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.The one we will never resolve is Peter. There is but one set of keys.
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.
Or your interpretation of what it means.It is also your interpretation of why that was said and what it means within that context...that is the problem
I think we can all agree that Peter needed special treatment after his denial of Christ.Do you love me more than these? Tend my sheep. Identified a single man. The three questions were one for each denial of Peter.
Matthew 16:19 is "keys" plural, which the church Fathers identify with binding and loosing.The key of David was a single key , which opens none can shut.
Christ is making Peter a "type". Whoever confesses Christ in the same manner is as is Peter.There is no question a single man is identified.
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.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?
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.
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?
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.
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...
So you are a number 3 then. ( see my previous post)And one Patriarch has no jurisdiction in another Patriarchal territory...THAT is what the RCC did after it left The Church in 1054 AD...
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.
Address the main point I madeAh 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.
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...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.
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...
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.
Again, a position of honor, NOT supreme authority...
Orthodox have Councils (always have) to resolve things so you are wrong there again...
.
- with no central doctrinal authority, orthodox arguments diverge.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?