be the rock if it wasn't for his confession..but I am sure the fact that both him and his confession of faith being the rock has already been brought up..hmm just thinking and praying....stuck between east and west..not a happy place to be stuck in...

< fixed unintentional typo that might have been considered offensive. John >
« Last Edit: November 26, 2003, 04:46:22 AM by prodromos » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #107 on: November 25, 2003, 11:44:50 PM »

Ben,

Have you read "You Are Peter" by Olivier Clement?
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #108 on: November 26, 2003, 12:55:00 AM »

No, is it a good book?
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #109 on: November 26, 2003, 01:02:49 AM »

It's brilliant. It's an Orthodox response to Pope John Paul II's call to the Orthodox to help him redefine the Petrine ministry. You won't be disappointed. No silly polemics that characterizes some Orthodox works; great reading. It's available from Life and Light publishing, and Amazon.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #110 on: November 26, 2003, 01:16:11 AM »

Here is the St. Peter as the Rock reference you are looking for, Ben:

Can anyone here provide or post Matthew 16:18 from the Holy Apostles Convent New Testament?

I am specifically interested as to how they translated the Greek word +¦+¦. Seems every single English translation I have ever seen translates it as "also" which is would be correct if there were no preceding +++¦++. The meaning does change with differing contexts and I am curious.

Thanks,
Demetri

Here ya go:

"And I say also to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church"

From the notes:

"On this rock" (tante te petra)  - feminine demonstrative pronoun and article - does not refer to the person of Peter. Christ would have used the masculine if He were referring to the person of Peter




That problem - the Petros/petra problem - disappears when one realizes that our Lord Jesus named Simon bar Jonah Kepha - Rock - in Aramaic.

Matthew 16:18 would have gone something like this:

"And I say to you that you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

The Fathers taught that both St. Peter and his confession were the Rock upon which Christ built the Church.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #111 on: November 26, 2003, 11:42:11 AM »

But was Matthew originally written in Aramaic or Greek?  I know some claim the former, but others dispute this. If indeed the Gospel was written under Divine inspiration in Greek, perhaps the petros/petra distinction truly captured the gist of what Jesus was really saying.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #112 on: November 26, 2003, 09:37:03 PM »

OK thanks Polycarp...it just seems that so much points to Peter being the Rock, but then again he wouldn't be the rock if it wasn't for his confession..but I am sure the fact that both him and his confession of faith being the rock has already been brought up..hmm just thinking and praying....stuck between east and west..not a happy place to be stuck in...

< fixed unintentional typo that might have been considered offensive. John >

Perhaps it's best to stay where God put you to begin with. If you found Christ there and whether it's Catholic or Orthodox then make the best out of it. Maybe God want's people to make things better right where he put them. Ever think of it that way? God's will be done not our own. Pray on it.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #113 on: November 26, 2003, 11:57:28 PM »

[Perhaps it's best to stay where God put you to begin with. If you found Christ there and whether it's Catholic or Orthodox then make the best out of it. Maybe God want's people to make things better right where he put them. Ever think of it that way? God's will be done not our own. Pray on it.
Peace,]

Amen

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #114 on: November 27, 2003, 12:17:49 AM »

But was Matthew originally written in Aramaic or Greek?  I know some claim the former, but others dispute this. If indeed the Gospel was written under Divine inspiration in Greek, perhaps the petros/petra distinction truly captured the gist of what Jesus was really saying.

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (Book 3, Chapter 24), says of St. Matthew's Gospel that the saint "committed it to writing in his native tongue."

Of course, St. Matthew's "native tongue" was probably Aramaic, although Eusebius apparently thought it was Hebrew:

"Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew . . . " (ibid).

So, did St. Matthew write his gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Your guess is as good as mine.

In either case, I believe, the Petros/petra controversy disappears.

Oh, and regardless of what language St. Matthew chose for his gospel, the fact remains that our Lord and His disciples spoke Aramaic, which was the common tongue of Judea in those days. The New Testament occasionally reflects this with reference to St. Peter in naming him Cephas (Aramaic Kepha, "Rock").
« Last Edit: November 27, 2003, 12:27:02 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #115 on: November 27, 2003, 01:51:27 AM »

But was Matthew originally written in Aramaic or Greek?  I know some claim the former, but others dispute this. If indeed the Gospel was written under Divine inspiration in Greek, perhaps the petros/petra distinction truly captured the gist of what Jesus was really saying.

I think Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, thats just what I have been told by Orthodox and Catholic priests. Either way Jesus spoke Aramaic and not greek.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #116 on: November 27, 2003, 03:11:07 AM »

Either way Jesus spoke Aramaic and not greek.

I believe he spoke both Aramaic and Greek. I do agree, however that when he gave Simon the name "Rock", it was in Aramaic (John 1:42)

John.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #117 on: November 28, 2003, 03:40:57 AM »


I believe he spoke both Aramaic and Greek. I do agree, however that when he gave Simon the name "Rock", it was in Aramaic (John 1:42)

John.

I think you are right, John. But I've often wondered whether most (or all, even) of the Gospels were "scribed" by their authors or, perhaps, were they "transcribed" during live dictations instead. I'm sure that could have an affect on the renderings in either language.
When I read my digital copy of the Assyrian Church of the East NT in English translation next to, say, a NKJV, I specutate that at least one of these English versions is a translation of a translation, or maybe not! One dictation of each book (more than one for each stretches credulity) could have been scribed in both (or all three) languages, simultaneously is even possible. Boggles my now turkey-sated mind.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #118 on: November 28, 2003, 12:53:45 PM »

Either way Jesus spoke Aramaic and not greek.

I believe he spoke both Aramaic and Greek. I do agree, however that when he gave Simon the name "Rock", it was in Aramaic (John 1:42)

John.

I agree, especially since our Lord quoted the Septuagint.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #119 on: November 28, 2003, 07:13:33 PM »

Even if one could demonstrate that St.Peter really possessed the type of leadership in the midst of the Apostles that Latin apologists claim (which I would suggest is not possible, since the very Fathers they often cite like St.John Chrysostom or St.Cyprian say things which clearly show their polemical snippits to not represent their thought on this subject), the one key thing that is overlooked is how such a "maximalist" understanding of St.Peter relates to the Papacy itself.

Too often, I see articles/tracts claiming to "prove the Papacy", which do only one thing - seemingly demonstrate that St.Peter was "chief of the Apostles" as Rome has come to understand this.  What actually links the Papacy to the "role of Peter", whether it be the logic or Biblical/patristic argument, is almost always missing.  Too often too, I see Orthodox readers not even noticing this gloss.

Seraphim
Logged

Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #120 on: November 28, 2003, 08:50:22 PM »

Even if one could demonstrate that St.Peter really possessed the type of leadership in the midst of the Apostles that Latin apologists claim (which I would suggest is not possible, since the very Fathers they often cite like St.John Chrysostom or St.Cyprian say things which clearly show their polemical snippits to not represent their thought on this subject), the one key thing that is overlooked is how such a "maximalist" understanding of St.Peter relates to the Papacy itself.

Too often, I see articles/tracts claiming to "prove the Papacy", which do only one thing - seemingly demonstrate that St.Peter was "chief of the Apostles" as Rome has come to understand this.  What actually links the Papacy to the "role of Peter", whether it be the logic or Biblical/patristic argument, is almost always missing.  Too often too, I see Orthodox readers not even noticing this gloss.

Seraphim

Saint Peter was most definately the "chief" apostle. The one who Jesus personally changed his name to Rocky and to who Jesus gave the office of the keys.
The understanding of the office of the Papacy was one which developed as circumstances warrented. This where the discussion should be centered.
All of our discussions should be centered on how can we be reconsiled back into the One Holy Catholic Church. That should be our goal as Catholic Christians.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #121 on: November 28, 2003, 09:01:06 PM »

Polycarp,

I think you'd love Olivier Clement's book "You Are Peter." Those are the very points he addresses.
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #122 on: November 28, 2003, 09:45:48 PM »

Polycarp

The Clement book is actually very good though his take on the papacy is unashamedly EO.

Byzantino knows his books! Smiley

CR
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #123 on: November 29, 2003, 02:24:20 PM »

Polycarp,

Quote
Saint Peter was most definately the "chief" apostle. The one who Jesus personally changed his name to Rocky and to who Jesus gave the office of the keys.

Well, let's look at the significance of the term "rock" in the Scriptures, aside from St.Peter's name change.  (note, the emphasis in all of the quotes is mine, if this is not obvious)

Quote
Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock (St.Matthew 7:24)

As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whosoever believeth in Him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:23)

and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. (1st Corinthians 10:4)

Here also, are passages pertaining to the issue of what the foundation of the Church is, aside from the passage in St.Matthew 16 that this discussion is revolving around...

Quote
Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: he is like a man which built a house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it; for it was founded upon a rock. (St.Luke 6:47-48 )

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.  For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1st Corinthians 3:10-11)

He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were nigh; for through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore, ye are strangers and foreigners no more, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.  Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,  in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord,  in Whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:17-22)

but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1st Timothy 3:15)

And here is a particularly dense, rich vision of the Church/Heavenly Jerusalem, which the "Church Militant" (Church in this world) participates in, and indeed is a foretaste of the glory which is to come...

Quote
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, "Come hither; I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the Holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God,
11 having the glory of God. And her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.
12 It had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof and the walls thereof.
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as great as the breadth; and he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs; the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof: a hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
18 And the wall was built of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald,
20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each separate gate was of one pearl, and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were, transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it; for the glory of God gave it light, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of it, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there,
26 and they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it.
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but only they that are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.  (Apocalypse of St.John 21:9-27)

Some Conclusions...

- The terms "rock" and "foundation" are used interchangeably.

- The terms "rock" and "foundation" fundamentally refer to Christ.

- By extension, His word/revelation are also "rock" and "foundation", as the above passages indicate, for the communication of the Holy Gospel in preaching is the beginning of the Church's mission to the unredeemed; It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (St.John 6:63)

- The "foundation" is also the Church Herself, which is diffused throughout the world through this preaching; this Church is the "bride of Christ", His Spouse, and indeed, His very Body (and thus, on this score, is the "foundation", for He is the Rock and Foundation).

- The Prophets and Apostles who first received this truth, and (in the case of the Holy Apostles) diffused it throughout the world (founding the Church everywhere) are also called, by extension, part of the Church's "foundation" - this is richly illustrated in the incredible vision of grace received by St.John the Theologian in the Apocalypse.

With all of this in mind, it is possible to read St.Mathtew chapter 16 in context.

- According to St.John 6:65, and St.Matthew 16:17, no one can accept the revelation of God, without God's assistance - it is not something founded upon human genius or cleverness, but a work of grace.

- The then named "Simon, son of Jonah" is the first to confess that Christ is the "Son of the Living God" (St.Matthew 16:16)  This is the source of any pre-eminance he will have (not any virtue he himself may possess)

- In verse 18 we read "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter (rock), and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it."  What is interesting, is that the Lord says "you are Rock" but then does not proceed to say "and upon you I will build by Church" but "you are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build My Church".  If what He meant was the particular person of St.Peter and his supposed "successors" (which get no mention whatsoever in the Scriptures), then the manner of His speach seems obscure at best.  However, we know from other passages that the true faith, and He Who it points to (Christ) are most certainly "the Rock" upon which all is founded.

- Simon bar Jonah is re-named "Rock" precisely because by his confession, he is showing himself to be like the "wise man who builds upon Rock" (St.Luke 6:47-48, and other similar passages), and because he is (like the other Apostles) going to be close to the root, the source, of the Church's diffusion throughout the world (one of the "twelve pillars", one of the "Apostles" lying at the foundation of the Church, the "house of God").  IOW, he is re-named (which scripturally is always an important act, such as in the case of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament who had their names changed by God for symbolic reasons) precisely because of his confession.

- St.Peter's pre-eminance and honour amongst the Holy Apostles, his "firstness" is due precisely to his being "the first" to confess the truth of Christ's Divinity.  He will not be the only one to do such; he is simply the first, and this is the source of his honour.  This is precisely why the charge laid upon him by Christ in St.Matthew 16:19, is subsequently given to the other Apostles as well - "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and so whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." (St.Matthew 18:18)  "Firstness", btw., is precisely how the Scriptures speak of St.Peter - it is not some latter day, Byzantine manifestation of rebelliousness to supposedly "legitimate" ecclessiastical authority (ex. "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;" St.Matthew 10:2... and every listing of the Apostles, will always have St.Peter's name listed at the beginning, though chronologically he was not the first Apostle to be called by Christ.)

This is why the Holy Fathers often spoke so glowingly of St.Peter.  He is the "first", not only amongst the twelve, but indeed amongst all Christians.  He was also the first to proclaim the truth of the Holy Gospel after the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and the first to witness to Christ before the enemies of the Church (the Jewish religious heirarchy.)

While we are made very familiar by RC apologists of Patristic passages which they (imho, twist) understand to be "pro-Papal", there are others which clearly show their proper understanding must lie elsewhere.  For example, here are some passages from St.John Chrysostomos, which certainly do not line up very well with the RC take on St.Peter (and I assure you, many others like this from other Fathers could be cited)...

Quote
Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI, p. 169)

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).

And if anyone would say ‘How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?’ I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).

‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).

All of this, of course, is quite beside the question of how St.Peter's ministry relates to that of the Bishops of Rome...a question which I've yet to see an even reasonable polemic for, let alone a half way convincing one.

Seraphim
« Last Edit: November 30, 2003, 02:41:24 PM by Seraphim Reeves » Logged

carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #124 on: November 29, 2003, 02:43:15 PM »

Seraphim

It never ceases to amze me how much time is spent on this forum discussing the Papacy.  One would think someone has a severe case of "church envy".  It seems evident we shall never agree on the office of the Roman pontiff except to engage in endless argument.  Why not do as others have suggested and discuss the things we have in common rather than the things that divide us.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #125 on: November 29, 2003, 04:26:29 PM »

If we don't discuss the things that divide us we'll remain divided.
The problem I have with some Orthodox and Roman Catholics (not only on the internet) is the way we discuss things.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2003, 04:27:18 PM by Byzantino » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #126 on: November 29, 2003, 05:06:12 PM »

Byzantino

[The problem I have with some Orthodox and Roman Catholics (not only on the internet) is the way we discuss things.]


AMEN!


CR
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #127 on: November 29, 2003, 11:50:03 PM »

Polycarp,

Quote
Saint Peter was most definately the "chief" apostle. The one who Jesus personally changed his name to Rocky and to who Jesus gave the office of the keys.

Well, let's look at the significance of the term "rock" in the Scriptures, aside from St.Peter's name change.  (note, the emphasis in all of the quotes is mine, if this is not obvious)

Quote
Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock (St.Matthew 7:24)

As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whosoever believeth in Him shall not be ashamed." (Romans 9:23)

and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. (1st Corinthians 10:4)

Here also, are passages pertaining to the issue of what the foundation of the Church is, aside from the passage in St.Matthew 16 that this discussion is revolving around...

Quote
Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: he is like a man which built a house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it; for it was founded upon a rock. (St.Luke 6:47-48)

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.  For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1st Corinthians 3:10-11)

He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were nigh; for through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore, ye are strangers and foreigners no more, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.  Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,  in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord,  in Whom ye also are built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:17-22)

but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1st Timothy 3:15)

And here is a particularly dense, rich vision of the Church/Heavenly Jerusalem, which the "Church Militant" (Church in this world) participates in, and indeed is a foretaste of the glory which is to come...

Quote
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, "Come hither; I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the Holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God,
11 having the glory of God. And her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.
12 It had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof and the walls thereof.
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as great as the breadth; and he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs; the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof: a hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
18 And the wall was built of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald,
20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each separate gate was of one pearl, and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were, transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it; for the glory of God gave it light, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of it, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there,
26 and they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it.
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but only they that are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.  (Apocalypse of St.John 21:9-27)

Some Conclusions...

- The terms "rock" and "foundation" are used interchangeably.

- The terms "rock" and "foundation" fundamentally refer to Christ.

- By extension, His word/revelation are also "rock" and "foundation", as the above passages indicate, for the communication of the Holy Gospel in preaching is the beginning of the Church's mission to the unredeemed; It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (St.John 6:63)

- The "foundation" is also the Church Herself, which is diffused throughout the world through this preaching; this Church is the "bride of Christ", His Spouse, and indeed, His very Body (and thus, on this score, is the "foundation", for He is the Rock and Foundation).

- The Prophets and Apostles who first received this truth, and (in the case of the Holy Apostles) diffused it throughout the world (founding the Church everywhere) are also called, by extension, part of the Church's "foundation" - this is richly illustrated in the incredible vision of grace received by St.John the Theologian in the Apocalypse.

With all of this in mind, it is possible to read St.Mathtew chapter 16 in context.

- According to St.John 6:65, and St.Matthew 16:17, no one can accept the revelation of God, without God's assistance - it is not something founded upon human genius or cleverness, but a work of grace.

- The then named "Simon, son of Jonah" is the first to confess that Christ is the "Son of the Living God" (St.Matthew 16:16)  This is the source of any pre-eminance he will have (not any virtue he himself may possess)

- In verse 18 we read "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter (rock), and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it."  What is interesting, is that the Lord says "you are Rock" but then does not proceed to say "and upon you I will build by Church" but "you are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build My Church".  If what He meant was the particular person of St.Peter and his supposed "successors" (which get no mention whatsoever in the Scriptures), then the manner of His speach seems obscure at best.  However, we know from other passages that the true faith, and He Who it points to (Christ) are most certainly "the Rock" upon which all is founded.

- Simon bar Jonah is re-named "Rock" precisely because by his confession, he is showing himself to be like the "wise man who builds upon Rock" (St.Luke 6:47-48, and other similar passages), and because he is (like the other Apostles) going to be close to the root, the source, of the Church's diffusion throughout the world (one of the "twelve pillars", one of the "Apostles" lying at the foundation of the Church, the "house of God").  IOW, he is re-named (which scripturally is always an important act, such as in the case of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament who had their names changed by God for symbolic reasons) precisely because of his confession.

- St.Peter's pre-eminance and honour amongst the Holy Apostles, his "firstness" is due precisely to his being "the first" to confess the truth of Christ's Divinity.  He will not be the only one to do such; he is simply the first, and this is the source of his honour.  This is precisely why the charge laid upon him by Christ in St.Matthew 16:19, is subsequently given to the other Apostles as well - "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and so whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." (St.Matthew 18:18)  "Firstness", btw., is precisely how the Scriptures speak of Christ - it is not some latter day, Byzantine manifestation of rebelliousness to supposedly "legitimate" ecclessiastical authority (ex. "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;" St.Matthew 10:2... and every listing of the Apostles, will always have St.Peter's name listed at the beginning, though chronologically he was not the first Apostle to be called by Christ.)

This is why the Holy Fathers often spoke so glowingly of St.Peter.  He is the "first", not only amongst the twelve, but indeed amongst all Christians.  He was also the first to proclaim the truth of the Holy Gospel after the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and the first to witness to Christ before the enemies of the Church (the Jewish religious heirarchy.)

While we are made very familiar by RC apologists of Patristic passages which they (imho, twist) understand to be "pro-Papal", there are others which clearly show their proper understanding must lie elsewhere.  For example, here are some passages from St.John Chrysostomos, which certainly do not line up very well with the RC take on St.Peter (and I assure you, many others like this from other Fathers could be cited)...

Quote
Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI, p. 169)

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33, pp. 205, 207).

And if anyone would say ‘How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?’ I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).

‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).

All of this, of course, is quite beside the question of how St.Peter's ministry relates to that of the Bishops of Rome...a question which I've yet to see an even reasonable polemic for, let alone a half way convincing one.

Seraphim

Your post looks like it came right from a fundamentalist Protestant argument. All kinds of wiggling and twisting to try and explain away the fact that Jesus specifically changed Simon's name to Peter/rock and then said he would build his Church on Peter. If there was any doubt in the mind of someone being objective that fact that Jesus then gives Simon Peter the office of The Keys in almost the same breath should wrap it up. Then we can see Peter being listed first in almost all of the lists of apostles. And of coarse Jesus asking Peter to feed his sheep etc. Facts are facts Peter was Jesus' hand picked leader for His Church and he made it clear so all future followers would know it. Of coarse we accept that the Church was built not just on the rock of Peter but on all of the apostles save Judas of coarse. But peter was the "Chief" apostle.
The Papal office developed over time as the circumstances warrented. Pope John Paul II said that we would be willing to make concessions to the Orthodox inorder to reunite The Church. So let's try and keep a positive outlook and pray for a healing in our CHurches relationship.
Peace,
Polycarp
Logged

Peace
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #128 on: November 30, 2003, 12:47:01 AM »

Polycarp

[Your post looks like it came right from a fundamentalist Protestant argument.]

I agree with you it does seem to be almost the same thing you'd get out of Jack Chick (a noted anti-Catholic polemicist also anti-EO by the way).  I go back to my original diagnosis of "church envy".

Keep the Faith Polycarp!
Carpo-Rusyn
 
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #129 on: November 30, 2003, 09:03:19 AM »

Seraphim

It never ceases to amze me how much time is spent on this forum discussing the Papacy.  One would think someone has a severe case of "church envy".  It seems evident we shall never agree on the office of the Roman pontiff except to engage in endless argument.  Why not do as others have suggested and discuss the things we have in common rather than the things that divide us.

Carpo-Rusyn

Indeed, Dr. Carp, you are near to the truth.  We Orthodox Catholics do lament the loss of the See of Rome to the Orthodox Catholic communion. The Church owes much to the Orthodox Bishops of Rome (at least through the 8th century) who championed the Truth against many heresies hatched in the east. Unfortunately, once the Roman church departed, the Church in the east could not help Rome defend itself against later errors in the west.
So, it's not "church envy", but sadness.

Demetri
« Last Edit: November 30, 2003, 09:28:11 AM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #130 on: November 30, 2003, 09:10:16 AM »


http://aggreen.net/peter/st_peter.html

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #131 on: November 30, 2003, 10:05:40 AM »

Demetri

A voice of reason at last!!!

[Unfortunately, once the Roman church departed, the Church in the east could not help Rome defend itself against later errors in the west.]

Errors? What errors?  That's ok we do appreciate the concern.  We in our turn wish we could've helped you guys avoid things like caesaro-papism.  I think we can both agree that we would've been better off if we'd stayed together.  But if all in the world happens as part of God's will (He being more powerful than the evil one) then was the schism His will and why?


[So, it's not "church envy", but sadness.]

I think most therapists will agree that mourning a loss is ok but sooner or later people need to get on with their lives.  

I still think my original diagnosis was correct.  Do I think you or Anastaios, or Serge have a case of "church envy"?  Nope you're all quite secure being EO.  There are some though who are not even EO (who feel free to spout off EO doctrine) who seem to be envious of the RCC.  The other people I find who seem envious of Rome are those who are on the extremes of EO.  

Oh well.  Hope your holiday was nice.
Take care
CR



Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #132 on: November 30, 2003, 11:23:13 AM »

Demetri

A voice of reason at last!!!

[Unfortunately, once the Roman church departed, the Church in the east could not help Rome defend itself against later errors in the west.]

Errors? What errors?  That's ok we do appreciate the concern.  We in our turn wish we could've helped you guys avoid things like caesaro-papism.  I think we can both agree that we would've been better off if we'd stayed together.  But if all in the world happens as part of God's will (He being more powerful than the evil one) then was the schism His will and why?

Oh, carpy!
You give with one hand and take away with the other!  Caesaro-papism? My earlier posts have  previously admitted this dubious influence, however much it was an effect of having an official state religion. BUT to maintain, as so many westerns do, that the Roman Church was not so influenced AFTER the removal of the eastern emperor's heavy hand is to deny history.
So soon after the Pope (of Rome) is free of the emporer in the east, he creates a new one (Charles the "Great") in the west and then promptly falls into undo "Frankish" influence to the detriment of the undivided Church. 'Tis a case of pot-kettle nomenclature, methinks.

Quote
There are some though who are not even EO (who feel free to spout off EO doctrine) who seem to be envious of the RCC.  The other people I find who seem envious of Rome are those who are on the extremes of EO.  

I keep on my desk a fist-sized stone with "#1" painted upon it. I try not to be tempted to throw it. I can't comment for others nor expound on their views of your church.

Demetri




Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #133 on: November 30, 2003, 11:35:26 AM »

Demetri

Well I guess you're right about the pot-kettle thing. The caesaro-papism may have been just a cheap shot.  Sorry

CR
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #134 on: November 30, 2003, 02:13:16 PM »

Carpo,

Quote
It never ceases to amze me how much time is spent on this forum discussing the Papacy.

I would suspect this has to do with the presence of Roman Catholics, or those who are of two minds (but still officially in the RCC) who are curious about becoming Orthodox.   Surprise then, that this is brought up by anyone, seems strange to me.

Quote
One would think someone has a severe case of "church envy".

One would think your statement is a case of being flippant, so as to avoid engaging arguments for which we have no sufficient rebuttal?  See, wild ad hominem arguments are very easy to make.

Quote
It seems evident we shall never agree on the office of the Roman pontiff except to engage in endless argument.

You can speak for yourself, though who knows, I used to be on the other side of the fence on this subject as well.

Quote
Why not do as others have suggested and discuss the things we have in common rather than the things that divide us.

Because frankly, that's a dead end.  It is not the "commonality" which has estranged the Papacy from the Church of Christ, nor will it be that commonality (minus some serious retractions by Rome) which will restore Rome (and it's followers) to the Catholic Church of Christ.

Quote
I agree with you it does seem to be almost the same thing you'd get out of Jack Chick (a noted anti-Catholic polemicist also anti-EO by the way).  I go back to my original diagnosis of "church envy".

Show the Patristic quotes offered, or the Biblical exegesis to be incorrect.  Otherwise, this sounds like demagoguery on your part ("you're opposed to the Papacy = you're a protestant fundie").

Seraphim
Logged

Tags: papal primacy Primacy of Peter Petrine Primacy That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   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 0.168 seconds with 72 queries.