OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 08:55:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Luke 22:31-32 and Matthew 16:19 and other RC contentions  (Read 10838 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« on: February 20, 2013, 05:30:30 PM »

Hello everyone,

Roman Catholic argue that these passages (Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:19) refer to Peter in the first person singular, with the pertinent and significant exception in Luke 22:31 where Jesus says that the devil wishes to "sift YOU ALL like wheat". In his book "Pope Fiction", Patrick Madrid couples this with the episode of Matthew 14 where Peter is saved from drowning. The argument follows that in consideration of Acts 1:20 and the propagation of offices, that by a charitable guarantee, God sees to it that the See of Peter will not be overcome by the devil and "formally" preach error.

Though not an Orthodox Christian myself (yet), I've argued the point that the primacy is contingent upon orthodoxy and hence conditional as is in fact portrayed in Matthew 14. Furthermore, I've stated that the infamous "three conditions" are arbitrary and revisionist, since one confesses and preaches not only with word but with deed; and there have been, as we all know, several heretical and impious popes. The Catholic rejoinder I'm guessing would be Matthew 23: 2-3. At any rate, the instance in Luke 22: 31-32 does seem like an interesting contention in favor of Catholicity.

What say you on any or all of these matters brethren?
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2013, 05:34:50 PM »

Hello everyone,

Roman Catholic argue that these passages (Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:19) refer to Peter in the first person singular, with the pertinent and significant exception in Luke 22:31 where Jesus says that the devil wishes to "sift YOU ALL like wheat". In his book "Pope Fiction", Patrick Madrid couples this with the episode of Matthew 14 where Peter is saved from drowning. The argument follows that in consideration of Acts 1:20 and the propagation of offices, that by a charitable guarantee, God sees to it that the See of Peter will not be overcome by the devil and "formally" preach error.

Though not an Orthodox Christian myself (yet), I've argued the point that the primacy is contingent upon orthodoxy and hence conditional as is in fact portrayed in Matthew 14. Furthermore, I've stated that the infamous "three conditions" are arbitrary and revisionist, since one confesses and preaches not only with word but with deed; and there have been, as we all know, several heretical and impious popes. The Catholic rejoinder I'm guessing would be Matthew 23: 2-3. At any rate, the instance in Luke 22: 31-32 does seem like an interesting contention in favor of Catholicity.

What say you on any or all of these matters brethren?

I think that you can't argue from Scripture without using Patristics.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 05:34:59 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,067


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2013, 05:50:58 PM »

I've argued the point that the primacy
We never had a problem with primacy.

Supremacy was the issue.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2013, 06:08:49 PM »

Hello everyone,

Roman Catholic argue that these passages (Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:19) refer to Peter in the first person singular, with the pertinent and significant exception in Luke 22:31 where Jesus says that the devil wishes to "sift YOU ALL like wheat". In his book "Pope Fiction", Patrick Madrid couples this with the episode of Matthew 14 where Peter is saved from drowning. The argument follows that in consideration of Acts 1:20 and the propagation of offices, that by a charitable guarantee, God sees to it that the See of Peter will not be overcome by the devil and "formally" preach error.

Though not an Orthodox Christian myself (yet), I've argued the point that the primacy is contingent upon orthodoxy and hence conditional as is in fact portrayed in Matthew 14. Furthermore, I've stated that the infamous "three conditions" are arbitrary and revisionist, since one confesses and preaches not only with word but with deed; and there have been, as we all know, several heretical and impious popes. The Catholic rejoinder I'm guessing would be Matthew 23: 2-3. At any rate, the instance in Luke 22: 31-32 does seem like an interesting contention in favor of Catholicity.

What say you on any or all of these matters brethren?

I think that you can't argue from Scripture without using Patristics.

Fair enough. That being the case, would you be so charitable as to provide some good patristic sources which interpret these verses?

I've argued the point that the primacy
We never had a problem with primacy.

Supremacy was the issue.

I'm not sure you read the entire context of that paragraph. I was not denying that the EO deny the primacy.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2013, 06:09:49 PM »

Correction: I was not STATING that the EO deny the primacy.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2013, 06:16:25 PM »

Fair enough. That being the case, would you be so charitable as to provide some good patristic sources which interpret these verses?

Migne's Patrologia Graeca and Patrologia Latina.
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2013, 07:08:05 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2013, 07:56:33 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?

Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2013, 08:06:05 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost.  
Yes, none were replaced but all were succeeded.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 08:07:00 PM by ialmisry » 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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2013, 08:17:03 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost.  
Yes, none were replaced but all were succeeded.

But none in an individualistic, office, sense.  Like George Washington was succeeded by other men in the office of the presidency.  We know who the president of the US is at a given time throughout history.  Bishops today are successors of the Apostles, but there are no specific offices of each Apostle.  I know every Patriarchate was called the Seat of an Apostle, usually Peter (Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria through St. Mark), but it there is no one office for St. Peter as there is no one office for each Apostle.  Every bishop is the successor of all the Apostles.
Logged
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2013, 09:12:48 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?


The first point differentiating between leaders and bosses I think is fantastic; as well as the last point regarding the absence of individual succession from the other apostles. However, I didn't understand this part:

The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2013, 09:20:03 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost.  
Yes, none were replaced but all were succeeded.

But none in an individualistic, office, sense.  Like George Washington was succeeded by other men in the office of the presidency.  We know who the president of the US is at a given time throughout history.  Bishops today are successors of the Apostles, but there are no specific offices of each Apostle.  I know every Patriarchate was called the Seat of an Apostle, usually Peter (Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria through St. Mark), but it there is no one office for St. Peter as there is no one office for each Apostle.  Every bishop is the successor of all the Apostles.

Choy,

That doesn't seem to be true at all considering the plethora of patristic sources referring to the See of Peter as precisely an individual apostolic inheritance. Here is a concise list:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2013, 09:47:20 PM »

Choy,

That doesn't seem to be true at all considering the plethora of patristic sources referring to the See of Peter as precisely an individual apostolic inheritance. Here is a concise list:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

Is that a plethora of Patristic sources?  Half of them I think were Popes.  It's like me saying I am infallible, why wouldn't I not want to say that?  Also note that Primacy does have a different connotation to the East than the West.  So the proclamation that the Patriarch of Constantinople is second in honor to Rome's Primacy does not mean universal ordinary jurisdiction or infallibility.  Roman Catholics quickly jump to that conclusion that everytime something nice said about the Pope or that Rome has primacy, then primacy means what they want it to mean.  I like what is said in the book "The Primacy of Peter," that a lot of this seemingly evidence for the supremacy of the Pope would never be understood to mean as much if people never had this preconcieved notion that the Pope is what the Papacy is defined today.  If we're not hunting for quotes to prove that the Pope is the universal supreme bishop, then we will never equate primacy to mean that the first time we encounter the word in Patristic text.  The concept of which is alien to our Church Fathers.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2013, 09:57:49 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?


The first point differentiating between leaders and bosses I think is fantastic; as well as the last point regarding the absence of individual succession from the other apostles. However, I didn't understand this part:

The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Anachronism is a logical fallacy where we assume that the past has the same circumstances as today.  For example, some people assume that the structure of Popes, Bishops, Priests and Deacons existed in the First Century.  That simply is not true.  St. James who is recognized as the first bishop of Jerusalem wasn't even referred to as "episkopos" in Acts.  He was called a Presbyter.  But we all know even without titles that he holds a primacy among the presbyters of Jerusalem.  And eventually this prime presbyter was called the bishop.  Also back then presbyters didn't celebrate the Eucharist, only bishops do.  Although in the Didache it did say the bishop can appoint someone to celebrate the Eucharist in his stead, the practice of having presbyters celebrate the Eucharist always did not exist back then.

So for the Papacy, I think there has been an effort to portray it as something that exists back then even though it doesn't.  Even the concept of Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church (first and second century).
Logged
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2013, 10:08:35 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?


The first point differentiating between leaders and bosses I think is fantastic; as well as the last point regarding the absence of individual succession from the other apostles. However, I didn't understand this part:

The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Anachronism is a logical fallacy where we assume that the past has the same circumstances as today.  For example, some people assume that the structure of Popes, Bishops, Priests and Deacons existed in the First Century.  That simply is not true.  St. James who is recognized as the first bishop of Jerusalem wasn't even referred to as "episkopos" in Acts.  He was called a Presbyter.  But we all know even without titles that he holds a primacy among the presbyters of Jerusalem.  And eventually this prime presbyter was called the bishop.  Also back then presbyters didn't celebrate the Eucharist, only bishops do.  Although in the Didache it did say the bishop can appoint someone to celebrate the Eucharist in his stead, the practice of having presbyters celebrate the Eucharist always did not exist back then.

So for the Papacy, I think there has been an effort to portray it as something that exists back then even though it doesn't.  Even the concept of Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church (first and second century).

I'm guessing the RC rejoinder would be that rhetorical difference is just that, rhetorical; and that the real presence of primacy and all that goes with it in the RC conception was in fact there but perhaps not exercised and expressed in the way they (the RC's) understand it today.

Choy,

That doesn't seem to be true at all considering the plethora of patristic sources referring to the See of Peter as precisely an individual apostolic inheritance. Here is a concise list:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

Is that a plethora of Patristic sources?  Half of them I think were Popes.  It's like me saying I am infallible, why wouldn't I not want to say that?  Also note that Primacy does have a different connotation to the East than the West.  So the proclamation that the Patriarch of Constantinople is second in honor to Rome's Primacy does not mean universal ordinary jurisdiction or infallibility.  Roman Catholics quickly jump to that conclusion that everytime something nice said about the Pope or that Rome has primacy, then primacy means what they want it to mean.  I like what is said in the book "The Primacy of Peter," that a lot of this seemingly evidence for the supremacy of the Pope would never be understood to mean as much if people never had this preconcieved notion that the Pope is what the Papacy is defined today.  If we're not hunting for quotes to prove that the Pope is the universal supreme bishop, then we will never equate primacy to mean that the first time we encounter the word in Patristic text.  The concept of which is alien to our Church Fathers.

Despite that being the case there are quotes there and elsewhere which are not from popes which seem to affirm the RC position. I agree with you however that this doesn't refute the EO conception of primacy being conditional and of a different nature.

I also found what you said regarding RC's humorous. I'm a RC (for now) and I've caught myself and others doing the same.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2013, 10:17:00 PM »

I'm guessing the RC rejoinder would be that rhetorical difference is just that, rhetorical; and that the real presence of primacy and all that goes with it in the RC conception was in fact there but perhaps not exercised and expressed in the way they (the RC's) understand it today.

Yes, well that is what the Orthodox say is what it is.  And I accept it, being a former RC myself.  As mentioned previously, the Pope of Rome no doubt has Primacy, but Vatican I is not the definition of Primacy especially in the First Millennium.

Despite that being the case there are quotes there and elsewhere which are not from popes which seem to affirm the RC position. I agree with you however that this doesn't refute the EO conception of primacy being conditional and of a different nature.

I also found what you said regarding RC's humorous. I'm a RC (for now) and I've caught myself and others doing the same.

I think we have to look at the bigger picture.  Of course a quote can easily be taken out of context, we have our experience with that with all the bible-only groups hacking and tearing apart Scripture to serve their purpose.  I was convinced of the Orthodox position because the Orthodox came with the wider context, which the Roman Catholic side at least by my readings did not.  It was this quote and that quote and that is it.  I may be wrong and surely if you have something that explains a quote in a larger context that also supports the Roman position, please share it here.  Because a quote taken out of context can easily be inserted into a different context.  That doesn't make the quote mean that new context though.
Logged
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2013, 10:39:28 PM »

I'm guessing the RC rejoinder would be that rhetorical difference is just that, rhetorical; and that the real presence of primacy and all that goes with it in the RC conception was in fact there but perhaps not exercised and expressed in the way they (the RC's) understand it today.

Yes, well that is what the Orthodox say is what it is.  And I accept it, being a former RC myself.  As mentioned previously, the Pope of Rome no doubt has Primacy, but Vatican I is not the definition of Primacy especially in the First Millennium.

Despite that being the case there are quotes there and elsewhere which are not from popes which seem to affirm the RC position. I agree with you however that this doesn't refute the EO conception of primacy being conditional and of a different nature.

I also found what you said regarding RC's humorous. I'm a RC (for now) and I've caught myself and others doing the same.

I think we have to look at the bigger picture.  Of course a quote can easily be taken out of context, we have our experience with that with all the bible-only groups hacking and tearing apart Scripture to serve their purpose.  I was convinced of the Orthodox position because the Orthodox came with the wider context, which the Roman Catholic side at least by my readings did not.  It was this quote and that quote and that is it.  I may be wrong and surely if you have something that explains a quote in a larger context that also supports the Roman position, please share it here.  Because a quote taken out of context can easily be inserted into a different context.  That doesn't make the quote mean that new context though.

Firstly, thanks for your time and care in your responses. What I meant regarding your second response, was not that the RC position regarding the papacy is justified in its entirety, but that the point regarding individual apostolic inheritance seems to be evidently present within the early Church. Since there is so much that rides on conversions from one Church to another, I will be founding my decision on texts and truths that speak for themselves and that can be interpreted in no other way. That's why, on this single point, it seems to me that the quotes and consensus speaks for itself, that in the case of Rome there is definitely and apostolic inheritance that has Peter for its root. That of course isn't to conclude that any other papal claims are to follow.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,816


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2013, 05:15:58 AM »

I was convinced of the Orthodox position because the Orthodox came with the wider context, which the Roman Catholic side at least by my readings did not.  It was this quote and that quote and that is it.  I may be wrong and surely if you have something that explains a quote in a larger context that also supports the Roman position, please share it here.  Because a quote taken out of context can easily be inserted into a different context.  That doesn't make the quote mean that new context though.

Yes. Study of the Church Fathers should probably receive more attention in the Church of Rome.

Firstly, thanks for your time and care in your responses. What I meant regarding your second response, was not that the RC position regarding the papacy is justified in its entirety, but that the point regarding individual apostolic inheritance seems to be evidently present within the early Church.

You're right about that one. At least in the case of Rome.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 05:19:09 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 495



« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2013, 02:58:08 PM »

St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that. However is the Pope of Rome the only successor to Aposlte Peter?  Did not Apostle Peter establish the see of Antioch ? If not other Bishops atleast the Bishop (Patriarch) of Antioch has as much or even a higher claim to be a successor of Peter than the Bishop of Rome.

Let us see what St. Gregory the Great (Gregory the Dialogist) who was a Pope of Rome had to say about this?

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

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius] 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 (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren ( Luke 22: 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (John. 21: 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 [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark]. 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.”
--------------
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxvi.html
------------
Note well:


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 over which the three bishops preside.
Logged

NULL
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2013, 05:04:42 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.
Logged
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2013, 05:40:49 PM »

Thank you all for your wonderful and edifying responses. These will all be considered in prayer as I discern personally the Way and Truth of the Lord.

May our Lord Christ God reign in your hearts!
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2013, 05:45:59 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

Thank you! I would also ask Dhinuus to consider the 4th Diptych in our Liturgy, which calls Sts. Peter and Paul collectively as "Chief among the Apostles".
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2013, 05:59:31 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

First-called means he was the first to be called as a Disciple, not automatically the first in honor.  Peter's primacy isn't disputed, it's what his primacy means that is disputed.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2013, 06:02:46 PM »

Firstly, thanks for your time and care in your responses. What I meant regarding your second response, was not that the RC position regarding the papacy is justified in its entirety, but that the point regarding individual apostolic inheritance seems to be evidently present within the early Church. Since there is so much that rides on conversions from one Church to another, I will be founding my decision on texts and truths that speak for themselves and that can be interpreted in no other way. That's why, on this single point, it seems to me that the quotes and consensus speaks for itself, that in the case of Rome there is definitely and apostolic inheritance that has Peter for its root. That of course isn't to conclude that any other papal claims are to follow.

I haven't done much reading on this matter, but I heard from one podcast from AFR (I forgot from who though) that the claims to seats of the Apostles didn't really arise until Sees were elevated to Patriarchates, and each Church was justifying their claim to primacy.

This is something to think about.
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 193



« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2013, 08:41:41 PM »

To the OP, along with considering the excellent responses you've already received, question whether the original Twelve were themselves bishops as the Roman Catholic Church claims or whether they held a higher, unrepeatable office as Apostles.  As an earlier poster pointed out, using the Roman Catholic logic of the Twelve as bishops in their own right who basically replace themselves through consecrating new bishops (instead of Apostles who established Sees by creating bishops), you would have to question why there are now more than 12 bishops.

For me, the key (pun intended) to understanding the flaw of Roman Catholic logic on this point was the revelation that the Apostles held a once-for-all office of Apostles while not themselves being bishops.  Therefore, whatever particular authority was held by St. Peter (and I agree it is undisputed he was the leader of the Apostles), does not necessarily mean he passed that particular office to any of the bishops he created in the various Sees he established.

Moreover, it might help to consider that the "primacy" as it rested in the Roman See (when it was Orthodox), was just that - a primacy that rested in the Roman See.  The See has the primacy as a result of being highly esteemed for its orthodoxy and the martyrdom of so many saints and for being the imperial seat.  The Patriarch of Rome, therefore, presided at the head of the others because he occupied the See, not because of anything intrinsic to himself.  So, you see, the primacy is not a personal gift for the exercise of an individual bishop, but an honor bestowed on the chief See, which really has very little to do with St. Peter.  And that makes sense for all the historical reasons others have pointed out in this thread so far.

Finally, you might start to ask yourself why the early Church saw fit to call those councils if all they needed to do was ask the Patriarch of Rome for the answer to these doctrinal questions.  They could have saved quite a bit of time!  Of course, that doesn't directly relate to your question about this particular Scriptural passages, but the Tradition and history surrounding the Scripture can sometimes illuminate whether what someone is arguing is legitimate or whether they're proof-texting to support their preconceived view of the subject.  I submit that studying the early Church history demonstrates the typical Roman Catholic Scriptural support for the papal claims looks a lot like proof-texting.  Sometimes I think of the Desert Fathers in the Early Church when I contemplate this point -- I bet many of them didn't even know the name of the Pope of Rome (of course, that's not a very good argument in itself!).
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 08:46:51 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,999


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2013, 11:35:07 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

With what garlands of praise should we bind the brows of Peter and Paul? Separated in body, united in the Spirit, the leaders of God’s heralds; the one as chief of the Apostles, the other as having toiled more than the rest; for with diadems of immortal glory he has indeed fittingly crowned them, Christ our God, who has great mercy.
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/29_june.htm

Leaving behind the catching of fish, O Apostle, you net men, lowering the bait of true religion like a hook with the rod of your preaching, and drawing up from the depth of error all the nations. Apostle Andrew, brother of the Prince and outstanding teacher of the world, do not cease to intercede for us, O all-praised, who with faith and love praise your ever-honoured memory.
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/30nov.htm
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2013, 02:06:51 AM »

More from the service to Apostle Andrew:

The pillar of the faith, the seat of the true doctrines of Christ
, Andrew inspired by God today calls all the ends of the earth to arrange a yearly feast; let us believers, therefore, come together.

Initiates of Christ, contemplators of things above, the proclamation that you trumpeted to the earth astounds every thought; because, while only twelve, you illumined earth’s many thousands.

When the spiritual Sun had set upon the Tree by the counsel of His own free will, the beacon of the Sun, Andrew the great lamp of the Church, seeking to be dissolved with Him and to set into Christ, was hanged upon the tree of a cross.

O disciple and friend of Christ, and fellow of His Apostles, when the Judge is seated upon his throne with you, the Twelve, to judge, as the promise says, then be for us a wall of lovingkindness.

Bethsaida now be glad; for in you there flowered from a mystic pool two sweet scented lilies, Peter and Andrew, who spread the fragrant proclamation of the faith to the whole world by the grace of Christ, whose sufferings too they imitated.

Chosen initiate of the divine dispensation of Christ, chosen first of all to be a disciple of the Word, Andrew who saw God cried out and said, when he saw his brother Peter, ‘We have found the Messiah whom the Scripture and Prophets proclaimed of old’.


And from the hymnody for Apostle john the Evangelist and Theologian:

The summit of the Apostles, the trumpet of theology, the spiritual general, who made the whole inhabited world subject to God, come believers, let us call him blessed, revered John, translated from earth, yet not withdrawn from earth, but living and abiding the fearful second coming of the Master. O mystic bosom friend of Christ, ask that we, who celebrate your memory with love, may meet it uncondemned.

Having abandoned the deep of fishing, O all-praised, you caught all the na­tions like fishes with the rod of the Cross; for as Christ had said to you, you were named a fisher of men, catching them for true religion; therefore you sowed the knowledge of the Word of God and made Patmos and Ephesus fruitful by your words. Theologian, Apostle, intercede with Christ God to bestow forgiveness of faults on those who feast with love your holy memory.

Theologian, Virgin, beloved Disciple of the Saviour, by your in­tercessions save us, we implore, from every kind of harm; for we are your flock.

Father’s beloved Word you stand beside,
Beloved more than all of the Disciples.
Passed on the twenty sixth day unto God the child of the thunder.
(Synaxarion verse)

From the service to Apostle Luke, who was one of the Seventy:

Luke, Apostle of Christ, initiate of ineffable mysteries, Teacher of the nations, with godlike Paul and the pure Mother of God, whose godlike icon you depicted from love, intercede on behalf of those who call you blessed and who honour your sacred falling asleep, all-wise speaker of mysteries who saw God.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2013, 07:04:00 AM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost.  
Yes, none were replaced but all were succeeded.

But none in an individualistic, office, sense.  Like George Washington was succeeded by other men in the office of the presidency.  We know who the president of the US is at a given time throughout history.  Bishops today are successors of the Apostles, but there are no specific offices of each Apostle.  I know every Patriarchate was called the Seat of an Apostle, usually Peter (Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria through St. Mark), but it there is no one office for St. Peter as there is no one office for each Apostle.  Every bishop is the successor of all the Apostles.

Choy,

That doesn't seem to be true at all considering the plethora of patristic sources referring to the See of Peter as precisely an individual apostolic inheritance. Here is a concise list:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

Pope Gregory recognised three different Sees as Sees of Peter! In writing to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria Gregory says “Your most sweet Holiness 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...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...He himself stablished (sic) the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. 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. To Eulogius, Bishop.

Try thinking about this like the Trinity. Everything begins with God the Father, so in one sense he has a primacy. Everything comes from him. Yet all members of the Trinity are fully God. They are unified in a union of love.

The church is the body of Christ and therefore reflects the triune nature of God of unity in diversity.

To say that Peter was leader (in the Catholic use of it) would be like saying that God the Father is more God than God the Son.

Edit: My apologies! I just saw dhinuus use the same quote
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 07:05:52 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2013, 07:07:32 AM »

St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

I've seen some weird Catholic arguments about this, such as an argument from statistics; Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in the NT, etc.

It's then a leap to go from that to "Peter was de jure head of the church"
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,999


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2013, 05:24:20 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2013, 05:13:05 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

There are perhaps more than one who are called chief?  Wink
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2013, 08:42:55 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2013, 08:39:35 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2013, 08:43:46 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Exactly. 2 out of 3 that were founded by St. Peter remained Orthodox, together with the ONLY one founded by Christ and all the 12 (Jerusalem). 
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2013, 06:28:39 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

And as already been noted the three Sees of Peter are ONE
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #35 on: March 05, 2013, 07:12:05 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523


Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2013, 02:03:42 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523




Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2013, 02:29:19 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523




Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2013, 02:42:03 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/
Your source ignores the fact that Eusebius only uses the term "throne" in reference to Jerusalem, which your "source" ignores.  Odd, given that Jerusalem is the only see that Holy Scripture tells us about St. Peter's involvement.  As for Alexandria, St. Peter never set foot there, but he founded the Church at Antioch, his first see.  If it were judged on a "petrine" scale, Antioch would out rank Alexandria.  But instead the secular order was followed:Rome, Alexandria, 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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2013, 02:43:05 PM »

Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.

Problem is in Roman Catholicism the Pope is above all judgement, even by the Church.  Only God judges the Pope.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2013, 02:45:28 PM »

St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

I've seen some weird Catholic arguments about this, such as an argument from statistics; Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in the NT, etc.
that's because of the frequency of the stories connected with his denial of Christ.
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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2013, 02:46:17 PM »

Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.

Problem is in Roman Catholicism the Pope is above all judgement, even by the Church.  Only God judges the Pope.
and He has.
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
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2013, 07:53:14 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/
Your source ignores the fact that Eusebius only uses the term "throne" in reference to Jerusalem, which your "source" ignores.  Odd, given that Jerusalem is the only see that Holy Scripture tells us about St. Peter's involvement.  As for Alexandria, St. Peter never set foot there, but he founded the Church at Antioch, his first see.  If it were judged on a "petrine" scale, Antioch would out rank Alexandria.  But instead the secular order was followed:Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

"St. Chrysostom tells the people of Antioch that ” Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, who had power over all to bind and to loose, was commanded to reside here a long time: for this cause our city is the complement of the world.” And again : “This is the single prerogative of the dignity of our city, that it had from the beginning the Prince of the Apostles for its teacher. For it was just that the city where the name of Christians was first pronounced should receive the first Apostle as its pastor. But though we received him as our teacher, we did not keep him for good, but gave him up to Rome.”

Though the see of Antioch was founded by St. Peter in person, that of Alexandria only by his deputy Mark, whom he sent from Rome to Egypt, yet Alexandria had the higher rank. Bellarmine says, because St. Mark as Evangelist took precedence of Evodius, St. Peter’s successor at Antioch ; Baronius, because Alexandria was the more important city. But whatever was the reason, the order of the sees was well known, and always rigidly preserved.
Hence it is evident, and beyond all controversy, that Rome was first of the three."

Also from the same source, you might consider reading the whole thing
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/#part-i-the-authority-of-the-pope
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2013, 07:54:23 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles’ times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, “When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ‘ Teach all nations.’”
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : “He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter’s chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;’ ‘confirm thy brethren;’ ‘feed my sheep.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523




Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.

How?
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2013, 10:20:19 PM »

How?

History has the answer.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  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 0.231 seconds with 73 queries.