Well, for one thing, a number of the Fathers interpreted it as actually the Apostles collectively receiving the keys through Peter as their president, rather than Peter receiving the keys in exclusion. For another thing, we usually do not believe in the idea of "charismatic succession" that is implicitly necessitated by the Roman doctrine whereby the Roman bishop receives not only the Sacramental substance of the Episcopate but somehow even the personality of Saint Peter. We don't see how such a thing would be possible; and we don't see where it is really taught by the Tradition of the Church.
Again, I didn't know that, thanks for the input.
However the other apostles were present when Our Lord gave the keys specifically to Peter.
Why would he do that if Peter were to just pass them over to the others ? Or am I misunderstanding ?
For one thing, whether we are talking about literal keys or not is something I am not sure about. For another, it is generally understood that Peter is the one who held the keys as the President of the College of the Apostles, but that they were none the less the common possession of the College as a whole.
Thank you for your replies
Whilst trying to understand I still have learnt RC apologetics that will take a lot of explaining.
For instance your call to Church history in, Antioch etc.....
I would have replied thus:
V. THE PENTARCHY
Orthodoxy holds to the doctrine of the pentarchy, whereby the government of the Church was to be maintained by means of the cooperation of five patriarchal sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (roughly in order of importance, but Constantinople took first place in the East). This system of ecclesiology is not grounded in Scripture - as Catholics affirm with regard to the papacy.
Here's your firs mistake.
As a preface, neither the primacy nor the supremacy of Rome isn't grounded in Scripture either: when St. Paul writes to the Romans, there is no mention of St. Peter: nor any witness to St. Peter going to Rome (something I do not doubt, btw) except the cryptic reference in I Peter 5:13. If it was that important-and the Vatican has crushed the whole faith to submission to it throne-one would see it in Scripture. St. Peter refers to himself not only as "an
"] Apostle of Christ" (I Peter 1:1) but also states "I am a fellow
presbyter" συμπρεσβύτερος. Not a supreme pontiff. He also addresses himsel to the circumcison (Gal. 2:7; I Peter 1:1). Not universal jurisdiction. And he appeals to St. Paul's authority (II Peter 3:15-6). St. Peter goes up for the decision of St. James, the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-7; Gal. 2:1-15).
But more to the point the Orthodox Church does not to "the doctrine of the pentarchy." We have 3x the number of Autocephalous Churches now. Jerusalem went from mother Church to suffragan of sorts to Antioch, and then elevated (I would say restored) to autocephaly and the patriarchy. Constantinople didn't exist as autocephalous until after Nicea. And the Pentarchy didn't include Cyprus which has always been autocephalous, nor Georgia and (Caucas) Albania (and Armenia) which were autocephalous when the Pentarchy was codified. We all know the changes in the hierarchal set up, which is of same ecclesiastical, not divine, origin as Rome's primacy.
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment. John 7:24
The Orthodox hold to the dogma of the episcopate being an ontological whole, whereby the government of the Church was to be maintained by means of that ontological whole. And that is the only ecclesiology grounded in scritpure. Not Ultramontanism.
A brief examination of the history of each of these churches is instructive:
Jerusalem was overrun by the Arab Moslems in 637, and was ruled by the Moslem Turks until World War I (except for 1099-1187 under the Latins).
when they killed everyone else. Jerusalem never fell for heresy, Patriarch Sophronism for instance being the chief defender of Orthodoxy against the Monthelite heresy held by Pope Honorius of Rome.
Antioch was notorious for heresy, succumbing successively to Docetism, Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism. After 451, it became increasingly Monophysite. It fell to the Persians in 538 and to the Arab Moslems in 637. Many bishops and a third of the people submitted to Rome in 1724 (Metkites).
Yes, making the Melkite patriarch one of four patriarchs (Latin, Maronite, Melkite, Syriac) that the Vatican maintains is the "Patriarch of Antioch." Odd thing is that Rome excommunicated Patriarch St. Meletius, and promoted his rival (who ordained St. Jerome). The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (who wrote our Creed out and set their seal to it) had St. Meletius open the Council. That rival line died out, all 4 of the Vatican's pretender's to Antioch's throne claim St. Meletius as their predecessor.
Your first sentence isn't substantiated by the facts. We can get into that if you like.
Alexandria essentially plunged into Monophysitism after the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Whatever little continuing impact it had on orthodox, Chalcedonian Christianity was pretty much swept away with the Moslem conquest of 642.
It is still there, and now spread across the entire continent. Monophysitism never had a hold on Alexandria. Miaphysite Orthodoxy was widespread, but that is something different (and Orthodox). We can discuss that too.
Constantinople (now Istanbul) fell prey to Arianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism, but later thrived as the center of the Byzantine Empire and Eastern Orthodoxy. Its claim as "New Rome" and its place as the seat of Greek Christian culture vanished with its complete overthrow by the Turkish Moslems in 1453.
Rome after Constantine was for centuries the same as Constantinople after 1453. In fact, Rome was barely a city. And the EP was unseated by the Crusaders sent by the Vatican first, in 1204, when the EP went into exile at Nicea. Like the pope of Rome (or rather, one string of its claimants) going to Avignon.
Rome never succumbed to heresy.
First, that begs the question that Ultramontainsm, filioque, papal infallibility, the IC, dogmatizing the Assumption, etc. isn't heresy.
It also ignores the problem of Popes Zosimos, Vigilius and Honorius, and the rebuke that Pope St. Victor got from the whole Church.
It also ignores the Docetism, Modalism, Arianism, Novatism, Pelagianism, Marcionism, etc. that ran amock in the Patriarch. Let alone the Protestants.
Jerusalem never succumbed to heresy. And as far as I can recall, never did Cyprus, ever autocephalous. Maybe we should have the Archbishop of New Justiniana speak ex cathedra.
It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or immoral popes, the Protestant Revolt, the "Enlightenment," Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself. The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige.
The second half of the first millenium paints a different picture:
It has rejuvenated itself after such episodes as the Great Western Schism
but I'm not so sure that can be called "unabated."
Although a lot of the replies are making me think.
Well as you are thinking, do not think of us the easy way out and the wide gate and broad road. If the Supreme Pontiff means so much to you, than you are compelled to accept his Corban factories. The Orthodox Church is not in the business of providing end runs around the Vatican's teaching on divorce (which much we agree with) and remarriage (where we differ, but not in the way you seem to think).