Author Topic: The Keys of St. Peter as that of the household of David representing succession.  (Read 781 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
(1) What do our Orthodox friends make of the Biblical typology and example of Eliachim exercising the chief charge of the stewardship of the royal house of David in the reign of King Hezekiah? If King Hezekiah has a chief steward holding keys, why would not our King Jesus, the Lord, also not have a representative on earth exercising vicariously the plenitude of His authority over the rest of the household. In light of the fact that Christ has succeeded to King David and now manifestly is heir to the Throne, it stands to reason that the post of chief steward would also be filled. We see Christ make reference to the Key of David in Scripture, this suggests He has a delegate who is chief steward.

(2) How do Orthodox respond to the historical confirmation from Tradition that the Roman See ever understood itself to be the representatives in a special way of Christ on earth? And this in such a way that they could pass judgment on disputed issues in other Churches, even while the holy Apostles remained alive, as having received by succession the authority of the Holy Spirit to do so. Let's take the simple case of Pope St. Clement of Rome, the third after St. Peter. How could St. Clement presume to exercise jurisdiction over the Church of Corinth if in fact Rome was not now the permanent seat of the authority of the Keys that Christ granted to St. Peter?

It seems to follow that as in Israel there was a permanent post with successors in authority under the King, so it is in the Church. Your thoughts, dear friends? Link

An excerpt:
Quote
"CONCLUSION ON "KEYS" OF ISAIAH 22 AS PARALLEL TO MATTHEW 16

Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had successors. He is described as being "over the household" and "in charge of the palace" (Isa 22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his authority "what he shall open, no one shall shut...and what he shall shut, no one shall open" (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7). The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only be called a supreme or plenary authority beside that of the King. This is the language of the "keys," "binding," and "loosing" that Jesus was using in Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the "keys" just as the prime minister had the "key to the house of David" (Isa 22:22). And this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 -- the prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa 22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his place. Jesus recognizes the office of prime minister or chief steward ("manager" NIV) in his parables, as one who has been placed in charge and set over the household (Matt 24:45ff; 20:8; Luke 12:42; 16:1ff; cf. Gen 41:40ff; 43:19; 44:4; 45:8ff).

Just as the prime minister or chief steward (other terms include major domo, grand vizier, royal chamberlain, or palace administrator) had the "keys" and the other ministers did not, the Lord made Peter the prime minister in His visible Church, making him the visible head of the apostles over the Church, giving him the "keys of the kingdom" with a special and unique authority in Matthew 16:18-19. The office of prime minister was one of dynastic succession, and this is the language Jesus borrows from Isaiah 22:15ff. While Protestant scholars (such as those I have cited) typically would try to deny the full Catholic conclusions from the passage, it is clear St. Peter did have successors in the Bishops of Rome. That is how the Catholic Church of the earliest centuries came to understand the ongoing ministry and authority of Peter in the Church (the Bishop of Rome was the "Chair [or See] of Peter" or simply "the Apostolic See"). The historical evidence for the unique primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome will be discussed next ...

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,573
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
Half of Roman apologetics (and heck, Orthodox) seem to hinge on the notion that the ecclesial systems we see and know now were already present in a nascent form from the apostles forward when the truth is things were a mess for quite a while.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
There's quite a few interpretations of that typology that have nothing to do with Papal Supremacy, though. You're reading that into it.

Perhaps 1. Peter is the sole steward but every bishop is his successor. 2. All 12 Apostles are a corporate successor. 3. Point 1 is true and the Pope is Peter's only successor but the keys don't imply any or all of the things that Papal Supremacy do.

The Schaff quote makes no sense to me. "The Roman list is the best, except for these other four lists that are also the best."
« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 01:17:14 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,948
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
We see Christ make reference to the Key of David in Scripture, this suggests He has a delegate who is chief steward.

Great antiphon of the 20th December says:
O Key of David and sceptre of the House of Israel;
you open and no one can shut;
you shut and no one can open:
Come and lead the prisoners from the prison house,
those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death.


So it's about power over the Hades, death, history and so on. No word about chief steward.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,213
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ruins of Constantinople, Met. of Atlanta
Half of Roman apologetics (and heck, Orthodox) seem to hinge on the notion that the ecclesial systems we see and know now were already present in a nascent form from the apostles forward when the truth is things were a mess for quite a while.
Still are in some areas. I think I only have about 14 other bishops to pick from if I stop liking mine   :D

To clarify though, unless there's a real good reason like heresy or moving out of diocese, one needs to stick with the Orthodox/Roman/Eastern Catholic bishop they start out in.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 02:11:00 PM by Justin Kolodziej »
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,645
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,241
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.

It's pretty clear the rock was Alcatraz. Or possibly Dwayne Johnson.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,645
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,573
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

If you go there today, there is a church. Duh.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 02:44:43 PM by Agabus »
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,748
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: New Calendarist
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Rock < Chuck Norris

I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

"I will build my Church on Planet Earth" is so obvious a statement as to be meaningless. Why would He even waste the breath and ink it took to say it?

And is there anybody in the history of the Church who actually took the statement that way?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,573
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

"I will build my Church on Planet Earth" is so obvious a statement as to be meaningless. Why would He even waste the breath and ink it took to say it?

And is there anybody in the history of the Church who actually took the statement that way?

People who can't do the mental gymnastics to make the verse about the EP?
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,645
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

"I will build my Church on Planet Earth" is so obvious a statement as to be meaningless. Why would He even waste the breath and ink it took to say it?

And is there anybody in the history of the Church who actually took the statement that way?
Sometimes we should read scripture at face value.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

"I will build my Church on Planet Earth" is so obvious a statement as to be meaningless. Why would He even waste the breath and ink it took to say it?

And is there anybody in the history of the Church who actually took the statement that way?
Sometimes we should read scripture at face value.

"Depending on where Christ was pointing" is not face value. It's a context argument.

Face value would be either "Peter is the Rock" or "Peter's confession is the Rock" depending on how far the difference in Greek words used can be taken.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,645
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

"I will build my Church on Planet Earth" is so obvious a statement as to be meaningless. Why would He even waste the breath and ink it took to say it?

And is there anybody in the history of the Church who actually took the statement that way?
Sometimes we should read scripture at face value.

"Depending on where Christ was pointing" is not face value. It's a context argument.

Face value would be either "Peter is the Rock" or "Peter's confession is the Rock" depending on how far the difference in Greek words used can be taken.
Petra and Petros are two different words though. Sure Petra could be the faith. Certanly not Peter himself.  Makes sense but, Petra could also be the earth. Christ building his church on a rock called earth isn't to far fetched as its a reality that cant be disputed.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

"I will build my Church on Planet Earth" is so obvious a statement as to be meaningless. Why would He even waste the breath and ink it took to say it?

And is there anybody in the history of the Church who actually took the statement that way?
Sometimes we should read scripture at face value.

"Depending on where Christ was pointing" is not face value. It's a context argument.

Face value would be either "Peter is the Rock" or "Peter's confession is the Rock" depending on how far the difference in Greek words used can be taken.
Petra and Petros are two different words though. Sure Petra could be the faith. Certanly not Peter himself.  Makes sense but, Petra could also be the earth. Christ building his church on a rock called earth isn't to far fetched as its a reality that cant be disputed.

It's a reality, yes. But it's a really stupid reality to take precious time to point out. He might as well have said, "my Church will be composed of people who breathe air and get wet when they swim."

I thought Scripture was supposed to be a lot more edifying than that.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,241
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
It's Tzimis, don't waste your time.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,645
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
On this rock. Meaning the earth. I will build my church.

Not an interpretation that makes much sense in context, sorry.
Well! Depending where Christ was pointing.

"I will build my Church on Planet Earth" is so obvious a statement as to be meaningless. Why would He even waste the breath and ink it took to say it?

And is there anybody in the history of the Church who actually took the statement that way?
Sometimes we should read scripture at face value.

"Depending on where Christ was pointing" is not face value. It's a context argument.

Face value would be either "Peter is the Rock" or "Peter's confession is the Rock" depending on how far the difference in Greek words used can be taken.
Petra and Petros are two different words though. Sure Petra could be the faith. Certanly not Peter himself.  Makes sense but, Petra could also be the earth. Christ building his church on a rock called earth isn't to far fetched as its a reality that cant be disputed.

It's a reality, yes. But it's a really stupid reality to take precious time to point out. He might as well have said, "my Church will be composed of people who breathe air and get wet when they swim."

I thought Scripture was supposed to be a lot more edifying than that.
Yeah. If heven is suppose to be a place on a renewed earth. It makes sense.  Christ came from some other place. So if he stated he would build his church on earth. Whats wrong with that statement?
If earth is transformed into heven it makes perfect sense.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,645
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
It's Tzimis, don't waste your time.
You guys are boring! 

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,645
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Lets call it alternative facts and move on.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
The Keys are also mentioned by Fr. Philip in the Council of Ephesus, as being specially connected with the power to bind and loose sins, and of judging i.e. to say, of jurisdiction. "It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine" (Third Session, July 11) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm Also, of excommunication, in the sense, that a steward allows access to rooms where he holds the keys to some, and denies it to others, since he has access to do so.

Quote from: Agabus
Half of Roman apologetics (and heck, Orthodox) seem to hinge on the notion that the ecclesial systems we see and know now were already present in a nascent form from the apostles forward when the truth is things were a mess for quite a while.

Well, it is impossible the promise of Our Lord would not have its fulfilment in history. If the Lord says He will give His Keys to someone, to loose and bind on earth what He wishes to loose and bind from heaven, it should be expected that we find the same true in history.

CE: "History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes....The tone of authority [in his Epistle to the Corinthians] which inspires the latter appears so clearly that [Protestant scholar J.B.] Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as 'the first step towards papal domination' ...Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head....The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles." (volume 12, article "Pope" page 263, 264)

Quote from: Volnutt
There's quite a few interpretations of that typology that have nothing to do with Papal Supremacy, though. You're reading that into it. Perhaps 1. Peter is the sole steward but every bishop is his successor. 2. All 12 Apostles are a corporate successor. 3. Point 1 is true and the Pope is Peter's only successor but the keys don't imply any or all of the things that Papal Supremacy do.

Shebna was succeeded by a single successor Eliachim. In countries, we see prime ministers succeed to an office. Chief ministers who also possess jurisdiction (power to govern or rule) succeed to other offices. But there is a primacy in the manner it is exercised.

Papal Supremacy is nothing more than primacy of jurisdiction. The Pope has the right to overturn the sentences of subordinate judges. Frequently, he may not need to use that right. But he can use it if it becomes necessary to do so. The canons of Sardica recognize it.

Quote
Great antiphon of the 20th December says:
O Key of David and sceptre of the House of Israel;
you open and no one can shut;
you shut and no one can open:
Come and lead the prisoners from the prison house,
those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death.

True. But when our sins are forgiven, do we not pass from darkness to light, and from death to life? That is what happens whenever we confess to a Priest or Bishop authorized by the Pope for the Church. In Catholic teaching, if an ordained man is excommunicated by name, he risks losing the power to forgive sin. Thus, the Keys are intimately connected with the power to bind and loose sins.
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Online Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,948
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Patriarchate/POC
Quote
Great antiphon of the 20th December says:
O Key of David and sceptre of the House of Israel;
you open and no one can shut;
you shut and no one can open:
Come and lead the prisoners from the prison house,
those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death.

True. But when our sins are forgiven, do we not pass from darkness to light, and from death to life? That is what happens whenever we confess to a Priest or Bishop authorized by the Pope for the Church. In Catholic teaching, if an ordained man is excommunicated by name, he risks losing the power to forgive sin. Thus, the Keys are intimately connected with the power to bind and loose sins.
I think it's too much interpretation. It's just (and not "just", as it's.. yeah, the key of our saltavion) about Messiah, Christ that will descend to the Hades and lead with Him in His Pascha people from dead to life.

Having kept the seals intact, Thou did rise from the grave, O Christ,
Who did not violate the Virgin's womb by Thy birth,
and Thou hast opened to us the gates of Paradise.

[the 6th ode of the Paschal Canon]
Too much authorising, too much something around, while Christ and His life-bringing Resurrection should be in centre.
Of course, the whole Church life is to be part of Christ's Resurrection, of His Kingdom.

So, it's prophecy about Christ, this "Key of David". Saint Peter believed that Jesus is Christ, Key of David. The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (to which have possibility to enter as Christ is the Key, He descended to Hades) are for everyone that believes in Jesus as Christ and is chosen by God i.e priests
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Online Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 976
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Today's popes of rome have manifestly nothing to do with the House of God.

Only orthodox bishops have the keys, for the obvious reason.

Offline Sethrak

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Who do you say I AM ~ " That I am Christ “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” UPON THIS ROCK " That I Am the Messiah, I Will Build My Church "

Upon The Rock, That I Am The Christ ~ I Will Build My Church ```
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 11:49:46 AM by Sethrak »

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,547
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Today's popes of rome have manifestly nothing to do with the House of God.

Only orthodox bishops have the keys, for the obvious reason.

So, what to do about the bones of St. Peter, buried under the altar?

https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,620
  • "With great power comes a great electric bill."
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Today's popes of rome have manifestly nothing to do with the House of God.

Only orthodox bishops have the keys, for the obvious reason.

So, what to do about the bones of St. Peter, buried under the altar?


St. Peter was around way before the schism, so assuming they are really his bones, leave them there.

Online Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 976
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Who do you say I AM ~ " That I am Christ “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” UPON THIS ROCK " That I Am the Messiah, I Will Build My Church "

Upon The Rock, That I Am The Christ ~ I Will Build My Church ```

The orthodox confessing bishops & priests are also rocks, build upon solid foundation - Christ, but the foundation is always Christ.

If anyone would claim that he is himself The rock(capital letter intended), say a pope, he is in fact an anti-christ or a substitution for Christ, because such sets himself as foundation against the true foundation.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,682
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
I always love seeing Philip the Presbyter referred to as Fr Philip.

Online Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 976
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Today's popes of rome have manifestly nothing to do with the House of God.

Only orthodox bishops have the keys, for the obvious reason.

So, what to do about the bones of St. Peter, buried under the altar?
They should return them to the Othodox Church, where they belong.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,645
  • If you die before you die, then you will not die
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Today's popes of rome have manifestly nothing to do with the House of God.

Only orthodox bishops have the keys, for the obvious reason.

So, what to do about the bones of St. Peter, buried under the altar?
They should return them to the Othodox Church, where they belong.
There bishops and priests have a lot to answer for but, im sure pious people in there communion that dont know any better will fare just fine.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Quote from: Xavier
Shebna was succeeded by a single successor Eliachim.

Of course he was. It was just one household. That in itself doesn't have anything to do with whether there should be a single keybearer over the entire world.

Quote from: Xavier
In countries, we see prime ministers succeed to an office. Chief ministers who also possess jurisdiction (power to govern or rule) succeed to other offices. But there is a primacy in the manner it is exercised.

Papal Supremacy is nothing more than primacy of jurisdiction. The Pope has the right to overturn the sentences of subordinate judges. Frequently, he may not need to use that right. But he can use it if it becomes necessary to do so. The canons of Sardica recognize it.

That kind of Supremacy, a sort of appeals court, is probably fine in Orthodoxy. It's when Rome moves on from that to the alleged corollaries of universal and immediate and ordinary jurisdiction, the authority of all bishops flowing from Rome, the Pope being able to overturn councils, and finally Papal Infallibility; that the real problems start to crop up.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 06:04:15 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,573
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: Foolishness to the Greeks
I always love seeing Philip the Presbyter referred to as Fr Philip.

The obvious thing to do is reverse this for every Fr. Philip I know.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,773
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
(1) What do our Orthodox friends make of the Biblical typology and example of Eliachim exercising the chief charge of the stewardship of the royal house of David in the reign of King Hezekiah? If King Hezekiah has a chief steward holding keys, why would not our King Jesus, the Lord, also not have a representative on earth exercising vicariously the plenitude of His authority over the rest of the household. In light of the fact that Christ has succeeded to King David and now manifestly is heir to the Throne, it stands to reason that the post of chief steward would also be filled. We see Christ make reference to the Key of David in Scripture, this suggests He has a delegate who is chief steward.

(2) How do Orthodox respond to the historical confirmation from Tradition that the Roman See ever understood itself to be the representatives in a special way of Christ on earth? And this in such a way that they could pass judgment on disputed issues in other Churches, even while the holy Apostles remained alive, as having received by succession the authority of the Holy Spirit to do so. Let's take the simple case of Pope St. Clement of Rome, the third after St. Peter. How could St. Clement presume to exercise jurisdiction over the Church of Corinth if in fact Rome was not now the permanent seat of the authority of the Keys that Christ granted to St. Peter?

It seems to follow that as in Israel there was a permanent post with successors in authority under the King, so it is in the Church. Your thoughts, dear friends? Link

An excerpt:
Quote
"CONCLUSION ON "KEYS" OF ISAIAH 22 AS PARALLEL TO MATTHEW 16

Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had successors. He is described as being "over the household" and "in charge of the palace" (Isa 22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his authority "what he shall open, no one shall shut...and what he shall shut, no one shall open" (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7). The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only be called a supreme or plenary authority beside that of the King. This is the language of the "keys," "binding," and "loosing" that Jesus was using in Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the "keys" just as the prime minister had the "key to the house of David" (Isa 22:22). And this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 -- the prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa 22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his place. Jesus recognizes the office of prime minister or chief steward ("manager" NIV) in his parables, as one who has been placed in charge and set over the household (Matt 24:45ff; 20:8; Luke 12:42; 16:1ff; cf. Gen 41:40ff; 43:19; 44:4; 45:8ff).

Just as the prime minister or chief steward (other terms include major domo, grand vizier, royal chamberlain, or palace administrator) had the "keys" and the other ministers did not, the Lord made Peter the prime minister in His visible Church, making him the visible head of the apostles over the Church, giving him the "keys of the kingdom" with a special and unique authority in Matthew 16:18-19. The office of prime minister was one of dynastic succession, and this is the language Jesus borrows from Isaiah 22:15ff. While Protestant scholars (such as those I have cited) typically would try to deny the full Catholic conclusions from the passage, it is clear St. Peter did have successors in the Bishops of Rome. That is how the Catholic Church of the earliest centuries came to understand the ongoing ministry and authority of Peter in the Church (the Bishop of Rome was the "Chair [or See] of Peter" or simply "the Apostolic See"). The historical evidence for the unique primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome will be discussed next ...

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)

Obviously the passages in question refer as much to the Patriarchates in Alexandria and Antioch as much as Rome.  St. Peter was the first Patriarch of Antioch; the third was the illustrious St. Ignatius the Martyr, whose Roman counterpart was the equally illustrious St. Clement.  St. Mark, the disciple of Peter, was the first Patriarch of Alexandria, sent there on St. Peter’s instructions.

Thus, St. Peter was the rock on which the Church was built, in that he founded the three ancient Patriarchates to which the lesser Bishops looked for guidance in between the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem and the construction of Constantinople, which in the fourth century gave rise to the Pentarchy mentioned explicitly at Chalcedon.  Later, Constantinople founded several other Patriarchates, and Alexandria evangelized Ethiopia, and St. Gregory the Illuminator evangelized Armenia, which in turn evangelized Georgia and the rest of the Caucasian region.

It would not be wrong to refer to the early autocephalous churches as synods, and each of the Petrine Sees represents one of the earliest synods, the Holy Synod led by the Patriarch of Antioch, the Holy Synod led by the Archbishop of Rome, and the Holy Synod led by the Pope of Alexandria (the first archbishop to be called “Papem” or Pope in Christendom).   In each of these synods, however, the archbishop was just the first among equals, the primus inter pares.  The idea of one bishop having absolute control over other bishops outside of his diocese is an error which originated in Rome post-Charlemagne.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 09:26:40 PM by Alpha60 »
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,773
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
I always love seeing Philip the Presbyter referred to as Fr Philip.

The obvious thing to do is reverse this for every Fr. Philip I know.

Vladyka, over dinner last night, told me that a member of his diocese who was a contractor would always address him as “His grace.”  Not “Your grace,” but “His grace.”  So he would say to Vladyka, “How is His Grace feeling today?” Vladyka never bothered to correct him as he found it terribly amusing.

We then had a hilarious discussion about cannibalism.  It was a most entertaining evening.

Which begs the interesting question: when was the last time you talked to your bishop about cannibalism?  It is a vital question, and I expect I am in a very small minority of OCNet members to have “gone there” with their bishop.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Sethrak

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
So what have youse guys come up with ~ did Christ mean: ON YOU PETER I will build My Church and pass it on to ~ this on and that one and on to Francis ~ what every he say goes ``` Or was the Rock Christ was referring to ~ " the Fact that He was the Christ " ```Is there anyone besides the OP that thinks this ```

I once said to an Orthodox Priest: Christ built His Church on Peter ~ and he laid it out for me so clearly ``` Your have to understand I want to Roman Catholic School ~ they don't care how it is written ~ they teach: We were given the ball ~ it's ours ~ we are the church ~ Roman Catholic or nothing ```


The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your successors,” but “upon this rock”—upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 09:56:27 PM by Sethrak »

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,997
  • It's raw!
The common ones are that it was St. Peter, or Peter + his faith, or the faith expressed by Peter, that were the rock. But once you consider what 'the gates of hades' signify (heresy, worldly persecution, corruption, sinfulness), the 'rock' should imo be extended to the Church in general*, and to all Christians to some degree as part of the royal priesthood and people of God. As St. Ambrose put it: "Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you"



*It's not just a Church built ON the Rock (Christ the chief foundation), and on the rocks (the apostles, prophets, etc.), but also a Church built OF rocks, to withstand what the rest of creation can throw at it
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 10:08:54 PM by Asteriktos »

Offline JTLoganville

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 323
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GO Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Face value would be either "Peter is the Rock" or "Peter's confession is the Rock" depending on how far the difference in Greek words used can be taken.

That is the classic EP (Evangelical Protestant) interpretation:  Peter's profession of faith--"which can be yours if you just put up a hand"--is what makes a Christian/the Church.

I never bought that.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,468
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
(1) How do Orthodox respond to the historical confirmation from Tradition that the Roman See ever understood itself to be the representatives in a special way of Christ on earth? And this in such a way that they could pass judgment on disputed issues in other Churches, even while the holy Apostles remained alive, as having received by succession the authority of the Holy Spirit to do so. Let's take the simple case of Pope St. Clement of Rome, the third after St. Peter. (2) How could St. Clement presume to exercise jurisdiction over the Church of Corinth if in fact Rome was not now the permanent seat of the authority of the (3) Keys that Christ granted to St. Peter?

  • Rome hasn't always regarded itself as such.  That was a result of development of doctrine.  Therefore, other Churches never recognized this development, though overlooked as long as it was not acted on, until 1054.
  • The Apostles recognized the leadership of local bishops, such as at the Council of Jerusalem, which St. James, the Brother of the Lord, presided over and concluded.  Historically, Rome was regarded as the ultimate Appellate Court, though resorting to third parties to resolve issues between Churches was common and not always involved Rome.
  • The same Keys of the Kingdom were granted to St. Peter and the other Ten at the same time, with no distinction among the Apostles (Lk 24; Jn 20).
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,533
(1) What do our Orthodox friends make of the Biblical typology and example of Eliachim exercising the chief charge of the stewardship of the royal house of David in the reign of King Hezekiah? If King Hezekiah has a chief steward holding keys, why would not our King Jesus, the Lord, also not have a representative on earth exercising vicariously the plenitude of His authority over the rest of the household. In light of the fact that Christ has succeeded to King David and now manifestly is heir to the Throne, it stands to reason that the post of chief steward would also be filled. We see Christ make reference to the Key of David in Scripture, this suggests He has a delegate who is chief steward.

(2) How do Orthodox respond to the historical confirmation from Tradition that the Roman See ever understood itself to be the representatives in a special way of Christ on earth? And this in such a way that they could pass judgment on disputed issues in other Churches, even while the holy Apostles remained alive, as having received by succession the authority of the Holy Spirit to do so. Let's take the simple case of Pope St. Clement of Rome, the third after St. Peter. How could St. Clement presume to exercise jurisdiction over the Church of Corinth if in fact Rome was not now the permanent seat of the authority of the Keys that Christ granted to St. Peter?

It seems to follow that as in Israel there was a permanent post with successors in authority under the King, so it is in the Church. Your thoughts, dear friends? Link

An excerpt:
Quote
"CONCLUSION ON "KEYS" OF ISAIAH 22 AS PARALLEL TO MATTHEW 16

Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had successors. He is described as being "over the household" and "in charge of the palace" (Isa 22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his authority "what he shall open, no one shall shut...and what he shall shut, no one shall open" (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7). The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only be called a supreme or plenary authority beside that of the King. This is the language of the "keys," "binding," and "loosing" that Jesus was using in Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the "keys" just as the prime minister had the "key to the house of David" (Isa 22:22). And this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 -- the prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa 22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his place. Jesus recognizes the office of prime minister or chief steward ("manager" NIV) in his parables, as one who has been placed in charge and set over the household (Matt 24:45ff; 20:8; Luke 12:42; 16:1ff; cf. Gen 41:40ff; 43:19; 44:4; 45:8ff).

Just as the prime minister or chief steward (other terms include major domo, grand vizier, royal chamberlain, or palace administrator) had the "keys" and the other ministers did not, the Lord made Peter the prime minister in His visible Church, making him the visible head of the apostles over the Church, giving him the "keys of the kingdom" with a special and unique authority in Matthew 16:18-19. The office of prime minister was one of dynastic succession, and this is the language Jesus borrows from Isaiah 22:15ff. While Protestant scholars (such as those I have cited) typically would try to deny the full Catholic conclusions from the passage, it is clear St. Peter did have successors in the Bishops of Rome. That is how the Catholic Church of the earliest centuries came to understand the ongoing ministry and authority of Peter in the Church (the Bishop of Rome was the "Chair [or See] of Peter" or simply "the Apostolic See"). The historical evidence for the unique primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome will be discussed next ...

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)
Since we do not accept Counter-Reformation innovation as Apostolic Tradition, we don't make anything of it.

We do not find anything special in a Patriarch attending to his bishops. And until almost the end of the first millenium, Corinth was in the Patriarchate of the West.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 07:51:34 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Sethrak

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Ok the Argentine priest is in charge ~ he can tell everyone else what to do ~ from today ~ until this time next week ```