The following is from an article by a Greek Orthodox Archbishop. The Archbishop is exploring the text about Jesus, the "keys," Peter's Confession and Peter and the concept of "pope." I found it interesting and perhaps worthy of an ecumenical discussion...
Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:
(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18)
It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, “Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church,” but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.
(b) It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, “ . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”
(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)
From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.
(d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire, nothing more. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.
Check out my "testimony" and "best posts" thread here: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
Last edited by Hentenza; 8th June 2009 at 05:48 PM.
Well, they can when they are twisted and contorted by back engineering the medieval papal developments into them where they do not exist, as Rome does with all the church fathers.
Warrior Angel has not, unfortunately, addressed John Chrysostom taking holy orders from men not in communion with Rome.
Of course not, those circumstances are not dealt with in the Roman e-pologist playbook, just as I have yet to have WA or any other Roman e-pologist address the fact that Augustine exercised his supreme authority over Zosimus, bishop of Rome when correcting Zosimus for giving Pelagius a clean blill of health and demanding that Augustine drop his prosecution of Pelagius.
After all, the Roman logic, or rather illogic, applied to Clement's epistle to the Corinthians was that he was exercising his supreme authority.
Well, that same logic applies in the case of Augustine correcting Zosimus, but no doubt they will find a way to present some outlandish rationalization against it.
Warrior Angel did attempt to give half the story though regarding circumstances when John Chrysostom was banished.
Par for the course, which is why we have to make sure the proper context is presented.
WA, has not addressed the in context quotes I've given from Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others including Origen that exposes the fact that WA's snippet of Origen is lifted out of context, one in which Origen emphatically dispels any notion that the "chair of Peter" and the "keys" are exclusively applied to anyone but to the entire church in unity of Peter's profession.
Yes, he appealed to Rome. He appealed to any support he could get. Yet, despite Rome coming in on his side, he still went into exile. He still accepted his exile. Constantinople didn't recognise that "Peter had spoken" on the issue
Deliberately presenting part of the story is distortion by ommission.
Nothing new there.
[quote]Originally Posted by TraderJack
Good to see you, by the way.
Thank you
__________________ edited under protest that the ambiguous rules here allow far too much for subjectivism which allows one group to say in their signature:
"To read deeply in history is to cease being Protestant." - John Henry Cardinal Newman but does not allow a counter to it
Anglian has a strange point to make when he cites Emperors 'interference' in Ecumencial Councils as evidence of their power over only the eastern church. Apparently the Ecumenical Councils had no effect in the West.
Oddly enough, that is one of the reasons von Dollinger and the opponents of papal infallibility denounced that dogma as heresy, due to it raising the pope of Rome above all ecumenical councils.
__________________ edited under protest that the ambiguous rules here allow far too much for subjectivism which allows one group to say in their signature:
"To read deeply in history is to cease being Protestant." - John Henry Cardinal Newman but does not allow a counter to it
From my own pov all of this is very unfortunate. My own Church argues as Montalban's does, which is why I am so familiar with his time-worn arguments with their need to avoid addressing the meaning of the fathers saying that Leo spoke for Peter. Since my own Church never received Chalcedon, I am quite free to point out that it did not do so partly because it rejected this claim; Montalban's did, but later wished to deny it meant what it plainly met; a not uncommon phenomenon, but only supportable by ignoring the context and importing post-Schism concepts back into the fifth century. Most Orthodox sites, including my own, have this somewhat transparent gambit in operation; it convinces only those who need no convincing.
Maybe there's a reason your own church (all the OO churches in fact) thinks the same of Papal claims as our Church - because there's really no need for them to agree with us EO, unless it's what they believe.
Furthermore, while your Church did not accept Chalcedon, it did not schism merely because of that Council. The schism did not happen until 100 years later...
What I don't get is why 'they were silent' when Peter spoke is significant to Catholics, but not 'they were silent' when Paul spoke!
I would imagine that they were silent because it was polite not to speak over the top of someone else.
But, apparently their silence to Peter is a near act of reverence, but not to Paul. This is not borne out by the text, but only if one applies pre-conceived ideas.
And then of course it it to ignore that James said "It is MY ruling..."
And ignores Chrysostom saying James was the "chief rule" and the "high authority" at the council in Jerusalem:
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part----Homily 33
Bet you won't find that citation on any of the Roman e-pologist quote mining sites.
__________________ edited under protest that the ambiguous rules here allow far too much for subjectivism which allows one group to say in their signature:
"To read deeply in history is to cease being Protestant." - John Henry Cardinal Newman but does not allow a counter to it
Maybe there's a reason your own church (all the OO churches in fact) thinks the same of Papal claims as our Church - because there's really no need for them to agree with us EO, unless it's what they believe.
Mike, no one is doubting our good faith in this - I hope. The question is whether there is anything in the idea of a developing understanding of those claims; on that I'm prepared to be open-minded. If we are just going to dismiss NewMan's ideas because they do not accord with our own, this discussion has no point; I know what you and I think. What I'm interested in exploring is the Roman claims. NewMan offers an interesting perspective, and an informed one. If I just wanted the OC view, I'd not bother being here, since I know it well.
Furthermore, while your Church did not accept Chalcedon, it did not schism merely because of that Council. The schism did not happen until 100 years later...
We're well aware that it took time before your Church went into schism. We can also understand that, having accepted Chalcedon, and with it the Roman concept that Leo spoke for Peter, you may later have decided it was better to say you hadn't accepted the latter; we can all be wise after the event. Having helped Rome defeat Alexandria you later found yourselves subject to the sort of treatment meted out to us; that was as regrettable as the treatment meted out to us.
But there, all this shows is what we know - that ourselves, the EO and the RCC all take a different view on these matters. That we know. What would be interesting is to listen to something new - and that was, from my pov, what NewMan was offering.
A question for us all: were NewMan able to prove his point, would any of us actually change our mind? I'm prepared to say that if that happened, I would. Thus far it hasn't.
But, as I said before, polemic, whilst fun, especially in Montalban's style, differs from history, and from my pov is less interesting.
peace,
Anglian
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. St. Bede: 25 May
When I had given much thought and pondered on the matter, I became convinced that these quarrels of Christians among themselves are not a matter of factual substance, but rather one of words and terms. For they all confess Christ Our Lord to be perfect God and perfect human, without any commingling, mixing, or confusion of the natures. This bipinnate 'likeness' ( Phil. 2:6-7) is termed by one party a 'nature', by another 'a hypostasis' and by yet another a 'person'. Thus I saw all the Christian communities, with their different Christological positions, as possessing a single common ground that is without any difference. Accordingly I totally eradicated any hatred from the depths of my heart, and I completely renounced disputing with anyone over confessional matters. Bar-Hebraeus,The Dove
In love did God bring the world into existence; in love is God going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of the One who has performed all these things; in love will the whole course of the governance of creation be finally comprised. St. Isaac of Nineveh
Rome demanded celibacy of its priests beginning in at least the 4th century. If the 4th century (and later) Church entire understood Rome to have supremacy, then they would have adhered in this matter. Likewise, as Rome constantly pushed at the east to adopt the Roman standard (and it seems to have been a sort of "ex cathedra" value, as it was not tmk contravened in the west), the fact that Rome did not excommunicate the recalcitrants of the east on the celibacy matter, she likely did not consider her primacy "supremacy".
Given the shift you describe above, does Rome doubt her early "supremacy" ? Or acknowledge that celibate clergy was a "local" matter ?
Now that is one whale of a question that the Roman e-pologists will not touch with a 10 foot Pole or an 11 foot Czech.
__________________ edited under protest that the ambiguous rules here allow far too much for subjectivism which allows one group to say in their signature:
"To read deeply in history is to cease being Protestant." - John Henry Cardinal Newman but does not allow a counter to it
We're well aware that it took time before your Church went into schism. We can also understand that, having accepted Chalcedon, and with it the Roman concept that Leo spoke for Peter, you may later have decided it was better to say you hadn't accepted the latter; we can all be wise after the event. Having helped Rome defeat Alexandria you later found yourselves subject to the sort of treatment meted out to us; that was as regrettable as the treatment meted out to us.
First of all, I'm not sure you're aware, but we have absolutely no issue with the Council saying that St. Leo spoke for St. Peter - I don't think any Orthodox have denied such a thing. In fact, Leo is called St. Leo the Great in our Church - we consider him a Saint! The disagreement is in saying that because St. Leo spoke for St. Peter, that all Popes do...
As for your church and the claimed persecutions it underwent, I won't hijack this thread with that discussion, but let's just say the Copts were far from innocent in this matter, and the schism was related more to anti-Imperial sentiment than any doctrinal matters... (it's interesting to note that the Greeks of Alexandria remained part of the Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Alexandria - aka. 'Melkite' or 'Imperial' Church, while the ethnic Copts formed the non-Chalcedonian church)
Originally Posted by Anglian
A question for us all: were NewMan able to prove his point, would any of us actually change our mind? I'm prepared to say that if that happened, I would. Thus far it hasn't.
This is the thing. He can't. Because quite simply, the case put forward by Roman Catholic apologetics isn't historical. It's a later understanding, read INTO history.
Link to Part ll
I find it quite rich that i am told i cannot use Catholic apologetics
Now that is not what was said at all.
We ask that you not use the cherrypicked snippets taken out of context from Roman e-pologist quote mining sites.
__________________ edited under protest that the ambiguous rules here allow far too much for subjectivism which allows one group to say in their signature:
"To read deeply in history is to cease being Protestant." - John Henry Cardinal Newman but does not allow a counter to it
All churches that correctly preach the Gospel are "Apostolic".
who called me out
Why make things so personal?
- to come in here for a closed discussion on some points.
Why? Do you have something to hide? You know the light is good.
Unless or until things settle down.
Acccording to whom?
__________________ edited under protest that the ambiguous rules here allow far too much for subjectivism which allows one group to say in their signature:
"To read deeply in history is to cease being Protestant." - John Henry Cardinal Newman but does not allow a counter to it
Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope(3) 
---__-by:-Emrecor.html&usg=___4nX5AdIAUoYAhWhPUBhQ4wpaaA=&h=240&w=240&sz=20&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=YEdNKy15mj2bKM:&tbnh=110&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3D10%2Bfoot%2Bpole%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den)
Linear Mode
