EO and RCC.

[GreekOrthodox]

When I was studying church history, a lot of things happened simply because of the times. For example, did the Council of Toledo have any idea that adding the filioque would have ramifications 500 years later. The were simply trying to find a way to address a local Arian problem. Charlemagne claiming the crown in 800AD of the HRE because a woman sat on the throne in Constantinople. The Norman invasions caused problems in 1066, in Sicily (where the first splits of East and West begin), in Antolia just prior to the First Crusade, the Crusades themselves, the sack of Constantinople. Okay, we can blame the Normans for a lot!

 

[prodromos]

The one we will never resolve is Peter. There is but one set of keys.

Peter is a "type" of the Apostles and their successors the bishops. There is no bishop of bishops in the Church. The bishop is the head of the local Church. Every bishop is Peter.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

n the bible, each one asked to “ tend my flock” I might be persuaded that there shoukd now be five patriarchs of equal role and stature. But there aren’t.

It is also your interpretation of why that was said and what it means within that context...that is the problem

 

[Mountainmike]

It is also your interpretation of why that was said and what it means within that context...that is the problem

Or your interpretation of what it means.

Do you love me more than these? Tend my sheep. Identified a single man to the exclusion of others “ more than these” The three questions were one for each denial of Peter.
The key of David was a single key , which opens none can shut.

There is no question a single man is identified.

The argument is of powers not identity. Or Is it?
That is a problem I have with orthodox, they accept a primacy ( leave powers undefined for the present) but when you challenge powers orthodox imply the powers exist but it were given to all, you can not argue it both ways? Then other orthodox argue, it was true until the pope somehow “ relinquished” It ( ie neither powers nor identity but temporal)

- with no central doctrinal authority, orthodox arguments diverge.

it is certainly true the powers to bind and loose were given jointly to apostles ( ie council), and seperately to Peter in two different scriptures. Why does scripture do that?

 

[prodromos]

Do you love me more than these? Tend my sheep. Identified a single man. The three questions were one for each denial of Peter.

I think we can all agree that Peter needed special treatment after his denial of Christ.
Matthew 10:33, Luke 12:9

The key of David was a single key , which opens none can shut.

Matthew 16:19 is "keys" plural, which the church Fathers identify with binding and loosing.

There is no question a single man is identified.

Christ is making Peter a "type". Whoever confesses Christ in the same manner is as is Peter.

The argument is of powers not identity. Or Is it?
That is a problem I have with orthodox, they accept a primacy ( leave powers undefined for the present) but when you challenge powers orthodox imply the powers exist but it were given to all, you can not argue it both ways?

A Patriarch has primacy over an Archbishop, who has primacy over a Metropolitan, who has primacy over a Bishop. In a council they would each have one vote while the highest ranking bishop would chair the council. If multiple bishops served in the same liturgy, their rank would determine the order in which they went out in the processions and who would carry the Gospels. A Patriarch has no jurisdiction in the parish of a lower ranked bishop. Whether Patriarch, Archbishop, Metropolitan or Bishop, they all perform the same role within their jurisdiction. They are each, head of the Church, and each Church under its bishop is 100% the Church, just as each person in the Holy Trinity is 100% God.

 

[Mountainmike]

I’m not arguing with you prodromos.

I’m simply pointing out that I have heard all three different( mutually exclusive) arguments from orthodox.
1/ it isn’t about primacy, it’s about powers it confers ( or not)
2/ it’s about primacy not powers - all are co equal ( the essence of your argument here)
3/ it’s about the pope once having 3a power( or 3b primacy) then relinquishing it ( with unspecified authority to allow that) sometime around the Millenium.

It’s hard to engage when the viewpoint is muddled, I think because of lack of single authority of orthodox to define the viewpoint.

Its also confused in history, whilst orientals? Don’t accept Chalcedon, the rest appear to, and the tome of Leo “ there speaks peter” was accepted which urges disputes to go to Rome as had iraneus in earlier times.

So the orthodox view seems also to have changed over time so it would help if the objection were better defined and unified. As I say, I am not arguing with any point here , just noting the variety of view.

It is hard to enter ecumenical talks if objections are disparate viewpoints.

Btw The key of David in revelations and Isaiah is singular, and regardless of that the keys ( plural) were given to a single man not all disciples jointly. I am reminded that Protestants like declaring things they don’t like as symbolic, or type, those they do like as literal.

I think we can all agree that Peter needed special treatment after his denial of Christ.
Matthew 10:33, Luke 12:9

Matthew 16:19 is "keys" plural, which the church Fathers identify with binding and loosing.

Christ is making Peter a "type". Whoever confesses Christ in the same manner is as is Peter.

A Patriarch has primacy over an Archbishop, who has primacy over a Metropolitan, who has primacy over a Bishop. In a council they would each have one vote while the highest ranking bishop would chair the council. If multiple bishops served in the same liturgy, their rank would determine the order in which they went out in the processions and who would carry the Gospels. A Patriarch has no jurisdiction in the parish of a lower ranked bishop. Whether Patriarch, Archbishop, Metropolitan or Bishop, they all perform the same role within their jurisdiction. They are each, head of the Church, and each Church under its bishop is 100% the Church, just as each person in the Holy Trinity is 100% God.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Or your interpretation of what it means.

Do you love me more than these? Tend my sheep. Identified a single man to the exclusion of others “ more than these” The three questions were one for each denial of Peter.
The key of David was a single key , which opens none can shut.

There is no question a single man is identified.

The argument is of powers not identity. Or Is it?
That is a problem I have with orthodox, they accept a primacy ( leave powers undefined for the present) but when you challenge powers orthodox imply the powers exist but it were given to all, you can not argue it both ways? Then other orthodox argue, it was true until the pope somehow “ relinquished” It ( ie neither powers nor identity but temporal)

- with no central doctrinal authority, orthodox arguments diverge.

it is certainly true the powers to bind and loose were given jointly to apostles ( ie council), and seperately to Peter in two different scriptures. Why does scripture do that?

No, within context, it was because Peter DENIED Him 3 times...that is all. Also you can't claim he was renamed Peter when he already had that nickname when He first met him... John 1:42

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

A Patriarch has primacy over an Archbishop, who has primacy over a Metropolitan, who has primacy over a Bishop. In a council they would each have one vote while the highest ranking bishop would chair the council. If multiple bishops served in the same liturgy, their rank would determine the order in which they went out in the processions and who would carry the Gospels. A Patriarch has no jurisdiction in the parish of a lower ranked bishop. Whether Patriarch, Archbishop, Metropolitan or Bishop, they all perform the same role within their jurisdiction. They are each, head of the Church, and each Church under its bishop is 100% the Church, just as each person in the Holy Trinity is 100% God.

And one Patriarch has no jurisdiction in another Patriarchal territory...THAT is what the RCC did after it left The Church in 1054 AD...

 

[Mountainmike]

No, within context, it was because Peter DENIED Him 3 times...that is all. Also you can't claim he was renamed Peter when he already had that nickname when He first met him...

But then I didn’t claim that, orthodox love their straw men!

at the time of Christ asking him three times he also gave him position as chief pastor and guardian “ feed sheep” “ tend flock”. It wasn’t just a ritual dressing down for denials.

Now interesting change of subject.

Our Lord saw the future: his later speech took place on a rock platform in Caesarea Phillipi which at the time had a temple of pan, and a cleft in the rock which gushed water was deemed by the locals as the entrance to the underworld.

So our Lord contrasts the rock on which he will build his church, pointing at Peter, from that on which the pagan church was built, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against his, unlike the entrance to hades, on Pans platform.

 

[Mountainmike]

And one Patriarch has no jurisdiction in another Patriarchal territory...THAT is what the RCC did after it left The Church in 1054 AD...

So you are a number 3 then. ( see my previous post)
It’s hard to argue with orthodox, the viewpoint shifts. It is not consistent.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But then I didn’t claim that, orthodox love their straw men!

so interesting change of subject.

Our Lord saw the future: his later speech took place on a rock platform in Caesarea Phillipi which at the time had a temple of pan, and a cleft in the rock which gushed water was deemed by the locals as the entrance to the underworld.

So our Lord contrasts the rock on which he will build his church, pointing at Peter, from that on which the pagan church was built, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against his, unlike the entrance to hades, on Pans platform.

Ah yes, the old He saw the future answer! You can use that in any argument. The Church is built on Rock...this Rock is always Him, not Peter. Psalm 62:2

 

[Mountainmike]

Ah yes, the old He saw the future answer! You can use that in any argument. The Church is built on Rock...this Rock is always Him, not Peter.

Address the main point I made

“ I’m not here challenging any viewpoint”
I’m simply pointing out that I have heard all three different( mutually exclusive) arguments from orthodox.
1/ it isn’t about primacy, it’s about powers it confers ( or not)
2/ it’s about primacy not powers - all are co equal ( the essence of prodromos argument)
3/ it’s about the pope once having 3a power( or 3b primacy) then relinquishing it ( with unspecified authority to allow that) sometime around the Millenium.

It’s hard to engage when the viewpoint is muddled, I think because of lack of single authority of orthodox to define the viewpoint.

Its also confused in history, whilst orientals? Don’t accept Chalcedon, the rest appear to, and the tome of Leo “ there speaks peter” was accepted which urges disputes to go to Rome as had iraneus in earlier times.

So the orthodox view seems also to have changed over time so it would help if the objection were better defined and unified. As I say, I am not arguing with any point here , just noting the variety of view.

It is hard to enter ecumenical talks if objections are disparate viewpoints.
”

you are a number 3!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

So you are a number 3 then. ( see my previous post)
It’s hard to argue with orthodox, the viewpoint shifts. It is not consistent.

I am #4 or #3c...The "pope" was the Patriarch of Rome and ONLY had jurisdiction within that Patriarchal territory. Period. He may have had a place of honor at one time because Rome was the center of the empire but lost that in 1054 AD...really before that...

 

[Mountainmike]

I am #4...The "pope" was the Patriarch of Rome and ONLY had jurisdiction within that Patriarchal territory. Period. He may have had a place of honor at one time because Rome was the center of the empire but lost that in 1054 AD...really before that...

It’s just a shame that neither councils “tome of Leo, disputes to Rome” nor scripture back you up on such a change.

but you are welcome to your view.... my problem is orthodox are not consistent. You clearly held that primacy was true at Chalcedon, so you are a number 3.

The greater truth is that Truth is truth. It cannot depend what patriarchy you live under. So the jurisdiction issue on bind and loose is Nonsense. It is bound and loosed in all heaven and earth. There was but one chair of Moses.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It’s just a shame that neither councils “tome of Leo, disputes to Rome” nor scripture back you up on such a change.

but you are welcome to your view.... my problem is orthodox are not consistent. You clearly held that primacy was true at Chalcedon, so you are a number 3.

The greater truth is that Truth is truth. It cannot depend what patriarchy you live under. So the jurisdiction issue on bind and loose is Nonsense. It is bound and loosed in all heaven and earth. There was but one chair of Moses.

That is because primacy never meant total authority...it was never meant as a dictatorial position, it was honorary...um He was a prophet like unto Moses, not Peter...it was a special chair of honor in the synagogue where the authoritative teacher of the law sat. The teacher in practice exercised the authority of Moses. That is a big thing about the RCC that I really dislike, they take things and twist them into something they never were just to try and prove their novel made up doctrines...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

There was but one chair of Moses.

No, there were many...just like the Patriarchs and Bishops! They all held authority within their own territories. Each synagogue had a seat of Moses...the one in the link below was made/donated by Yehudah ben (son of) Ishmael...zakhur latov

Chorazin – Seat of Moses

 

[Mountainmike]

But that is a different argument that is my number 1.
Accept primacy, but not powers. (which clearly all orthodox did at one time...)
Wholly different from had it, but lost it. (the 1054)
It makes discussions hard.

I can only repeat the two arguments on which I will NEVER accept orthodox teaching

1/ Truth is truth, it cannot be jurisdictional. It is universal. Patriarchs cannot have it, even in their own jurisdiction. So bind and loose is on all. So patriarchal jurisdiction makes no theological sense.

The power to bind and loose in heaven were given independently by Jesus to apostles jointly (so giving decisions of councils authority) - it was also given to Peter alone in a separate scripture. So there is a scriptural basis for believing Peter who is undoubtedly given the role to "tend my flock" and "feed my lambs" which are the spiritual and leadership roles.
One man also given "keys", which we know is a prime ministerial role, some orthodox argue given to all but only by assuming a "type" not literal.

2/ It has left the orthodox without any formal means to resolve disputes on doctrine. When I ask orthodox questions, many just declare a mystery or variant answers (eg this on the pope). Some - like protestants - prefer to define themselves by what they dont believe of catholic teaching, without replacing it with a definitve alternative.

As for the distinction of moses: it is remarkeable that orthodox assume that in an entire OT of God appointing leaders over his flock, there is no acceptance that the same was done by Christ for AD. Despite their being clear scripture which can be interpreted that way regarding Peter, (whether or not others choose it does mean that) indeed the general acceptance of Orthodoxy it meant "there speaks peter", until they disliked the popes decisions!

THe greater surprise -given OT history - would have been for Jesus to allow his church to drift as a leaderless, rudderless ship.

Just one view. We are brothers in Christ. I love orthodox spirituality. We dont agree. It doesnt mean we cant get on!

That is because primacy never meant total authority...it was never meant as a dictatorial position, it was honorary...um He was a prophet like unto Moses, not Peter...it was a special chair of honor in the synagogue where the authoritative teacher of the law sat. The teacher in practice exercised the authority of Moses. That is a big thing about the RCC that I really dislike, they take things and twist them into something they never were just to try and prove their novel made up doctrines...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But that is a different argument that is my number 1.
Accept primacy, but not powers. (which clearly all orthodox did at one time...)
Wholly different from had it, but lost it. (the 1054)
It makes discussions hard.

I can only repeat the two arguments on which I will NEVER accept orthodox teaching

1/ Truth is truth, it cannot be jurisdictional. It is universal. Patriarchs cannot have it, even in their own jurisdiction. So bind and loose is on all. So patriarchal jurisdiction makes no theological sense.

The power to bind and loose in heaven were given independently by Jesus to apostles jointly (so giving decisions of councils authority) - it was also given to Peter alone in a separate scripture. So there is a scriptural basis for believing Peter who is undoubtedly given the role to "tend my flock" and "feed my lambs" which are the spiritual and leadership roles.
One man also given "keys", which we know is a prime ministerial role, some orthodox argue given to all but only by assuming a "type" not literal.

2/ It has left the orthodox without any formal means to resolve disputes on doctrine.

As for the distinction of moses: it is remarkeable that orthodox assume that in an entire OT of God appointing leaders over his flock, there is no acceptance that the same was done by Christ for AD. Despite their being clear scripture which can be interpreted that way , (whether or not others choose it means that) indeed the general acceptance of Orthodoxy it meant that "there speaks peter", until they disliked the popes decisions!

THe greater surprise -given OT history - would have been for Jesus to allow his church to drift as a leaderless, rudderless ship.

He didn't, that is why there were 12...
He didn't need a leader, that was the Holy Spirit's job. John 14:26
Again, a position of honor, NOT supreme authority...
Orthodox have Councils (always have) to resolve things so you are wrong there again...

 

[Mountainmike]

But you still fail to answer the fundamental.

Truth is truth. It cannot just be Gods truth in orthodox world, or patriarchy world, that stops at the border. There is only one truth. So patriarchal authority to bind and loose makes no sense.
There can only be one, that "my church is one"

All accepted Primacy, until they disliked some papal decisions. Yet Jesus chose Peter alone as chief pastor and leader. Not the so called Roman church (which is a name given by others , not us!)

As for Holy spirits job. That does not work All the divisions of protestantism can be found by accusing the Holy spirit of announcing opposite doctrines to factions.
Which rather means, that people believing they have spirit guidance is clearly not true as a generality!

So I come back to see how disputes are resolved in the bible. The power to bind and loose, is when we know the spirit is involved. Given to Peter alone , or all apostles acting jointly. The pillar and foundation of truth is the church. So somewhere is A church, that can be relied, with a successor of peter at the helm.

It is remarkable that so many argue over a power that is so rarely used.
The pope only ever makes announcements to settle longstanding disputes, and only after long consultation. His normal power is that simply of a pastor, and persuader. The "infallibility" announcemnet was designed to limit not expand his authority, because people were questioning which announcements had authority!, the answer was "virtually none". In the end on points of dispute, a statement has to be made that all accept. Our Lord gave explicit power to do this. "bind and loose" The chair of moses.

He didn't, that is why there were 12...
He didn't need a leader, that was the Holy Spirit's job.
Again, a position of honor, NOT supreme authority...
Orthodox have Councils (always have) to resolve things so you are wrong there again...

 

[mark46]

.

- with no central doctrinal authority, orthodox arguments diverge.

.

yes, patriarchs should have some authority over local bishops.

Yes, it's fine to have one of the patriarchs being the first among equals, make decisions after consulting with the others, and have councils councils called if there are serious disagreements.

a central authority in the sense of a monarchy type structure is NOT necessary