St. Peter - The first among equals

[Victrixa]

Hi my TAW friends!

Got another question for ya!

What was the role of St. Peter? Or, what is the role of his successor?

I know that St.Peter was the chief of the apostles, the first among equals, but if all the apostles and the Church took a decision together and not just Peter himself, what was his role? The same goes for today, if the 'first among equals' is to take a decision for the Church along with all the other successors of the apostles (the Patriarchs?) and the rest of the Church, what is his role?

Plus, do you recognize John Paul II as the successor of Peter (as the first among equals and not as the Pope)? Or has someone else taken the succession of Peter? If yes, how can that still be apostolic succession?

Thanks in advance!

Looking forward to responses!

Love in Christ,

Caroline

 

[Victrixa]

No one wants to share an answer with me?

What is St. Peter's successor's role? (very briefly)


Thanks again in advance.



Caroline

 

[Suzannah]

*thinking how to answer diplomatically*...some moments please!

 

[Victrixa]

Whichever way you answer, Suzannah, I won't be offended! (if that's what worries you...) okay?

 

[Suzannah]

Okay. I will try to be as delicate as I can.

It is my understanding that prior to the Schism of 1054, Peter's successors certainly enjoyed his honor as "first among equals". Peter and his successors were viewed as "The Bishop of Rome" and nothing more. He and his successors were never perceived as above any other Bishop in authority. Since that time, however, the seat of Rome has not been recognized as such. It is possible, as all things are with God, that the Schism may one day be healed. But many things would have to happen....
I hope this answers your question.

 

[Victrixa]

Thank you Suzannah. My question was partly answered. I'm just wondering what the role of St.Peter was (or what the role of St. Peter's successor should be)?

Whomever wishes to answer. I don't get offended easily. As a matter of fact, I am seeking answers, so that's okay, alrighty?

Love in Christ,

Caroline

 

[Suzannah]

I just don't want to offend, but I do want to be truthful. I think both are possible!

It is the position of the church that Peter was an honored person, and a Bishop equal to all the others, only that he enjoyed a special place, and he was NOT above others in authority. LIkewise for his successors. Orthodoxy does not recognize any one Bishop above the others. They are all equal in authority. In that sense, it was percieved that his role was simply to be a Bishop in the West, equal to all the others in the East. In 1054 when his successor attempted to assert power over the other bishops, he was excommunicated. This is one of the reasons for the Schism FROM THE ORTHODOX POINT OF VIEW. Rome views it differently. But this is the position of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy does not recognize any "Pope".

 

[Rilian]

I know that St.Peter was the chief of the apostles, the first among equals, but if all the apostles and the Church took a decision together and not just Peter himself, what was his role? The same goes for today, if the 'first among equals' is to take a decision for the Church along with all the other successors of the apostles (the Patriarchs?) and the rest of the Church, what is his role?

I think Peter's role was that of all bishops in the early church and up to this day, namely the representative of Christ in each local church and the minister and celebrant of the sacraments in those churches. The structure of the early church was that of a confederation of locally administered churches, each in equal relationship with one another. The Greek roots of the word "catholic" mean "according to the whole", and that's how the church was viewed. Each local church was in itself "the catholic church" and all of these churches together represented the one visible body of Christ in this world. The idea of the word catholic meaning universal is a more modern understanding.

Peter was of course accorded a place of honor among the apostles, but I think as we see in Acts he was equal in authority with the other apostles. Rome also came to have a place of honor within the church, both because it was the seat of the empire and because of the martyrdoms that occurred there, most notably Peter and Paul.

The idea of the transmission of keys as a sign of authority I believe first came up in the 300's in the conflict between Pope Stephen and Cyprian. Over time, I think a few factors came into play that made the Papacy undergo change. One was that it was the only patriarchate in the West which set it off from the East, and increasingly it came to fill a political power vacuum that opened in the West. The appointment of the bishops of Thessalonika, the crushing of Hilary at Arles and the interactions of Leo I with Chalcedon I think all reflect this changing dynamic of religion mixed with politics and show a tendency of the Papacy to mimic Roman imperial power. Rome also displayed a strong doctrinal orthodoxy when the Arian controversey enveloped the East, though it would later undergo it's own struggles with heresy.

I think this was the course that made the rift inevitable, and is why the churches are so different today. Also, the Orthodox Church has never made an attempt to set up an alternate or competing Patriarchate in Rome. The word Pope itself I don't believe connotes a special place of authority or primacy, at least at its root meaning. The Greek and Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria both bear the title of Pope.

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

The Bishop of Rome was given a primacy of honor because Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, and also because Rome was an ancient apostolic see.

An analogy is with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who presides over deliberations, is shown special respect, etc. but in the end he only has 1 vote. Similarly, the Bishop of Rome was awarded special honor, but it was not recognized that he had any special powers above and beyond what ordinary bishops had.

This is why whenever there was a big controversy in the Church, the Roman Emperor convened a council where bishops from much of the known world together re-affirmed Orthodoxy and clarified the unchanging doctrines of the Church; the Bishop of Rome didn't have any special privileges to dictate doctrines outside of a council.

The Bishop of Rome had apostolic succession from St. Peter, but so did other bishops, e.g., the Bishop of Antioch. Succession from St. Peter is a very high honor, because St. Peter was a great Apostle, but it doesn't confer any special powers. Jesus Christ never gave special powers to St. Peter to order the other Apostles, or for his successors to order the successors of the other Apostles.

The Pope has a different understanding of his role in the Church, and he believes that he has special powers because of being a successor of St. Peter. For this and other reasons, the Orthodox Church has broken communion with the Pope, and he and his followers are considered to be outside the Church.

 

[Reader Nilus]

Hi my TAW friends!

Got another question for ya!

What was the role of St. Peter? Or, what is the role of his successor?

I know that St.Peter was the chief of the apostles, the first among equals, but if all the apostles and the Church took a decision together and not just Peter himself, what was his role? The same goes for today, if the 'first among equals' is to take a decision for the Church along with all the other successors of the apostles (the Patriarchs?) and the rest of the Church, what is his role?

Plus, do you recognize John Paul II as the successor of Peter (as the first among equals and not as the Pope)? Or has someone else taken the succession of Peter? If yes, how can that still be apostolic succession?

Thanks in advance!

Looking forward to responses!

Love in Christ,

Caroline

He was the chairman of the synod of bishops, in modern terms, plus the bishop of the capital city.
No we do not recognize John Paul as first among equals as he at this point in time is still heterodox. The first among equals in the Church today is His Holiness Patriarch BARTHOLOMEW.
Jeff the Finn

 

[MariaRegina]

St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome.

So the Patriarch of Antioch also claims apostolic succession through St. Peter.

 

[brewmama]

St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome.

So the Patriarch of Antioch also claims apostolic succession through St. Peter.

Yes, I'm in the Antiochian Church and I never understood why this wasn't given any credit by the Catholic Church. I understand that Rome was the capital city, and the site of Sts. Peter and Paul's death, but why is the Successor of Peter just the Roman pontiff?

It's interesting too, that St. Peter is always placed with St. Paul in Orthodox church names and feast days. They share equal distinction.

 

[MariaRegina]

Interesting also.

St. Mark was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria by St. Peter. So the Patriarch of Alexandria also has apostolic succession from St. Peter.

So there are three Patriarchial sees with Apostolic Succession from St. Peter. However any diocese throughout the world can ultimately claim apostolic succession through one of the 12 Apostles - hence the name "Apostolic Succession."

 

[Markh]

St. Mark was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria by St. Peter.

exactly "by St. Peter"

but that is a good point about Antioch, however, surely it seems that Peter treated it as a rung in the ladder to Rome? Where he spends about 25 years.

I see it that, just like how the current Pope did not start off as bishop of Rome, he become Bishop of Krakov (I think) first before moving up to the top- where he will die.

Also Peter, when he left Antioch, chose a new Patriarch to be bishop there, before he died. Surely If Antioch was the chair of papal succession, there would not have been 2 popes at the same time?

Also, how come Antioch Bishops never claimed papal succession in the same way that the early popes in Rome said they did?

However, I mainly came to this thread to ask what the Orthodox thought about the role of "the keeper of the keys".

In the old testemant, this Patriarch was to rule the kingdom while the king was away. The keeper of the keys in its old meaning wasn't just the 1st among equals, he was kinda like vice captain- to be in charge on the field if the captain was unable to play.

 

[Philip]

but that is a good point about Antioch, however, surely it seems that Peter treated it as a rung in the ladder to Rome?

That makes absolutely no sense. While Peter was Bishop of Antioch, was there even a church in Rome? If Antioch was a rung on the ladder to Rome, who was at the top of the latter while Peter was in Antioch?

Also, how come Antioch Bishops never claimed papal succession in the same way that the early popes in Rome said they did?

Becasue 'papal succession' is a Western invention.

 

[Rilian]

but that is a good point about Antioch, however, surely it seems that Peter treated it as a rung in the ladder to Rome? Where he spends about 25 years.

Antioch was the first church established in the gentile world. The church of Rome did not exist at the time.

Also Peter, when he left Antioch, chose a new bloke to be bishop there, before he died. Surely If Antioch was the chair of papal succession, there would not have been 2 popes at the same time?

Perhaps the most obvious answer to this question is that the idea of papal succession did not exist at the time.

However, I mainly came to this thread to ask what the Orthodox thought about the role of "the keeper of the keys".

In the old testemant, this bloke was to rule the kingdom while the king was away. The keeper of the keys in its old meaning wasn't just the 1st among equals, he was kinda like vice captain- to be in charge on the field if the captain was unable to play.

Here is a link about the keys.

 

[MariaRegina]

exactly "by St. Peter"

but that is a good point about Antioch, however, surely it seems that Peter treated it as a rung in the ladder to Rome? Where he spends about 25 years.

I see it that, just like how the current Pope did not start off as bishop of Rome, he become Bishop of Krakov (I think) first before moving up to the top- where he will die.

Also Peter, when he left Antioch, chose a new ***** to be bishop there, before he died. Surely If Antioch was the chair of papal succession, there would not have been 2 popes at the same time?

Also, how come Antioch Bishops never claimed papal succession in the same way that the early popes in Rome said they did?

However, I mainly came to this thread to ask what the Orthodox thought about the role of "the keeper of the keys".

In the old testemant, this ***** was to rule the kingdom while the king was away. The keeper of the keys in its old meaning wasn't just the 1st among equals, he was kinda like vice captain- to be in charge on the field if the captain was unable to play.

Don't you consider the use of ***** to be disrespectful of our dear Bishops who were saints? These socalled ***** are considered universal saints of our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Markh]

That makes absolutely no sense. While Peter was Bishop of Antioch, was there even a church in Rome? If Antioch was a rung on the ladder to Rome, who was at the top of the latter while Peter was in Antioch?

no one was in Rome, you are right, in was an empty post which had not yet been reached yet. But the fact that Peter, the leader of the 12, moved to it, rather than sending one of his collegues there shows that for him, he perceived it as a higher step, the fact that he did not move anywhere after, even though he appointed people to go elsewhere, shows that he was at the top of the ladder.

--

Rome was like the centre of the universe for people back then and if Peter had not placed such emphasis on it and stayed in Antioch Constantine would probably not have been converted and Christianity would not have spread thoughout the empire.

Rome was destined to be the centre of Christianity, why would Jesus have been born in a time when Rome was the centre of the world's infrastructure other than for this infrastructure to to be used as the roadways for Christianity to spread down.

History has also shown us that Rome really is the only one of the early places to actually survive strong in Catholicism to the present day, without being invaded by muslims or battled over. I think that point is quite important, the gates of hell certainly haven't prevailed against Rome, the rock of Peter.

Even if at the time it may not have seemed like the highest rung, history has shown us that it was. As today it is the places which Rome reached out to in the West which have strong Catholicism- rather than places evangelised by the east, which is now a predonminantly Muslim world.

Am I right in saying that Rome is the strongest still today?

 

[Oblio]

Even if at the time it may not have seemed like the highest rung, history has shown us that it was. As today it is the places which Rome reached out to in the West which have strong Catholicism- rather than places evangelised by the east, which is now a predonminantly Muslim world.

If you look at recent history and the path Europe is taking, you claim may soon be false. In addition, I don't consider Russia or Greece to be Muslim.

 

[Oblio]

no one was in Rome, you are right, in was an empty post which had not yet been reached yet. But the fact that Peter, the leader of the 12, moved to it ...

[mod hat on]
markh,

This is the Orthodox section of CF, please be cautioned that you may not debate here. This is not a warning, but pressing the issue further may result in one.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[/hat]