OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 07:49:47 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox and St. Peter's Primacy  (Read 3275 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« on: July 07, 2010, 07:17:13 PM »

Greetings.

I was wondering how the Orthodox interpret Scripture passages that Catholics cite to back up the claim that St. Peter and his successors hold primacy over the other Bishops of the Church. Mainly, I'm wondering what the Orthodox interpretation of St. Matthew 16:18-19, which says "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Thanks in advance for all of your replies.

God Bless,

Wyatt
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,811



« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2010, 07:29:35 PM »

Welcome to the fourm, Wyatt.  Though I could get into this topic a lot, I would recommend that you type words like "pope", "Primacy", "Supremacy" and other appropriate words into the search engine for this page.  You will find that this topic has been discussed many times and from some different perspectives.  That may be the best way to go before starting a new topic where we will just rehash what was said on other threads. 

I'm not trying to squash your inquiries at all, Wyatt, but if you want some immediate results, that would probably be the best way to go.

Again, welcome.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2010, 12:41:07 PM »

Wyatt, I know it's probably simplistic, but for me it's a couple of things.  One, that while Peter gave a response to the controversy brought up at the first biblical council, it was James -- not Peter -- who gave the "final word" ("Wherefore my sentence is..." Acts 15). For another, even though the Lord says to Peter (in the Matthew 16 passage), "whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven," he also tells all the apostles this same exact thing just two chapters later (Matthew 18:18).  
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 12:41:49 PM by Thankful » Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2010, 12:54:42 PM »

Petrus is not petra.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 721



« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2010, 01:25:53 PM »

I was wondering how the Orthodox interpret Scripture passages that Catholics cite to back up the claim that St. Peter and his successors hold primacy over the other Bishops of the Church.

Personally, I have to note that the passages are silent concerning "his successors" so it's a pointless assertion on their part.

"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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

The keys, as described, were actually delivered to all of the Apostles at the same time, and not to Peter alone.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2010, 02:32:21 PM »

Plus, the best person to gives us the meaning of what Jesus said to St. Peter on that day is.. St. Peter himself. And he *does* so in his first epistle.

Quote
I Peter 2

3. If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.   
4. To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,   
5. Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.   
6. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.   
7. Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,   
8. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 


And regarding his own role among the "elders" (during apostolic time, the roles of priest and bishop were still conjoined), St. Peter says:

Quote
I Peter 5

1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.   
2. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,   
3. not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.   
4. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. 


In this last quote, look how full of teachings about this issue. First, Peter was a fellow bishop, and was not *over* the others. He exhorts, he teaches, but *being examples*, being *an icon* (traditional orthodox catholic teaching about the primate), and not "domineering" nor "by constraint" (traditional Papist teaching). Then, in an unmistakable way, he asserts that the only, visible chief Shepherd is Jesus, just like in the first passage he asserts by non-equivocal words that the only visible rock is Jesus Christ himself.

This from the man to whom the words about rocks and keys were addressed.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2010, 02:37:22 PM »

Welcome to the fourm, Wyatt.  Though I could get into this topic a lot, I would recommend that you type words like "pope", "Primacy", "Supremacy" and other appropriate words into the search engine for this page.  You will find that this topic has been discussed many times and from some different perspectives.  That may be the best way to go before starting a new topic where we will just rehash what was said on other threads.  

I'm not trying to squash your inquiries at all, Wyatt, but if you want some immediate results, that would probably be the best way to go.

Again, welcome.
Thank you for the warm welcome. I have gotten a chance to look at such topics using the search function a little yesterday and will hopefully get a chance to do some more digging in the future.


Wyatt, I know it's probably simplistic, but for me it's a couple of things.  One, that while Peter gave a response to the controversy brought up at the first biblical council, it was James -- not Peter -- who gave the "final word" ("Wherefore my sentence is..." Acts 15). For another, even though the Lord says to Peter (in the Matthew 16 passage), "whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven," he also tells all the apostles this same exact thing just two chapters later (Matthew 18:18).  
That is a good point and certainly one I have heard mentioned before, yet I am not sure it necessarily negates Petrine Primacy. Even if St. Peter was first in command over the other Apostles, St. James was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, correct? It would seem that, as such, St. Peter would have likely not exercised his authority unless it was necessary to do so and would have allowed St. James to speak for the council since it was his See. Basically, just because St. Peter could have had the last word doesn't mean that he would have. I have not really discussed this passage with fellow Catholics either but that would seem to be the Catholic understanding. Just as the modern day Popes do not make ex cathedra pronouncements left and right, but choose to operate via Councils in union with the Magisterium (all the other bishops of the Church) so too is St. Peter doing so in this passage.


Petrus is not petra.
Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."


I was wondering how the Orthodox interpret Scripture passages that Catholics cite to back up the claim that St. Peter and his successors hold primacy over the other Bishops of the Church.

Personally, I have to note that the passages are silent concerning "his successors" so it's a pointless assertion on their part.
Of course neither the Orthodox nor Catholics are sola scriptura Christians, so we know that just because Scripture is silent does not mean it is not so.

"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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

The keys, as described, were actually delivered to all of the Apostles at the same time, and not to Peter alone.
No disagreement here. As a Catholic, I agree that all the Bishops are successors to the Apostles.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 02:38:44 PM by Wyatt » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2010, 02:55:05 PM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 02:56:08 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2010, 03:02:55 PM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?
Not at all. I am just pointing out that in Greek there are two words for rock, a masculine and a feminine form, much like how in Spanish there are masculine and feminine forms. St. Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek so, as such, it would have been appropriate to use the correct grammatical form for Greek. Yet, in Aramaic, there is no such distinction and there is just the one word for rock which is Kepha.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2010, 03:07:42 PM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?

It just occurred to me that the fact that the distinction is made in Greek probably implies that St Matthew took advantage of Greek having literal words to express an idea that was passed clearly but with a limited ambiguous vocabulary of Aramaic.

As an example, in Portuguese we have the word "saudade". It is the name of the feeling you have when you say "I miss you". In English, we have "homesick", which is a very specific kind of "saudade" for your home.

Now, we could have a sentence in English like this: "I missed you when I thought that I had missed you." Although clear for a fluent speaker, a non-fluent one could get confused. A fluent speaker could translate that to Portuguese as "Senti saudade (literally, "I felt 'saudade' " ) quando pensei que tinha te perdido."

Probably what happened in St. Matthew's Gospel was that. What is Greek is what Jesus meant, written in a clearer way the original language could not convey.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2010, 03:13:19 PM »

Not at all. I am just pointing out that in Greek there are two words for rock, a masculine and a feminine form, much like how in Spanish there are masculine and feminine forms. St. Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek so, as such, it would have been appropriate to use the correct grammatical form for Greek. Yet, in Aramaic, there is no such distinction and there is just the one word for rock which is Kepha.

Do you think that St. Matthew properly reported Christs words and thoughts (Christ differentiated between Petrus and petra) or not (Christ meant St. Peter two times and St. Matthew overinterpreted His words and there is an error in his Gospel)?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2010, 03:20:21 PM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?

It just occurred to me that the fact that the distinction is made in Greek probably implies that St Matthew took advantage of Greek having literal words to express an idea that was passed clearly but with a limited ambiguous vocabulary of Aramaic.

As an example, in Portuguese we have the word "saudade". It is the name of the feeling you have when you say "I miss you". In English, we have "homesick", which is a very specific kind of "saudade" for your home.

Now, we could have a sentence in English like this: "I missed you when I thought that I had missed you." Although clear for a fluent speaker, a non-fluent one could get confused. A fluent speaker could translate that to Portuguese as "Senti saudade (literally, "I felt 'saudade' " ) quando pensei que tinha te perdido."

Probably what happened in St. Matthew's Gospel was that. What is Greek is what Jesus meant, written in a clearer way the original language could not convey.

Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Mary
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2010, 03:29:16 PM »

Not at all. I am just pointing out that in Greek there are two words for rock, a masculine and a feminine form, much like how in Spanish there are masculine and feminine forms. St. Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek so, as such, it would have been appropriate to use the correct grammatical form for Greek. Yet, in Aramaic, there is no such distinction and there is just the one word for rock which is Kepha.

Do you think that St. Matthew properly reported Christs words and thoughts (Christ differentiated between Petrus and petra) or not (Christ meant St. Peter two times and St. Matthew overinterpreted His words and there is an error in his Gospel)?
I think that St. Matthew properly recorded the Gospel while at the same time following the proper grammatical conventions of the Greek language.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2010, 03:37:26 PM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?

It just occurred to me that the fact that the distinction is made in Greek probably implies that St Matthew took advantage of Greek having literal words to express an idea that was passed clearly but with a limited ambiguous vocabulary of Aramaic.

As an example, in Portuguese we have the word "saudade". It is the name of the feeling you have when you say "I miss you". In English, we have "homesick", which is a very specific kind of "saudade" for your home.

Now, we could have a sentence in English like this: "I missed you when I thought that I had missed you." Although clear for a fluent speaker, a non-fluent one could get confused. A fluent speaker could translate that to Portuguese as "Senti saudade (literally, "I felt 'saudade' " ) quando pensei que tinha te perdido."

Probably what happened in St. Matthew's Gospel was that. What is Greek is what Jesus meant, written in a clearer way the original language could not convey.

Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Mary

Using the same reasoning, of course, we have prophecies that Jesus would be born of a virgin, since in Hebrew, it is the same word for "young girl" and "virgin": almah(עלמה). The difference only exists in the Septuagint that first made the difference translating "almah" as "parthenos", which consistently means "virgin". That was the foundation of my reasoning.

The difference to the female Holy Spirit "reasoning" is that in this case it's just a gender change not a meaning change.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 03:53:11 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2010, 05:37:11 PM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?

It just occurred to me that the fact that the distinction is made in Greek probably implies that St Matthew took advantage of Greek having literal words to express an idea that was passed clearly but with a limited ambiguous vocabulary of Aramaic.

As an example, in Portuguese we have the word "saudade". It is the name of the feeling you have when you say "I miss you". In English, we have "homesick", which is a very specific kind of "saudade" for your home.

Now, we could have a sentence in English like this: "I missed you when I thought that I had missed you." Although clear for a fluent speaker, a non-fluent one could get confused. A fluent speaker could translate that to Portuguese as "Senti saudade (literally, "I felt 'saudade' " ) quando pensei que tinha te perdido."

Probably what happened in St. Matthew's Gospel was that. What is Greek is what Jesus meant, written in a clearer way the original language could not convey.

Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Mary

Using the same reasoning, of course, we have prophecies that Jesus would be born of a virgin, since in Hebrew, it is the same word for "young girl" and "virgin": almah(עלמה). The difference only exists in the Septuagint that first made the difference translating "almah" as "parthenos", which consistently means "virgin". That was the foundation of my reasoning.

The difference to the female Holy Spirit "reasoning" is that in this case it's just a gender change not a meaning change.

A matter then of interpretation. 

Mary
Logged

LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,159


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2010, 07:08:28 PM »

Quote
Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Ahem. The Holy Spirit in the Greek language is of the neuter grammatical gender.  Wink
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2010, 08:40:40 PM »

Quote
Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Ahem. The Holy Spirit in the Greek language is of the neuter grammatical gender.  Wink

So again, the fact that Greek has a larger vocabulary was probably used by the translators to clarify the ideas behind ambiguous Hebrew or Aramaic words. Smiley
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2010, 09:11:07 PM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?

It just occurred to me that the fact that the distinction is made in Greek probably implies that St Matthew took advantage of Greek having literal words to express an idea that was passed clearly but with a limited ambiguous vocabulary of Aramaic.

As an example, in Portuguese we have the word "saudade". It is the name of the feeling you have when you say "I miss you". In English, we have "homesick", which is a very specific kind of "saudade" for your home.

Now, we could have a sentence in English like this: "I missed you when I thought that I had missed you." Although clear for a fluent speaker, a non-fluent one could get confused. A fluent speaker could translate that to Portuguese as "Senti saudade (literally, "I felt 'saudade' " ) quando pensei que tinha te perdido."

Probably what happened in St. Matthew's Gospel was that. What is Greek is what Jesus meant, written in a clearer way the original language could not convey.

Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Mary

Oy. That whole male vs. female debate is so inane given that God's inner being transcends gender.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2010, 09:18:44 PM »


Oy. That whole male vs. female debate is so inane given that God's inner being transcends gender.

That is a question that teases me sometimes. As we see it revealed by Christ, the First Person is revealed as Father, not as Gender-Neutral First Cause. The Second Person is a Son, not a It. The Holy Spirit, on the hand, in Greek, is indeed neutral as you'd expect of a spirit.

Also, that first image of God is Adam, not Eve. Plus, in all the Bible we see that *self-sacrificial* precedence of men over women regarding their spousal relationship (not in relation to God or salvation). We know that God in His divinity, has no sex. But the Second Person, the Incarnated Word, is most definetly a man.

There *is* something to the gender thing. I just don't quite grasp it yet.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2010, 09:59:01 PM »

Plus, the best person to gives us the meaning of what Jesus said to St. Peter on that day is.. St. Peter himself. And he *does* so in his first epistle.

Quote
I Peter 2

3. If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.   
4. To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,   
5. Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.   
6. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.   
7. Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,   
8. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 


And regarding his own role among the "elders" (during apostolic time, the roles of priest and bishop were still conjoined), St. Peter says:

Quote
I Peter 5

1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.   
2. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,   
3. not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.   
4. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. 


In this last quote, look how full of teachings about this issue. First, Peter was a fellow bishop, and was not *over* the others. He exhorts, he teaches, but *being examples*, being *an icon* (traditional orthodox catholic teaching about the primate), and not "domineering" nor "by constraint" (traditional Papist teaching). Then, in an unmistakable way, he asserts that the only, visible chief Shepherd is Jesus, just like in the first passage he asserts by non-equivocal words that the only visible rock is Jesus Christ himself.

This from the man to whom the words about rocks and keys were addressed.

Wyatt, did you address this post? Forgive me if I didn't see it, but I see some pretty convincing ideas here if just looking at Scripture (Peter's own words and all).
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2010, 11:46:24 PM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?

It just occurred to me that the fact that the distinction is made in Greek probably implies that St Matthew took advantage of Greek having literal words to express an idea that was passed clearly but with a limited ambiguous vocabulary of Aramaic.

As an example, in Portuguese we have the word "saudade". It is the name of the feeling you have when you say "I miss you". In English, we have "homesick", which is a very specific kind of "saudade" for your home.

Now, we could have a sentence in English like this: "I missed you when I thought that I had missed you." Although clear for a fluent speaker, a non-fluent one could get confused. A fluent speaker could translate that to Portuguese as "Senti saudade (literally, "I felt 'saudade' " ) quando pensei que tinha te perdido."

Probably what happened in St. Matthew's Gospel was that. What is Greek is what Jesus meant, written in a clearer way the original language could not convey.

Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Mary

Oy. That whole male vs. female debate is so inane given that God's inner being transcends gender.
When God made them in His image why did He "male and female He created them?"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2010, 11:47:21 PM »

Quote
Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Ahem. The Holy Spirit in the Greek language is of the neuter grammatical gender.  Wink
Spirit is, but autos "He" is used in reference to Him.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2010, 11:58:42 PM »

Greetings.

I was wondering how the Orthodox interpret Scripture passages that Catholics cite to back up the claim that St. Peter and his successors hold primacy over the other Bishops of the Church.

We interpret them as the Holy Spirit wrote them and as the Apostles taught them.


Quote
Mainly, I'm wondering what the Orthodox interpretation of St. Matthew 16:18-19, which says "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Thanks in advance for all of your replies.

God Bless,

Wyatt

On this one:

This has been dealt with a lot (including on St. Chrysostom's words on St. James and St. John, in addition to St. Peter). For an example:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2010, 12:34:08 AM »

As we see it revealed by Christ, the First Person is revealed as Father, not as Gender-Neutral First Cause. The Second Person is a Son, not a It.

That is language that attempts to encapsulate the reality and conveys a truth to us but does not succeed in actually encapsulating the reality. And as we learn from the Fathers, ultimately none of our language can succeed in encapsulating the inner being of God. The Son is not begotten in a sense that we as humans are begotten. As a matter of fact, the Fathers also tell us that we don't even exactly know what it means for the Son to be begotten; only that it can somehow be likened to human begetting. Given that the begetting is not exactly like ours, and given that we don't know exactly what it is like, we cannot assert that the gender involved in its encapsulates the reality; only that the gender is a likening to our own gender relations. And given the teaching that God transcends everything human, including gender, I think its safe to say that the Father, Son language is only that: language that reflects a truth and likens the begetting to our own, but is not exactly true in the same sense as it is with us.

In an apophatic sense, thus, I think it would be accurate to say that in so far as God transcends gender that "gender neutral first cause" is thus closer to being literally true.

Also, that first image of God is Adam, not Eve.

That only indicates primacy, not exclusion. The only things that can be said about our gender reflecting God are "God transcends our gender", something which excludes both female and male, and "male and female He created them" (in the image of God), and thus that God's image is reflected in both male and female.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if some people here are male chauvinists trying to hide their prejudice behind theological opinions.

But the Second Person, the Incarnated Word, is most definetly a man.

I don't think it is consistent with the Fathers to try to indicate that there is something special about the Logos having become male such that He couldn't have alternatively become female and accomplished the same end.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2010, 12:39:23 AM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?

It just occurred to me that the fact that the distinction is made in Greek probably implies that St Matthew took advantage of Greek having literal words to express an idea that was passed clearly but with a limited ambiguous vocabulary of Aramaic.

As an example, in Portuguese we have the word "saudade". It is the name of the feeling you have when you say "I miss you". In English, we have "homesick", which is a very specific kind of "saudade" for your home.

Now, we could have a sentence in English like this: "I missed you when I thought that I had missed you." Although clear for a fluent speaker, a non-fluent one could get confused. A fluent speaker could translate that to Portuguese as "Senti saudade (literally, "I felt 'saudade' " ) quando pensei que tinha te perdido."

Probably what happened in St. Matthew's Gospel was that. What is Greek is what Jesus meant, written in a clearer way the original language could not convey.

Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Mary

Oy. That whole male vs. female debate is so inane given that God's inner being transcends gender.
When God made them in His image why did He "male and female He created them?"

My primary guess is that a male and female unit is a community that is capable of reproducing others consubstantial with them, just as the Trinity is a community where the Father produces (not great language, I know, as it could be misconstrued as indicating creation) others consubstantial with Him.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
BoredMeeting
Loving the Life of a Council Member
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox/OCA
Posts: 721



« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2010, 09:41:50 AM »

I was wondering how the Orthodox interpret Scripture passages that Catholics cite to back up the claim that St. Peter and his successors hold primacy over the other Bishops of the Church.

Personally, I have to note that the passages are silent concerning "his successors" so it's a pointless assertion on their part.
Of course neither the Orthodox nor Catholics are sola scriptura Christians, so we know that just because Scripture is silent does not mean it is not so.

Ok, so you ask about how we interpret Scripture passages cited by the Roman Catholics to back up the claim about Peter's successors but then you acknowledge that Scripture is silent on the matter.

Insert .wav file of Keanu Reaves saying "Whoa!"

Dude, it means they made it all up!
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,195



« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2010, 10:25:33 AM »

I've never been able to understand why, even if we assume that Christ indeed meant that His Church would be built on Peter, it then means that St. Peter's primacy results in an infallible and supreme Roman papacy?
Wasn't St. Peter the first Bishop of Antioch?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2010, 11:48:52 AM »

Yes, in Greek there is the distinction of Petrus and Petra, yet in Aramaic (which was the spoken language at the time even though when it was recorded in writing it was done so in Greek) there is one word for rock: Kepha. So quite literally Christ is saying "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church."

Do you mean St. Matthew falsified Christs point in his Gospel and his Gospel is treacherous?

It just occurred to me that the fact that the distinction is made in Greek probably implies that St Matthew took advantage of Greek having literal words to express an idea that was passed clearly but with a limited ambiguous vocabulary of Aramaic.

As an example, in Portuguese we have the word "saudade". It is the name of the feeling you have when you say "I miss you". In English, we have "homesick", which is a very specific kind of "saudade" for your home.

Now, we could have a sentence in English like this: "I missed you when I thought that I had missed you." Although clear for a fluent speaker, a non-fluent one could get confused. A fluent speaker could translate that to Portuguese as "Senti saudade (literally, "I felt 'saudade' " ) quando pensei que tinha te perdido."

Probably what happened in St. Matthew's Gospel was that. What is Greek is what Jesus meant, written in a clearer way the original language could not convey.

Using the same reasoning, of course, feminists conclude that the Holy Spirit is female.

Mary

Oy. That whole male vs. female debate is so inane given that God's inner being transcends gender.
When God made them in His image why did He "male and female He created them?"

My primary guess is that a male and female unit is a community that is capable of reproducing others consubstantial with them, just as the Trinity is a community where the Father produces (not great language, I know, as it could be misconstrued as indicating creation) others consubstantial with Him.
Good guess, kemo sabe.  There are reasons, however, why He is a Father (not a Mother), begets (not give birth) a Son (not a Daughter).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,618


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2010, 12:00:54 PM »

Read the Menaion, January the 16th, "The Veneration of the Venerable Chains of the Holy Apostle Peter."
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2010, 12:44:56 PM »

As we see it revealed by Christ, the First Person is revealed as Father, not as Gender-Neutral First Cause. The Second Person is a Son, not a It.

That is language that attempts to encapsulate the reality and conveys a truth to us but does not succeed in actually encapsulating the reality.

In Him the fullness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell. Col. 2:9.  Actually encapsulates the reality of the Incarnation.

Quote
And as we learn from the Fathers, ultimately none of our language can succeed in encapsulating the inner being of God.

The Incarnation of the Word perfectly succeeds in translating, by communication of the idioms, into our language.

Quote
The Son is not begotten in a sense that we as humans are begotten.

No, He is not.  Yet He is not born of the Father, just like He is not begotten of a human father.

Quote
As a matter of fact, the Fathers also tell us that we don't even exactly know what it means for the Son to be begotten; only that it can somehow be likened to human begetting.

but cannot be likened to human birth-giving. Such ideas were fashionable among the pagans, Great Mother Goddess and all.

Quote
Given that the begetting is not exactly like ours, and given that we don't know exactly what it is like, we cannot assert that the gender involved in its encapsulates the reality;

sure we can, for the reasons given above.

Quote
only that the gender is a likening to our own gender relations. And given the teaching that God transcends everything human,

That man is made in the Image of God, and that God has become man, grounds that transcendance.

Quote
including gender, I think its safe to say that the Father, Son language is only that

for the reasons above, no, it is not.

Quote
: language that reflects a truth and likens the begetting to our own, but is not exactly true in the same sense as it is with us.

In an apophatic sense, thus, I think it would be accurate to say that in so far as God transcends gender that "gender neutral first cause" is thus closer to being literally true.

Only if you are a Hindu.  God is not an impersonal force.

Also, that first image of God is Adam, not Eve.

That only indicates primacy, not exclusion.

Have to agree there.  Gen. 1:27, 2:19-25 demands that.

Quote
The only things that can be said about our gender reflecting God are "God transcends our gender", something which excludes both female and male, and "male and female He created them" (in the image of God), and thus that God's image is reflected in both male and female.

Transcend doesn't mean "not connected to."

Quote
I'm seriously beginning to wonder if some people here are male chauvinists trying to hide their prejudice behind theological opinions.

I'm quite sure that some whose agendas require gender ambiguity are trying to read  such ambiguity into theology. Btw, such ambiguity was at the core fo the problems at Corinth and elsewhere.

But the Second Person, the Incarnated Word, is most definetly a man.

I don't think it is consistent with the Fathers to try to indicate that there is something special about the Logos having become male such that He couldn't have alternatively become female and accomplished the same end.
II Cor. 11:7-12.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2010, 01:02:44 PM »

Plus, the best person to gives us the meaning of what Jesus said to St. Peter on that day is.. St. Peter himself. And he *does* so in his first epistle.

Quote
I Peter 2

3. If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.   
4. To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,   
5. Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.   
6. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.   
7. Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,   
8. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 


And regarding his own role among the "elders" (during apostolic time, the roles of priest and bishop were still conjoined), St. Peter says:

Quote
I Peter 5

1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.   
2. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,   
3. not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.   
4. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. 


In this last quote, look how full of teachings about this issue. First, Peter was a fellow bishop, and was not *over* the others. He exhorts, he teaches, but *being examples*, being *an icon* (traditional orthodox catholic teaching about the primate), and not "domineering" nor "by constraint" (traditional Papist teaching). Then, in an unmistakable way, he asserts that the only, visible chief Shepherd is Jesus, just like in the first passage he asserts by non-equivocal words that the only visible rock is Jesus Christ himself.

This from the man to whom the words about rocks and keys were addressed.

Wyatt, did you address this post? Forgive me if I didn't see it, but I see some pretty convincing ideas here if just looking at Scripture (Peter's own words and all).
I did not. Thank you for pointing it out. It does look quite convincing actually, and I would agree that St. Peter is a fellow elder, yet, from the Catholic perspective, the modern day Pope is also a Bishop so Pope and Bishop are not mutually exclusive just as being the Rock of the Church appointed by Christ and being an elder are not mutually exclusive.

I was wondering how the Orthodox interpret Scripture passages that Catholics cite to back up the claim that St. Peter and his successors hold primacy over the other Bishops of the Church.

Personally, I have to note that the passages are silent concerning "his successors" so it's a pointless assertion on their part.
Of course neither the Orthodox nor Catholics are sola scriptura Christians, so we know that just because Scripture is silent does not mean it is not so.

Ok, so you ask about how we interpret Scripture passages cited by the Roman Catholics to back up the claim about Peter's successors but then you acknowledge that Scripture is silent on the matter.

Insert .wav file of Keanu Reaves saying "Whoa!"

Dude, it means they made it all up!
I find the tone of your post less than charitable. Good thing I am thick-skinned.  Tongue

No, if you will go back and read the opening post, you will notice that I was asking for the Orthodox interpretation of the Scripture passage where, from the Catholic perspective, Christ appoints St. Peter as the "rock" and head of the Church. So far, I remain unconvinced because the Petrus/Petra argument is the same one Protestants use. Also, if Christ did appoint St. Peter as the rock, why would that not automatically apply to St. Peter's successors? Do you think that Christ would establish such a role in the Church just to have it immediately die out? That smacks of Protestants who don't believe in Apostolic Succession and think that authority died out with the death of the last Apostle rather than being transmitted down through the ages to the Bishops.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,825



WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2010, 01:36:38 PM »

Wyatt,

there is an issue in that passage that does prevent the papal interpretation.

St. Peter does not say simply "I am an elder like you", but "a fellow elder". That puts him on exactly the same level. Plus, here is one of the passages in which silence speaks a lot. Of all places, the right one to find a clear, even if humble, statement about supremacy of Peter over the others, this would be it.

On the contrary, what we find is traditional Orthodox Catholic eclesiology of the primate: "lead withou dominance, lead as an example(an icon), not as a king".

Plus, even if that supremacy existed, which of the "successors" of Peter should have it? The ones in Rome or the ones in Antioch, which is a see that also traces its apostolic succession to St. Peter?

Rome early, orthodox role as the primate see was due to:

- the Orthodoxy of its faith first and foremost;

- the relics of both St. Peter *and* St. Paul are there (and that is why it was "above" Antioch. Notice that St. Paul is the unbalacing factor, not St. Peter;

- it had been the capital of the empire and much importance was still attached to it as a reference to the old world.

This primacy, though, was and is not the source of orthodox faith as RC claim. On the contrary, having an orthodox faith is what makes having the primacy possible.

In RC eclesiology, if you don't have the primate, you can't have a legitimate orthodox Christian faith;

In Orthodox Catholic eclesiology, if you don't have the orthodox faith, you can't be the primate of that same faith.

So, in our faith, we keep, confess and proclaim that Jesus has instittuted the role of primate among the bishops.

This role though is depedent on the faith and not its source. Should the first primate see adopt a heterodox faith as it did, it has, in this very act, detached itself from Christ and obviously cannot be the leader of the bishops anymore. That prerrogative than went to their canonical successors, that is, Constantinople. Constantinople too may fall and another see become the Primate See. Primacy, as a Grace of God, belongs to God and is given to the People of God. If a see falls, this grace will not be withheld, just poured through a different channel.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2010, 03:22:51 PM »

No, if you will go back and read the opening post, you will notice that I was asking for the Orthodox interpretation of the Scripture passage where, from the Catholic perspective, Christ appoints St. Peter as the "rock" and head of the Church. So far, I remain unconvinced because the Petrus/Petra argument is the same one Protestants use.

Not sure whether Protestants use a certain argument or not means a thing to us.  They use the same arguments we use against the Arians, for instance.

Quote
Also, if Christ did appoint St. Peter as the rock, why would that not automatically apply to St. Peter's successors?

And why isn't the Patriarch of Antioch the rock of succession?

Quote
Do you think that Christ would establish such a role in the Church just to have it immediately die out?

You mean like Apostle?

Quote
That smacks of Protestants who don't believe in Apostolic Succession and think that authority died out with the death of the last Apostle rather than being transmitted down through the ages to the Bishops.

Then what about that authority transmitted to the bishop of Shmin?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2010, 03:47:21 PM »

No, if you will go back and read the opening post, you will notice that I was asking for the Orthodox interpretation of the Scripture passage where, from the Catholic perspective, Christ appoints St. Peter as the "rock" and head of the Church. So far, I remain unconvinced because the Petrus/Petra argument is the same one Protestants use.

Not sure whether Protestants use a certain argument or not means a thing to us.  They use the same arguments we use against the Arians, for instance.

Quote
Also, if Christ did appoint St. Peter as the rock, why would that not automatically apply to St. Peter's successors?

And why isn't the Patriarch of Antioch the rock of succession?

Quote
Do you think that Christ would establish such a role in the Church just to have it immediately die out?

You mean like Apostle?

Quote
That smacks of Protestants who don't believe in Apostolic Succession and think that authority died out with the death of the last Apostle rather than being transmitted down through the ages to the Bishops.

Then what about that authority transmitted to the bishop of Shmin?
Obviously the title Apostle no longer exists in the Church of today, but the authority of the Apostles still exists in the modern day bishops. As far as why Rome holds primacy over Antioch, I would say there are several reasons. One is because St. Peter was Bishop of Rome for longer than he was Bishop of Antioch, and the fact that both he and St. Paul were martyred in Rome so perhaps the two most important figures in the Apostolic Church were martyred while building up the Church in Rome. St. Peter and St. Paul's remains are still there. I have always thought that it was interesting and somewhat prophetic that Christ called St. Peter the rock and said upon him He would build His Church, as that quite literally happened as St. Peter's Basilica sits on top of St. Peter's bones.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 03:48:35 PM by Wyatt » Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,195



« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2010, 03:57:52 PM »

As far as why Rome holds primacy over Antioch, I would say there are several reasons. One is because St. Peter was Bishop of Rome for longer than he was Bishop of Antioch, and the fact that both he and St. Paul were martyred in Rome so perhaps the two most important figures in the Apostolic Church were martyred while building up the Church in Rome.

But that still doesn't explain why, even if there was primacy of St. Peter, that primacy would result in the papacy, especially since it seems to contradict St. Peter's own words.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2010, 04:13:35 PM »

No, if you will go back and read the opening post, you will notice that I was asking for the Orthodox interpretation of the Scripture passage where, from the Catholic perspective, Christ appoints St. Peter as the "rock" and head of the Church. So far, I remain unconvinced because the Petrus/Petra argument is the same one Protestants use.

Not sure whether Protestants use a certain argument or not means a thing to us.  They use the same arguments we use against the Arians, for instance.

Quote
Also, if Christ did appoint St. Peter as the rock, why would that not automatically apply to St. Peter's successors?

And why isn't the Patriarch of Antioch the rock of succession?

Quote
Do you think that Christ would establish such a role in the Church just to have it immediately die out?

You mean like Apostle?

Quote
That smacks of Protestants who don't believe in Apostolic Succession and think that authority died out with the death of the last Apostle rather than being transmitted down through the ages to the Bishops.

Then what about that authority transmitted to the bishop of Shmin?
Obviously the title Apostle no longer exists in the Church of today, but the authority of the Apostles still exists in the modern day bishops. As far as why Rome holds primacy over Antioch, I would say there are several reasons. One is because St. Peter was Bishop of Rome for longer than he was Bishop of Antioch,

Source? And why would length of service have anything to do with it?

Quote
and the fact that both he and St. Paul were martyred in Rome so perhaps the two most important figures in the Apostolic Church were martyred while building up the Church in Rome. St. Peter and St. Paul's remains are still there. I have always thought that it was interesting and somewhat prophetic that Christ called St. Peter the rock and said upon him He would build His Church, as that quite literally happened as St. Peter's Basilica sits on top of St. Peter's bones.

St. Peter's is NOT Rome's cathedral: St. John of Lateran is.  St. Peter's, in fact, is the metochion of Constantinople.

You still haven't addressed the question of that bishop way down in Shmin having the authority of St. Peter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2010, 11:57:31 PM »

No, if you will go back and read the opening post, you will notice that I was asking for the Orthodox interpretation of the Scripture passage where, from the Catholic perspective, Christ appoints St. Peter as the "rock" and head of the Church. So far, I remain unconvinced because the Petrus/Petra argument is the same one Protestants use.

Not sure whether Protestants use a certain argument or not means a thing to us.  They use the same arguments we use against the Arians, for instance.

Quote
Also, if Christ did appoint St. Peter as the rock, why would that not automatically apply to St. Peter's successors?

And why isn't the Patriarch of Antioch the rock of succession?

Quote
Do you think that Christ would establish such a role in the Church just to have it immediately die out?

You mean like Apostle?

Quote
That smacks of Protestants who don't believe in Apostolic Succession and think that authority died out with the death of the last Apostle rather than being transmitted down through the ages to the Bishops.

Then what about that authority transmitted to the bishop of Shmin?
Obviously the title Apostle no longer exists in the Church of today, but the authority of the Apostles still exists in the modern day bishops. As far as why Rome holds primacy over Antioch, I would say there are several reasons. One is because St. Peter was Bishop of Rome for longer than he was Bishop of Antioch,

Source? And why would length of service have anything to do with it?

Quote
and the fact that both he and St. Paul were martyred in Rome so perhaps the two most important figures in the Apostolic Church were martyred while building up the Church in Rome. St. Peter and St. Paul's remains are still there. I have always thought that it was interesting and somewhat prophetic that Christ called St. Peter the rock and said upon him He would build His Church, as that quite literally happened as St. Peter's Basilica sits on top of St. Peter's bones.

St. Peter's is NOT Rome's cathedral: St. John of Lateran is.  St. Peter's, in fact, is the metochion of Constantinople.

You still haven't addressed the question of that bishop way down in Shmin having the authority of St. Peter.
I have tried to look up how long St. Peter served as Bishop of Rome but have not as yet been able to find anything. Hopefully either I can find something or else someone else can post up the information which shows how long he served in Antioch and how long he served in Rome.

Could you elaborate on the Bishop of Shmin thing as I am not sure what you mean? Also, how does St. Peter's Basilica belong to Constantinople if it is part of the Catholic Church?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2010, 02:39:11 AM »


I have tried to look up how long St. Peter served as Bishop of Rome but have not as yet been able to find anything. Hopefully either I can find something or else someone else can post up the information which shows how long he served in Antioch and how long he served in Rome.


This is the understanding of Pope Shenouda and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

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

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

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

Excerpts:

7. Facts about Peter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2010, 02:45:49 AM »


Hopefully either I can find something or else someone else can post up the information which shows how long he served in Antioch and how long he served in Rome.


Check this article, from a Catholic source.

http://www.melkitecathedral.org/melkite/history3.htm


Peter’s First See

The evolution of the Patriarchate of Antioch

The article features a fascinating photograph of three bishops with the apostolic succession of Saint Peter, photographed all together in Damascus in 2001.

Three successors of Peter:

– Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I,
- Pope John Paul II,
- Greek Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV

- gather in the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Damascus, May 2001. (photo: L’Osservatore Romano)



The oldest lineage of bishops which comes down to us in the 21st century who is a successor to St Peter is not actually the bishop (Pope) of the Church of Rome, but the bishop (Patriarch) of the Church of Antioch.

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD, and he remained there for 5-7 years. Paul (and Barnabas) came to Antioch to see Peter there and it was in Antioch that the dispute between Peter and Paul flared up about whether converts had to be circumcised. In order to resolve this Peter and Paul took the dispute to James in Jerusalem and James called all the Apostles to a Council in Jerusalem to make a determination.

Earlier than this, Antioch had received a large number of Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the deacon, a period of martyrdom in Jerusalem which Paul himself had initiated while he was still the uncoverted Saul!

To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter.

Here is a complete list of his apostolic succession from the holy Apostle Peter
http://web.archive.org/web/20040209135915/http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate/patriarchs.htm
Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/6s6q2

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.
Logged
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2010, 07:05:12 AM »

The info on Antioch, and the article, was fascinating. Thanks.

On a totally unrelated sidenote, that Flannery O'Connor quote on your signature is tattooed on my forearm. I rarely see it referenced.
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2010, 08:43:18 PM »

There are reasons, however, why He is a Father (not a Mother), begets (not give birth) a Son (not a Daughter).

Yes? What are they?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2010, 09:54:27 PM »

Quote from:  deusveritasest
"Oy. That whole male vs. female debate is so inane given that God's inner being transcends gender."

Ha. You said, "Oy"...

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."
- John 15:26


†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
JimCBrooklyn
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate-Diocese of Saint Petersburg/ROCOR-Diocese of Eastern America and New York
Posts: 569


Если бога нет, то все позволено


« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2010, 04:37:06 AM »

Quote from:  deusveritasest
"Oy. That whole male vs. female debate is so inane given that God's inner being transcends gender."

Ha. You said, "Oy"...

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."
- John 15:26


†IC XC†
†NI KA†

ОЙ!
Logged

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
Tags: Pope Primacy Supremacy Petrine Primacy 
Pages: 1   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 0.2 seconds with 70 queries.