OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 03:09:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Keys  (Read 3314 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« on: August 19, 2010, 10:41:41 PM »

Hi guys

Background: lapsed Catholic.  Disheartened by many things about the RC Church, main one being a lack of what you would call "ekonomia" to those that don't tick all the boxes.  but God help you if you married in good faith, had children and then got cheated on and dumped (divorced).  God help you if you want to remarry !


Another example of renouncing ones promises to God is perhaps a Priest that becomes laicized.  Its ok for him to "divorce" from his Sacramental vows, huh ?


I am not divorced, but have fallen in love with and wish to marry a divorcee.....all my traditional Catholic insurances policies have gone to pot !  Cry  It is very easy to accept dogmas / doctrine if it hasn't personally effected you  Wink

I am attracted to many things about the Orthodox Church, but I have one main problem.............


What about the Keys ?

I have not read any Orthodox apologetics which adequately deal with St Peter being given "the keys" and the significance of that.



Oh and btw, I was once told by a traditional RC Priest, that if I converted to that Orthodox Faith, I would go to hell.........




PS> just done a search http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3514.0.html

this has been covered before. I will read the other threads, cheers.

Edited for moratorium violation - mike.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 02:34:59 PM by mike » Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
kansas city
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 192



« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2010, 10:49:03 PM »

Lord have mercy.

Welcome to the board, if they'll give it a shot there are plenty of people here who will graciously address these issues with you with a good foundation.  Taking the 'primacy issue' to task with grace and love.

Logged
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2010, 11:15:33 PM »

Thanks Kansas City.


I have just read a few of the threads already covering this, and have not seen anything I have not read before in terms of the Pope Gregory quotation on universality and the (usually) protestant argument of Peter's confession of Faith.

Maybe it was both, but he only gave the Keys to Peter.  Peter's authority is seen throughout the NT writings, first to speak at Pentecost etc etc......


Christ was very specific to Peter ..... .


The thing about RCs is that they have very intelligent answers for everything faith related.  They appeal to the brain !  I respect the fact that Orthodox have the same line as Saint Paul, you guys don't need to explain everything with philosophy....  Faith and reason and all that, but still..... how do you really get away from the keys ?


I am being genuine, in case one may think this is provocative.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 11:16:33 PM by Dogma » Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2010, 11:21:53 PM »

What about the Keys ?

I have not read any Orthodox apologetics which adequately deal with St Peter being given "the keys" and the significance of that.

There is a collection of essays put together by Fr John Meyendorf called The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church. It's a cololection of five essays that together give a pretty basic but well rounded way of understanding Peter's role among the apostles and in the early Church. They also touch on the historical role of Rome and the nature of ecclesiastical authority. I thought it was pretty good.

Quote
Oh and btw, I was once told by a traditional RC Priest, that if I converted to that Orthodox Faith, I would go to hell.........

That's what they teach. There have been Orthodox who have basically taught the same thing. It's one thing to say that someone outside of the Church can be saved by Christ. It's a different situation when someone already in the Church leaves Christ's Church (which both RC and OC claim to be in exclusion of each other) and rejects Him in the process.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,446



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2010, 11:30:18 PM »

I think the weakest part of Rome's claim to primacy relies upon the Petrine succession.  Antioch was founded by Peter as well, and before Rome, so would be the "older brother" of Rome in this regard, and just as rightful a claimant to Peter's Keys (if the text is taken to apply only to Peter, that is).  Rome's only true claim to primacy is the canons of the Ecumenical councils, which themselves neglect the Petrine arguments.  Don't get me wrong, a conciliar claim to me is still pretty strong, but does not IMO give Rome a claim to SUpremacy, an opinion shared by the four other Patriarchs at the time of schism. 
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2010, 11:33:49 PM »

What about the Keys ?

I have not read any Orthodox apologetics which adequately deal with St Peter being given "the keys" and the significance of that.

There is a collection of essays put together by Fr John Meyendorf called The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church. It's a cololection of five essays that together give a pretty basic but well rounded way of understanding Peter's role among the apostles and in the early Church. They also touch on the historical role of Rome and the nature of ecclesiastical authority. I thought it was pretty good.

Quote
Oh and btw, I was once told by a traditional RC Priest, that if I converted to that Orthodox Faith, I would go to hell.........

That's what they teach. There have been Orthodox who have basically taught the same thing. It's one thing to say that someone outside of the Church can be saved by Christ. It's a different situation when someone already in the Church leaves Christ's Church (which both RC and OC claim to be in exclusion of each other) and rejects Him in the process.


Thank you Melodist.  I will try and obtain that book on amazon.


I used to  defend RC teachings on forums, and in the past would have posted these links to Orthodox Christians

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter4.html#section3


http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2007/11/dr-scott-hahn-answering-common.html


That was until I read the Orthodox view on doctrinal development and their use of ekonomia when applying canons.


Still, I am sure it is the same with most Catholics, the Keys are the main stumbling block of conversion to Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 11:41:28 PM by Dogma » Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2010, 11:40:19 PM »

I think the weakest part of Rome's claim to primacy relies upon the Petrine succession.  Antioch was founded by Peter as well, and before Rome, so would be the "older brother" of Rome in this regard, and just as rightful a claimant to Peter's Keys (if the text is taken to apply only to Peter, that is).  Rome's only true claim to primacy is the canons of the Ecumenical councils, which themselves neglect the Petrine arguments.  Don't get me wrong, a conciliar claim to me is still pretty strong, but does not IMO give Rome a claim to SUpremacy, an opinion shared by the four other Patriarchs at the time of schism. 

I understand (and possibly agree).  So when did Peter lose the Keys ?  Were they not mean't to be passed on forever ?


Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,968



« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2010, 11:45:21 PM »

Welcome to the forum!
Logged
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2010, 11:49:29 PM »

Welcome to the forum!

thanks mate  Smiley
Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,446



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2010, 11:50:06 PM »

Who says he lost them?  As the Church we believe our saints are with us always.  Saint Peter had no need to "pass" the keys on, and there is no record of him at any time doing so, either to Antioch or Rome.  

The above statements are assuming, of course, that the keys were indeed intended for Saint Peter alone amongst the Apostles.  

Of course, the argument Rome has these keys alone amongst the Bishops involves believing that these keys could only be passed to one successor.  But if they were a gift that traveled in the apostolic succession, then like the apostolic succession is it not possible they were a gift intended for more than just one bishop?
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2010, 11:52:14 PM »

Another example of renouncing ones promises to God is perhaps a Priest that becomes laicized.  Its ok for him to "divorce" from his Sacramental vows, huh ?

Actually, if this is a concern of yours, you may be even more shocked by the Eastern practice. Not only are priests sometimes allowed to abandon their priesthood for the sake of marrying (though usually laicizing happens in response to abuses of their priesthood), but actually it is believed that they lose their priesthood when that happens, not just that they can no longer canonically exercise it as the Roman church explains it.


I am not divorced, but have fallen in love with and wish to marry a divorcee.....all my traditional Catholic insurances policies have gone to pot !  Cry  It is very easy to accept dogmas / doctrine if it hasn't personally effected you  Wink

What about the Keys ?

I have not read any Orthodox apologetics which adequately deal with St Peter being given "the keys" and the significance of that.

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.

Oh and btw, I was once told by a traditional RC Priest, that if I converted to that Orthodox Faith, I would go to hell.........

OK. That is a legitimate opinion for a Traditionalist Roman to have.
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
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2010, 11:59:11 PM »

Who says he lost them?  As the Church we believe our saints are with us always.  Saint Peter had no need to "pass" the keys on, and there is no record of him at any time doing so, either to Antioch or Rome.  

The above statements are assuming, of course, that the keys were indeed intended for Saint Peter alone amongst the Apostles.  

Of course, the argument Rome has these keys alone amongst the Bishops involves believing that these keys could only be passed to one successor.  But if they were a gift that traveled in the apostolic succession, then like the apostolic succession is it not possible they were a gift intended for more than just one bishop?

Interesting !  Never thought of it like that, I suppose with the communion of Saints, St Peter could still have them in Heaven.....but then why were they given to him in the first place.

What do the keys really mean.  To bind and loose ?  Why did not our Lord keep the Keys ?


Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2010, 12:02:59 AM »


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 ?
Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2010, 12:15:50 AM »


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 ?


Rome Actually Has Succession From  Saint Paul ,he was there First in Rome and  Ordained Bishops and established the church...St. Peter was Sent to the Jews and Paul to The Gentiles...Rome Ignores St. Paul For Some reason and centers on St. Peter because it's all about power and supremacy...Fr. Ambrose Posted Some Information about this that the Coptic Orthodox church has about St. Peter and when he Arrived in rome ,how long he lived there till his death...
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,446



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2010, 12:22:51 AM »

Who says he lost them?  As the Church we believe our saints are with us always.  Saint Peter had no need to "pass" the keys on, and there is no record of him at any time doing so, either to Antioch or Rome.  

The above statements are assuming, of course, that the keys were indeed intended for Saint Peter alone amongst the Apostles.  

Of course, the argument Rome has these keys alone amongst the Bishops involves believing that these keys could only be passed to one successor.  But if they were a gift that traveled in the apostolic succession, then like the apostolic succession is it not possible they were a gift intended for more than just one bishop?

Interesting !  Never thought of it like that, I suppose with the communion of Saints, St Peter could still have them in Heaven.....but then why were they given to him in the first place.

What do the keys really mean.  To bind and loose ?  Why did not our Lord keep the Keys ?




All we know of the Keys is they come with the power of binding and loosing, the same power given to all the Apostles just two chapters later in Matt 18:18, in the same language as His pronouncement to St Peter.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2010, 12:27:02 AM »

Who says he lost them?  As the Church we believe our saints are with us always.  Saint Peter had no need to "pass" the keys on, and there is no record of him at any time doing so, either to Antioch or Rome.  

The above statements are assuming, of course, that the keys were indeed intended for Saint Peter alone amongst the Apostles.  

Of course, the argument Rome has these keys alone amongst the Bishops involves believing that these keys could only be passed to one successor.  But if they were a gift that traveled in the apostolic succession, then like the apostolic succession is it not possible they were a gift intended for more than just one bishop?

Interesting !  Never thought of it like that, I suppose with the communion of Saints, St Peter could still have them in Heaven.....but then why were they given to him in the first place.

What do the keys really mean.  To bind and loose ?  Why did not our Lord keep the Keys ?




All we know of the Keys is they come with the power of binding and loosing, the same power given to all the Apostles just two chapters later in Matt 18:18, in the same language as His pronouncement to St Peter.


Indeed so, but no mention of keys in Mat 18:18!
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 12:27:33 AM by Dogma » Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2010, 12:30:15 AM »


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 ?


Rome Actually Has Succession From  Saint Paul ,he was there First in Rome and  Ordained Bishops and established the church...St. Peter was Sent to the Jews and Paul to The Gentiles...Rome Ignores St. Paul For Some reason and centers on St. Peter because it's all about power and supremacy...Fr. Ambrose Posted Some Information about this that the Coptic Orthodox church has about St. Peter and when he Arrived in rome ,how long he lived there till his death...

Hi Stashko

Whom did Paul and Barnabas seek authority from when they travelled to Jerusalem ?

St Peter was last to Rome, agreed but what has this to do with the keys ?  St Paul was not given the keys. Saint Paul was not called Blessed by the Christ and given the keys of Heaven...


Thanks for everyone's input so far Smiley


« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 12:34:42 AM by Dogma » Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Alveus Lacuna
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,968



« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2010, 12:33:02 AM »

Even if the keys were only for St. Peter, why does this then immediately correlate with the Patriarchate of Rome and a universal authority over all of Christendom as Christ's "vicar"? Christ promises that after he leaves He will send his Spirit, not that he will send St. Peter to Rome to set up an all-powerful throne, through which Christ will rule the world.

I'm honestly curious why you accept this rationale.
Logged
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2010, 12:36:44 AM »

Even if the keys were only for St. Peter, why does this then immediately correlate with the Patriarchate of Rome and a universal authority over all of Christendom as Christ's "vicar"? Christ promises that after he leaves He will send his Spirit, not that he will send St. Peter to Rome to set up an all-powerful throne, through which Christ will rule the world.

I'm honestly curious why you accept this rationale.

"upon this Rock I will build my Church".


?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 12:41:01 AM by Dogma » Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,446



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2010, 12:50:28 AM »

Even if the keys were only for St. Peter, why does this then immediately correlate with the Patriarchate of Rome and a universal authority over all of Christendom as Christ's "vicar"? Christ promises that after he leaves He will send his Spirit, not that he will send St. Peter to Rome to set up an all-powerful throne, through which Christ will rule the world.

I'm honestly curious why you accept this rationale.

"upon this Rock I will build my Church".


?

Are rocks only to be found in Rome?  Was Rome the center from which the Church spread (Jerusalem)?  Were they first called Christians in Rome (Antioch)?  Does Rome, whose succession comes first from St Paul, proceed Crete and Ephesus (Sts Titus and Timothy)?  There was much built before Rome.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2010, 12:56:04 AM »

Even if the keys were only for St. Peter, why does this then immediately correlate with the Patriarchate of Rome and a universal authority over all of Christendom as Christ's "vicar"? Christ promises that after he leaves He will send his Spirit, not that he will send St. Peter to Rome to set up an all-powerful throne, through which Christ will rule the world.

I'm honestly curious why you accept this rationale.

"upon this Rock I will build my Church".


?

The Rock Is the Confession of Peter or Peter Confession...that the Church is build on ,after he denied him 3 times....I don't want or believe in a Church that Build On a Fallable Man as the the foundation....But On the Unmovable Rock That is Christ...
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2010, 01:18:52 AM »

What were the powers of the Keys as understood in the West in earlier days?


The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article The Power of the Keys where it seems that up until the 14th or 15th century the power of the keys was not understood in the limited modern Catholic understanding.  The understanding for the first millennium and a half in the West was centred on the power of all the clergy to judge penitents and forgive their sins.   It's a tantalisingly short article and it would be great to find a fuller source.

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

"The meaning attached to the term [the power of the keys] by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance.

"The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments.

Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII [died 1334] in a well-known passage dealing with this subject. The definition, "The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge [the confessor] should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom", generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Peter. Lombard,  John XXII, St. Thomas Aquinas), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum.

"But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentiae [key of power]and the clavis scientiae [key of knowledge] was employed here. By the clavis scientiae was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentiae, the authority to grant or refuse absolution."

[For easier readibility I have taken the Latin sentences out of this extract, but of course left the English.  I don't believe that anything has been distorted by this but please read the article on the website if you want to see the Latin.]
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2010, 12:48:10 PM »

My priest have pointed out that in the parallel passage in St. Mark (8:27-30) there is no mention of Keys (or for that matter, Rock). Which is odd, as we are told by Papias, who knew the Apostles:
Quote
This, too, the presbyter used to say. ‘Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some of the things as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it

As St. Irenaeus witnesses:
Quote
Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Eseubius in the History of the Church (Bk II) (quoting St. Clement of Alexandria) talks of
Quote
Chapter 14. The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.
1. The evil power, who hates all that is good and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and author of such wickedness, as if to make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour.
2. For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God. 2 Corinthians 10:5
3. Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.
4. Immediately the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea, he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to his mind.
5. And coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of a statue.
6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.
Chapter 15. The Gospel according to Mark.
1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.
2. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son.
Chapter 16. Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of Egypt.
1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

So it is rather odd that the Gospel which embodies St. Peter's preaching at Rome does not contain what the Vatican claims as the basis of its Ultramontanist authority. It is also a problem that we have no evidence of any bishop of Rome making any claims on the basis of Matthew 16/St. Peter until c. 252 in the fight between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian. Where were we find the periocope on the Rock and the Keys is in Matthew, the Gospel connected with the Hebrew Church in what became the Patriarchate of Antioch, whose founder was St. Peter. So the St. Peter of Matthew is not of Rome, but Antioch.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2010, 01:02:23 PM »

Thanks Kansas City.


I have just read a few of the threads already covering this, and have not seen anything I have not read before in terms of the Pope Gregory quotation on universality

you mean where Pope St. Gregory says that there is one throne of Peter in three Sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.



Quote
and the (usually) protestant argument of Peter's confession of Faith.

Maybe it was both, but he only gave the Keys to Peter.  Peter's authority is seen throughout the NT writings,

Not in Acts 8:14. There he is sent, not doing the sent. John 13:16

Quote
first to speak at Pentecost etc etc......

Yet at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) it is St. James who speaks ex cathedra and gives the Definition of the Council, although St. Peter is standing right there. In fact, St. Peter sort of disappears in the middle of Acts.

Quote
Christ was very specific to Peter ..... .

Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.  Mat. 16:32 (St. Mark, St. Peter's interpretor, does record that for Rome: 8:33)


Quote
The thing about RCs is that they have very intelligent answers for everything faith related.  They appeal to the brain !  I respect the fact that Orthodox have the same line as Saint Paul, you guys don't need to explain everything with philosophy....  Faith and reason and all that, but still..... how do you really get away from the keys ?

Simple. The Church did not operate when Rome was with us the way the Vatican says it should have. For instance, not a single Ecumenical Council was held or called at Rome.

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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2010, 01:08:01 PM »

I think the weakest part of Rome's claim to primacy relies upon the Petrine succession.  Antioch was founded by Peter as well, and before Rome, so would be the "older brother" of Rome in this regard, and just as rightful a claimant to Peter's Keys (if the text is taken to apply only to Peter, that is).  Rome's only true claim to primacy is the canons of the Ecumenical councils, which themselves neglect the Petrine arguments.  Don't get me wrong, a conciliar claim to me is still pretty strong, but does not IMO give Rome a claim to SUpremacy, an opinion shared by the four other Patriarchs at the time of schism. 

I understand (and possibly agree).  So when did Peter lose the Keys ?  Were they not mean't to be passed on forever ?


That begs the question if St. Peter had them in the sense that the Vatican says he has them. The incident in Galatians shows he did not. But then even if he did, there is the problem that his successors at Rome (as opposed to his successors at Antioch) didn't even have that.  The first time Rome tried to assert a universal authority, by Pope St. Victor (who had the ear of the emperor), he was rebuked by the whole Church.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2010, 01:23:29 PM »


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 ?


Rome Actually Has Succession From  Saint Paul ,he was there First in Rome and  Ordained Bishops and established the church...St. Peter was Sent to the Jews and Paul to The Gentiles...Rome Ignores St. Paul For Some reason and centers on St. Peter because it's all about power and supremacy...Fr. Ambrose Posted Some Information about this that the Coptic Orthodox church has about St. Peter and when he Arrived in rome ,how long he lived there till his death...

Hi Stashko

Whom did Paul and Barnabas seek authority from when they travelled to Jerusalem ?

St. James, the Apostles and Presbyters who were in Jerusalem.  St. Peter was in Antioch, as Galatians makes clear, and went up to Jerusalem with SS Paul and Barnabas.

Quote
St Peter was last to Rome, agreed but what has this to do with the keys ?  St Paul was not given the keys. Saint Paul was not called Blessed by the Christ and given the keys of Heaven...
St. Paul and the Apostles at Jerusalem under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit disagrees. But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. Gal.2:7
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2010, 01:28:33 PM »

Even if the keys were only for St. Peter, why does this then immediately correlate with the Patriarchate of Rome and a universal authority over all of Christendom as Christ's "vicar"? Christ promises that after he leaves He will send his Spirit, not that he will send St. Peter to Rome to set up an all-powerful throne, through which Christ will rule the world.

I'm honestly curious why you accept this rationale.

"upon this Rock I will build my Church".


?
As someone else eluded to, the Fathers describe the Throne of St. Peter as one on which ALL the Episcopate sit on as his successors.

If it was as the Vatican claims, there would be a fourth order of the ordained priesthood:deacon-priest-bishop-pope.  Yet the Vatican to this day has no consecration higher than a bishop.  The installation of the pope of Rome doesn't differ from the installation of an archbishop differing from a bishop's consecration anywhere.
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
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2010, 02:22:22 PM »

There is a collection of essays put together by Fr John Meyendorf called The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church. It's a cololection of five essays that together give a pretty basic but well rounded way of understanding Peter's role among the apostles and in the early Church. They also touch on the historical role of Rome and the nature of ecclesiastical authority. I thought it was pretty good.

This is good. Hopko has a podcast on this:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/keys_to_the_kingdom_st_peter

The following podcast covers the life of St. Paul and how he and St. Peter both serve as important figures historically for the Church in a balancing act and serve today as models for Christian life.

FWIW.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,513


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2010, 02:54:17 PM »

The keys do represent authority. We first see then in the OT where they are given to the "prime-minister" of the king as a prefiguration of the role of the primate in the Church.

That prefiguration gives some hints:

The person receiving the keys was succeeding one that had them and failed because of misguided decisions;
The person who received the keys lost them when wished to become a king;

So, the holder of the keys:

a) is not infallible;
b) is not ontologically attached to them, that is, it is not one person, office or city that has them, but they can be trusted to whom God sees fit;
c) succession of the key holder depends upon the merit of the new holder.

Concerning the primate of the Church:

a) Peter was the first primate but there is no mention to the principle of succession. Not of Peter, not of any of the apostles. In close analysis, there is an absurd principle sustaining that idea: that of a charisma that is inheritable and not dependent of having the right faith. Again, while all charismas depend on the faith, the "pope's charisma" is the source of faith. He has the right faith because he was given the charism. Calvinism is just the application of that principle to every manifestation of grace and to every faithful instead of the primate only. You have the right faith because you were chosen, although Matt. 16:18 clearly shows the process is rather the opposite;

b) the reasons why the Roman bishops were considered primate were *not* ontological at first, that is, they were not primates because they were bishops of Rome as the two things were the same. They were primates because:

b.1) Rome was the most Orthodox in faith. Indeed, we see that Jesus gives the keys to Peter not because he is Peter, but because he proclaimed the right opinion (in Greek, ortho-doxa) about Christ. Modern RC faith states that right opinion comes from the primate *because* he is the primate. Traditional Catholic faith, on the other hand, says that the right opinion is what legitimates primacy. So, with no Orthodox faith, there is no bishop, much less a primate;

b.2) Rome was the most important city of the "world". We know this was one of the reasons precisly because Constantinople was raised to second place when it became capital. Rome remained an important reference and that is one of the reasons it kept its place.

b.3) Rome is where St. Peter and St. Paul suffered martyrdom. In fact, the first arguments for some precedence of Rome did not mention "Peter's succession" but that it was the place of martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Iconography abudantly shows that.

c) the primate is an office, not an order. Justinian, in his legal code, calls the bishop of Rome "head of the bishops", which is far different from "head of the Church". Comparing, it's like having the president of the "Association of Hospitals". Each hospital has a head-doctor who is in charge of the hospital. The president of the association does *not* have the right to interfere and manage each hospital. He is the president of a collegiate of head-doctors, and a head-doctor himself in his own hospital. This is the traditional catholic ecclesiology. RC ecclesiology, on the other hand, claims that there is a kind of supreme-head-doctor, and that there is one hospital only.
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
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 #29 on: August 20, 2010, 05:59:01 PM »

Hello Dogma,

I too am from a lapsed R.C. background. I have studied this issue a fair bit myself... so here’s my take on it, if you’re interested.

The keys that were given to Peter... what exactly were they? Romans will try to tell you that they had to do with the primacy – which is itself all mixed up between Peter and Rome. Was it Peter who had the primacy or was it Rome?

Ss. Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome. They are celebrated by the Church together... on the same day. The apostles were equals... St. Peter was the first among equals. The ordained (through the laying on of hands) successors of those apostles and those bishops which they first appointed who remain in the one true faith are also equals.

Christ Himself is the Rock. That He was the promised Messiah of the Israelites; the awaited Christ; Saviour of the World... That is the rock in Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

The power to bind and loose sins was given to all of the apostles – and all of their successors who remain true to that faith once delivered. In other words – apostolic succession requires apostolic faith. This is something that Rome once had and something she defended vigorously... but that was a long time ago. Rome is not in Rome anymore...

Constantinople was ‘the new Rome’... I have even heard of some who consider  Moscow to have been the successor to Constantinople. Regardless, I think you would agree that the Roman empire is long gone and that gone with it went the Orthodox faith that we seek – which the Eastern Orthodox faith holds. That’s why you’re here, after all.

Anyhow, the truth that I have arrived at is this; ‘The Keys’ are this:

”This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." '

 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."  And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
-Acts 2:32-42


So you see... ‘The keys’ are carried by the Church. Every rightly confessing bishop with true apostolic succession ‘sits in Peter’s chair’.’ The Keys’ given to us through Peter are:

-Repent.

-Be baptized.

-Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

From there we must continue “being saved” (Acts 2:47) carrying on in the doctrine given by the apostles and in the communion of the Eucharist and in prayers and worship.

The truth is – IMO... that the Roman Church ceased to be a Church the moment she changed the Creed. We are to keep the faith... not add to it.

†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.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2010, 11:59:40 PM »


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.
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 #31 on: August 21, 2010, 12:18:20 AM »

Rome Actually Has Succession From  Saint Paul ,he was there First in Rome and  Ordained Bishops and established the church...St. Peter was Sent to the Jews and Paul to The Gentiles...Rome Ignores St. Paul For Some reason and centers on St. Peter because it's all about power and supremacy...Fr. Ambrose Posted Some Information about this that the Coptic Orthodox church has about St. Peter and when he Arrived in rome ,how long he lived there till his death...

Good point. The legend of Peter and Paul both being martyred in Rome at about the same thing is really what gives the Bishop of Rome the particular prestige he had in the early Church. It's entirely possible that Peter did not even ordain any of its bishops, and thus that they do not even have the particular succession that they imagine. And even if they did, it seems quite apparent that Saint Paul was still the founder rather than Saint Peter.
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
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2010, 07:49:58 AM »


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. 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).

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).

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.

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 never succumbed to heresy. 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.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/orthodoxy.html


Although a lot of the replies are making me think.


Thank you


« Last Edit: August 21, 2010, 07:50:36 AM by Dogma » Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2010, 10:24:10 AM »

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that the Blessed Peter had established
three Petrine Sees of equal authority - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected
with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.


Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

This letter of Pope Gregory the Great is one you'll never see quoted in Catholic literature
on Petrine authority and the Keys!  :-)

-oOo-

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken
much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince
of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the
persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

"For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

 (Book VII, Epistle XL)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2010, 10:49:03 AM »


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


Of course there is no scriptural basis for either the Triptarchy (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria) or the later development of the Pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.  And there is also no scriptural basis for a Monarchy centred on the pagan city of Rome.

As someone mentioned, half way through the Acts of the Apostles Peter simply falls off the planet and gets no further mention.  You would think that a book devoted to the Acts of the Apostles would have taken some pains to write of the missionary acts and work of the Apostle Peter if he were seen as the chief and head of all the other Apostles?  Not even his death gets a mention.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2010, 12:30:28 PM »


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 [not "the"] 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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."

Quote
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).
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2010, 12:34:17 PM »

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that the Blessed Peter had established
three Petrine Sees of equal authority - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected
with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.


Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

This letter of Pope Gregory the Great is one you'll never see quoted in Catholic literature
on Petrine authority and the Keys!  :-)
Now, that's not true Father. We have both seen it quoted numerous times on CAF, for instance.

Of course, you always had to supply what parts the Ultramontanists had edited out. Grin
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,612



« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2010, 03:28:17 PM »

I am attracted to many things about the Orthodox Church, but I have one main problem.............
What about the Keys ?   I have not read any Orthodox apologetics which adequately deal with St Peter being given "the keys" and the significance of that.

Are you sure the keys, the power to lock and unlock (bind and loose) were given only to Peter?   They are promised to Peter in Matt. 16 because he is the only one to speak up and answer the question--but they are not given at that point--it is a promise in the FUTURE tense.   Then they are promised to the 12 in Matt. 18.18, which also has the stipulation that "two or three agree" and "two or three are gathered."  It is significant that this is switched to a plural "you," that they are to receive it together and in communion with the rest and in accord with the Faith, for otherwise Judas would have gained and retained it.  But this is still stated in future tense:  "I will give you (plural)..." Then a specific aspect of the keys are promised again to the 12 after the Resurrection, where Christ says "receive the Holy Spirit..." (i.e. when He is come upon you not many days hence).  The keys are also called the "power" from on High of the Holy Spirit.   It is not until Pentecost that the 12 (not just Peter) actually receive the Keys of the Kingdom, the Power of the Holy Spirit to lock and unlock, as the Rudder states expressly.   But even if it were only Peter who received them (which it wasn't), according to St. Cyprian, the office of Peter is the office of the Bishop in his diocese, and according to St. Ignatius it is the Presbyters that hold the place of the 12.  So you would simply be saying, by acknowledging the "Peter-only" keys theory that only Bishops and not Presbyters have the power to bind and loose.  This has nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome except that he is one of the Bishops.    
« Last Edit: August 21, 2010, 03:39:03 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,612



« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2010, 03:45:19 PM »

“after the resurrection of our Savior from the dead and His assumption into heaven, the Apostles, who had been sent forth by Him, as He Himself had been sent forth by the Father, into all the world, and had received all authority to bind and loose and all the gracious gifts of the All-holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they not only possessed the name of Apostle by virtue of the facts of themselves, but indeed even the name of Bishop (overseer) as sacred Epiphanius bears witness (Her. 27):  ‘First were Peter and Paul, these two Apostles and Bishops’” (Pedalion 2)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2010, 03:49:35 PM »

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that the Blessed Peter had established
three Petrine Sees of equal authority - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected
with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.


Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

This letter of Pope Gregory the Great is one you'll never see quoted in Catholic literature
on Petrine authority and the Keys!  :-)
Now, that's not true Father. We have both seen it quoted numerous times on CAF, for instance.

Of course, you always had to supply what parts the Ultramontanists had edited out.
Grin

Yes, this is true.

Now and again some Catholic apologetic site will present the quote from Saint Gregory - in a very mangled and truncated form, so as to bolster the claims for Roman primacy.  What is done to the quote really sinks to the depths of shoddy scholarship and brings quite a lot of shame on Rome.

All of this is explained... This message in another thread compares the real quote and the "Roman" quote:

Message 143

Click here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg297250.html#msg297250
Logged
OnThePathForward
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (former Roman Catholic)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 39


« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2010, 08:31:13 PM »

If I understand the Roman Catholic viewpoint correctly, it has nothing to do the following:

1) that St. Peter played a part in the founding the church in Rome

2) the See of Peter is at Rome

and it has everything do with:

1) Peter had the Keys to the Kingdom, and when he died, he established his 'Office' in Rome, so that is where the keys were left.  And this 'Office' of Peter is different than the 'See' of Peter, since as we know, Gregory already stated that the See of Peter includes the Sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandraia...three Sees are One See of Peter.  But again, this would then be different from the 'Office' of St. Peter.

Is that correct?  Is the 'Office' of Peter different than the 'See' of Peter?

Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2010, 08:55:24 PM »

I wonder if Dogma did a drive by......and just vanished...... Grin
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2010, 08:59:32 PM »

stashko, my Karma ran over your Dogma ... Cheesy
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
OnThePathForward
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (former Roman Catholic)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 39


« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2010, 09:02:06 PM »

[edited...nevermind haha I understand your post now stashko. Must have been a long day for me Smiley]
« Last Edit: August 22, 2010, 09:08:04 PM by OnThePathForward » Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,301



« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2010, 09:13:41 PM »

stashko, my Karma ran over your Dogma ... Cheesy

I love it! That's hilarious! Sometimes a little humor is much needed around here. Cheesy

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #45 on: August 23, 2010, 07:37:33 AM »

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).

Thanks for the advice  Wink

Your mindset seems to be very traditional Roman Catholic in the way you deal with people.

a little less assumption and judgement, and you might actually come across as a friendly chap  Tongue
Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #46 on: August 23, 2010, 07:38:59 AM »

I wonder if Dogma did a drive by......and just vanished...... Grin

 Cheesy
Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #47 on: August 23, 2010, 07:43:35 AM »

“after the resurrection of our Savior from the dead and His assumption into heaven, the Apostles, who had been sent forth by Him, as He Himself had been sent forth by the Father, into all the world, and had received all authority to bind and loose and all the gracious gifts of the All-holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they not only possessed the name of Apostle by virtue of the facts of themselves, but indeed even the name of Bishop (overseer) as sacred Epiphanius bears witness (Her. 27):  ‘First were Peter and Paul, these two Apostles and Bishops’” (Pedalion 2)


Dear FatherHLL

Accepting the above, during the meal at the shore - the other Apostles were present, and yet Our Lord said only unto Peter :-

St John 21

[11] Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken. [12] Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. [13] And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner. [14] This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead. [15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. [18] Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. [20] Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?


[21] Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? [22] Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. [23] This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? [24] This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.




[17] "Feed my sheep"... Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.



?

Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #48 on: August 23, 2010, 07:48:57 AM »

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that the Blessed Peter had established
three Petrine Sees of equal authority - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected
with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.


Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

This letter of Pope Gregory the Great is one you'll never see quoted in Catholic literature
on Petrine authority and the Keys!  :-)

-oOo-

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken
much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince
of the apostles
, saying that he himself now sits on it in the
persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (
Joh. xxi.
17).

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

"For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life [Rome]
. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

 (Book VII, Epistle XL)



Dear Irish Hermit,

How does your quotation refute the Papacy ?


Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2010, 07:51:30 AM »

Christ talked to Peter alone baceause the others did not disavow Him as Peter did and Christ ordering Peter to 'feed His sheep' made Peter to rennounce his triple betrayal. Other Apostles didn't need it.
Logged
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2010, 07:52:12 AM »

If I understand the Roman Catholic viewpoint correctly, it has nothing to do the following:

1) that St. Peter played a part in the founding the church in Rome

2) the See of Peter is at Rome

and it has everything do with:

1) Peter had the Keys to the Kingdom, and when he died, he established his 'Office' in Rome, so that is where the keys were left.  And this 'Office' of Peter is different than the 'See' of Peter, since as we know, Gregory already stated that the See of Peter includes the Sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandraia...three Sees are One See of Peter.  But again, this would then be different from the 'Office' of St. Peter.

Is that correct?  Is the 'Office' of Peter different than the 'See' of Peter?




The Pope is also the "Bishop of Rome".

Other than that I can't really answer further.

Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2010, 07:56:00 AM »

Christ talked to Peter alone baceause the others did not disavow Him as Peter did and Christ ordering Peter to 'feed His sheep' made Peter to rennounce his triple betrayal. Other Apostles didn't need it.


OK, I see your point. They all abandoned him though at the cross.   

The only ones who were loyal unto death were the Holy Theotokos, a young virgin boy and a Prostitute !



(Other than John the whole assembly of Bishops did a runner !  )
Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2010, 07:58:43 AM »

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that the Blessed Peter had established
three Petrine Sees of equal authority - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected
with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.


Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

This letter of Pope Gregory the Great is one you'll never see quoted in Catholic literature
on Petrine authority and the Keys!  :-)

-oOo-

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken
much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince
of the apostles
, saying that he himself now sits on it in the
persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (
Joh. xxi.
17).

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

"For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life [Rome]
. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

 (Book VII, Epistle XL)



Dear Irish Hermit,

How does your quotation refute the Papacy ?




I was really addressing your question about the Keys, and the letter from Pope Saint Gregory shows that he did not see the Keys as belonging only to Rome and only to himself.

However, for those people who believe that the Keys belong only to the Papacy, Saint Gregory's words would be a refutation of that.

The Pope of Rome affirms that the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria also occupies Peter's Chair just as he does.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2010, 08:07:13 AM »

“after the resurrection of our Savior from the dead and His assumption into heaven, the Apostles, who had been sent forth by Him, as He Himself had been sent forth by the Father, into all the world, and had received all authority to bind and loose and all the gracious gifts of the All-holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they not only possessed the name of Apostle by virtue of the facts of themselves, but indeed even the name of Bishop (overseer) as sacred Epiphanius bears witness (Her. 27):  ‘First were Peter and Paul, these two Apostles and Bishops’” (Pedalion 2)


Dear FatherHLL

Accepting the above, during the meal at the shore - the other Apostles were present, and yet Our Lord said only unto Peter :-

St John 21

[11] Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken. [12] Jesus saith to them: Come, and dine. And none of them who were at meat, durst ask him: Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. [13] And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish in like manner. [14] This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead. [15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. [18] Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. [19] And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me. [20] Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?


[21] Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? [22] Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. [23] This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? [24] This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.




[17] "Feed my sheep"... Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.



?



Saint John Chrysostom speaks of the triple "Do you love me?" as balancing and cancelling Saint Peter's triple denial in the courtayrd when Christ had been arrested.    Look for his commentary on John 21.  It's bound to be on the Net on CCEL.

The triple "Do you love me?" was actually a moment of shame for Peter and that is why he does not rush in in his usual enthusiastic way and answer "Yes, Lord, I love you more than these."  Instead he replies with a much more subdued, and even kind of plaintive, "Lord, you know that I love you."

Why? Because our Lord is reminding him that at the last supper Peter had vainly boasted that he loved Him more than the other Apostles - and yet a few hours later his boast was proven to be empty and Peter committed an an act of betrayal and denied Christ in the courtyard of the High Priest.

Our Lord's triple question, "Do you love me?" is His compassionate way of cancelling the triple betrayal of Peter at the time of His trial and allowing Peter to redeem himself.  It was also His way of restoring Peter to the office of an Apostle, and I imagine that is why it took place in front of the Apostles so that they were aware of Peter's restoration as one of their number.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #54 on: August 23, 2010, 08:09:22 AM »

OK, I see your point. They all abandoned him though at the cross.   

The only ones who were loyal unto death were the Holy Theotokos, a young virgin boy and a Prostitute !



(Other than John the whole assembly of Bishops did a runner !  )

Fear is not the same as active denial.

BTW Who was that prostitute?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #55 on: August 23, 2010, 08:54:28 AM »

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).

Thanks for the advice  Wink

Your mindset seems to be very traditional Roman Catholic in the way you deal with people.

a little less assumption and judgement, and you might actually come across as a friendly chap  Tongue

I haven't assumed anything.
Hi guys

Background: lapsed Catholic.  Disheartened by many things about the RC Church, main one being a lack of what you would call "ekonomia" to those that don't tick all the boxes.  but God help you if you married in good faith, had children and then got cheated on and dumped (divorced).  God help you if you want to remarry !


I am not divorced, but have fallen in love with and wish to marry a divorcee.....all my traditional Catholic insurances policies have gone to pot !  Cry  It is very easy to accept dogmas / doctrine if it hasn't personally effected you   Wink

I am attracted to many things about the Orthodox Church, but I have one main problem.............

I know that in "traditional Roman Catholic" circles find sanctimonyy quite popular, congratualing themselves on how the Vatican tribunal's don't allow divorce, while the Orthodox allow divorce and contraception (the two are always linked, at least in their propoganda). Somehow one can through the Corban factory multiple times and come out white as snow.  The Orthodox Church won't bless a marriage after the third time, whatever the reason for the end of the first two.

"God help you if you married in good faith, had children and then got cheated on and dumped (divorced)." Been there, done that."  My ex-wife insisted that she had to get married to her partner in adultery (who was also married, and attending the Vatican church) in church: it was important "to [her] that [they] get married before the altar of God....whether Orthodox or Catholic [sic]"  Her (Orthodox) father confessor told her not to come back.  He told me that it was "odd that she filed for divorce when" I "had all the grounds":"we're far, FAR beyond adultery."  In the meantime the secretary at work was also the victim of adultery, and yet he filed for divorce (and had police with flood lights etc. serve her).  In the settlement he was supposed to pay for the annullment, but he refused to cooperate when she got the paperwork.  When she went to talk to priest where the ex hubby was parish council member and other offices, the 'father" told her that if he had to discipline everyone who were committing adultery, he'd loose half the parish.  He remarried and now has a kid last I taked to her about it.

So you say that you are a disheartened follower of the Vatican, but yet speak of having "traditional Catholic insurance policies."  If you were "lapsed Catholic," what is the problem.  If lapsed, why would you care what the Vatican thinks, or have it bless your marriage?  If your intended still cares, then they have "accepted doctrines/dogmas that personally affect" her/him, in which case why aren't they dating?  It's not like, say, the Orthodox Church in America (where they don't bother with examining the dissolution of marriage, holding out the hope of reconiliation, unless a remarriage is contemplated), the Antiochean Archdiocese of North America (which a few years ago directed that before a remarriage the priest must first determine if the contemplated marriage arises from an affair of the first, in which case no marriage can be blessed) etc.  You can go to the Corban factory as soon as the divorce is finalized, and then go date with a "clear conscience" as much as you like.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #56 on: August 23, 2010, 08:59:18 AM »

Christ talked to Peter alone baceause the others did not disavow Him as Peter did and Christ ordering Peter to 'feed His sheep' made Peter to rennounce his triple betrayal. Other Apostles didn't need it.


OK, I see your point. They all abandoned him though at the cross.   

The only ones who were loyal unto death were the Holy Theotokos, a young virgin boy and a Prostitute !



(Other than John the whole assembly of Bishops did a runner !  )
"Very traditional Roman Catholic" circles make much of the number of times St. Peter is mentioned by name. Not so much about the fact that the largest number of those top billings deal with his denial of the Lord, IIRC the only story of St. Peter recorded in all four Gospels.
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
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #57 on: August 23, 2010, 09:39:38 AM »

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).

Thanks for the advice  Wink

Your mindset seems to be very traditional Roman Catholic in the way you deal with people.

a little less assumption and judgement, and you might actually come across as a friendly chap  Tongue

I haven't assumed anything.
Hi guys

Background: lapsed Catholic.  Disheartened by many things about the RC Church, main one being a lack of what you would call "ekonomia" to those that don't tick all the boxes.  but God help you if you married in good faith, had children and then got cheated on and dumped (divorced).  God help you if you want to remarry !


I am not divorced, but have fallen in love with and wish to marry a divorcee.....all my traditional Catholic insurances policies have gone to pot !  Cry  It is very easy to accept dogmas / doctrine if it hasn't personally effected you   Wink

I am attracted to many things about the Orthodox Church, but I have one main problem.............

I know that in "traditional Roman Catholic" circles find sanctimonyy quite popular, congratualing themselves on how the Vatican tribunal's don't allow divorce, while the Orthodox allow divorce and contraception (the two are always linked, at least in their propoganda). Somehow one can through the Corban factory multiple times and come out white as snow.  The Orthodox Church won't bless a marriage after the third time, whatever the reason for the end of the first two.

"God help you if you married in good faith, had children and then got cheated on and dumped (divorced)." Been there, done that."  My ex-wife insisted that she had to get married to her partner in adultery (who was also married, and attending the Vatican church) in church: it was important "to [her] that [they] get married before the altar of God....whether Orthodox or Catholic [sic]"  Her (Orthodox) father confessor told her not to come back.  He told me that it was "odd that she filed for divorce when" I "had all the grounds":"we're far, FAR beyond adultery."  In the meantime the secretary at work was also the victim of adultery, and yet he filed for divorce (and had police with flood lights etc. serve her).  In the settlement he was supposed to pay for the annullment, but he refused to cooperate when she got the paperwork.  When she went to talk to priest where the ex hubby was parish council member and other offices, the 'father" told her that if he had to discipline everyone who were committing adultery, he'd loose half the parish.  He remarried and now has a kid last I taked to her about it.

So you say that you are a disheartened follower of the Vatican, but yet speak of having "traditional Catholic insurance policies."  If you were "lapsed Catholic," what is the problem.  If lapsed, why would you care what the Vatican thinks, or have it bless your marriage?  If your intended still cares, then they have "accepted doctrines/dogmas that personally affect" her/him, in which case why aren't they dating?  It's not like, say, the Orthodox Church in America (where they don't bother with examining the dissolution of marriage, holding out the hope of reconiliation, unless a remarriage is contemplated), the Antiochean Archdiocese of North America (which a few years ago directed that before a remarriage the priest must first determine if the contemplated marriage arises from an affair of the first, in which case no marriage can be blessed) etc.  You can go to the Corban factory as soon as the divorce is finalized, and then go date with a "clear conscience" as much as you like.


Apologies - this obviously has effected you.


Also , I suppose I am outside of the RC tick list now, rather than lapsed.  I converted from atheism a few years ago, based on "The Keys".


Thanks for your input  ialmisry
Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #58 on: August 23, 2010, 09:43:13 AM »

OK, I see your point. They all abandoned him though at the cross.   

The only ones who were loyal unto death were the Holy Theotokos, a young virgin boy and a Prostitute !



(Other than John the whole assembly of Bishops did a runner !  )

Fear is not the same as active denial.

BTW Who was that prostitute?

Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #59 on: August 23, 2010, 09:55:25 AM »

Who on Earth put into your head the fact St. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute Huh
Logged
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #60 on: August 23, 2010, 10:06:55 AM »

Who on Earth put into your head the fact St. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute Huh

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm


Does it scandalise you that the one who loved Jesus more than any other Apostle was a common prostitute ?

She was forgiven much, and loved much

Jesus loved the outcast and sinners....don't forget either that the Good Samaritan was a heretic !
 Smiley
Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #61 on: August 23, 2010, 10:14:09 AM »

Anyway, back to the Keys.  I am only being honest,  people have made me rethink a few things, but I am still not convinced.

Seriously guys.

Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Dogma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 22



« Reply #62 on: August 23, 2010, 10:18:07 AM »


Saint John Chrysostom speaks of the triple "Do you love me?" as balancing and cancelling Saint Peter's triple denial in the courtayrd when Christ had been arrested.    Look for his commentary on John 21.  It's bound to be on the Net on CCEL.

The triple "Do you love me?" was actually a moment of shame for Peter and that is why he does not rush in in his usual enthusiastic way and answer "Yes, Lord, I love you more than these."  Instead he replies with a much more subdued, and even kind of plaintive, "Lord, you know that I love you."

Why? Because our Lord is reminding him that at the last supper Peter had vainly boasted that he loved Him more than the other Apostles - and yet a few hours later his boast was proven to be empty and Peter committed an an act of betrayal and denied Christ in the courtyard of the High Priest.

Our Lord's triple question, "Do you love me?" is His compassionate way of cancelling the triple betrayal of Peter at the time of His trial and allowing Peter to redeem himself.  It was also His way of restoring Peter to the office of an Apostle, and I imagine that is why it took place in front of the Apostles so that they were aware of Peter's restoration as one of their number.


Very interesting...thanks for this Irish,
Logged

When the routine bites hard
And ambitions are low
And the resentment rides high
But emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways
Taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #63 on: August 23, 2010, 10:42:42 AM »

I converted from atheism a few years ago, based on "The Keys".

Ah. Well that was an improvement.

As to the true meaning of the Keys and the Vatican claims thereon:
Oh, the Vatican says it quite clear in Lumen Gentium, as seen above.  Btw, Augustus only bore the title of Princeps "First Citizen," claiming that he was only the first servant of the state.  Everyone knew otherwise.

Wow. Lumen Gentium makes it pretty clear. The Pope (according to Catholic belief) does not merely hold a place of honor, but a primacy of power and universal jurisdiction.

That is not the belief of the pre-schism Church.
Amen! Amen! Amen!

This is the Faith of the pre-schism Church:
When he was Orthodox. We still would "follow" him, if he followed the Fathers. Let him confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself
.....
Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne"...As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."..For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way... But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

The best analogy I've ever seen is this:
Quote
Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
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
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,545


« Reply #64 on: August 23, 2010, 10:58:32 AM »

Who on Earth put into your head the fact St. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute Huh

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm


Does it scandalise you that the one who loved Jesus more than any other Apostle was a common prostitute ?

She was forgiven much, and loved much

Jesus loved the outcast and sinners....don't forget either that the Good Samaritan was a heretic !
 Smiley


Reread the article you have linked. Especially this:
Quote
The Greek Fathers, as a whole, distinguish the three persons:

    * the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50;
    * the sister of Martha and Lazarus, Luke 10:38-42 and John 11; and
    * Mary Magdalen.

On the other hand most of the Latins hold that these three were one and the same. Protestant critics, however, believe there were two, if not three, distinct persons. It is impossible to demonstrate the identity of the three; but those commentators undoubtedly go too far who assert, as does Westcott (on John 11:1), "that the identity of Mary with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture supported by no direct evidence, and opposed to the general tenour of the gospels."
Logged
OrthodoxyUSA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2


« Reply #65 on: March 05, 2011, 12:26:04 PM »

Anyway, back to the Keys.  I am only being honest,  people have made me rethink a few things, but I am still not convinced.

Seriously guys.



And he speaks of Saint Andrew -"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”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1.

Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-1....htm#P175_1913

Forgive me...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #66 on: March 05, 2011, 02:04:01 PM »

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #67 on: March 05, 2011, 02:08:00 PM »

Anyway, back to the Keys.  I am only being honest,  people have made me rethink a few things, but I am still not convinced.

Seriously guys.



And he speaks of Saint Andrew -"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”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1.

Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-1....htm#P175_1913

Forgive me...
Actually, he is speaking of St. John.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.iii.html
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
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #68 on: March 05, 2011, 03:03:33 PM »

Anyway, back to the Keys.  I am only being honest,  people have made me rethink a few things, but I am still not convinced.

Seriously guys.



And he speaks of Saint Andrew -"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”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1.

Also at: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-1....htm#P175_1913

Forgive me...

You from christianforums?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   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 0.273 seconds with 96 queries.