Upon this Rock...

[Franze]

I am catholic, for this thing, you imagine what is my opinion, I have other question, why in orthodox churches like constatinople, said the succesors of Andrew? Why?

 

[Servus Iesu]

I am catholic, for this thing, you imagine what is my opinion, I have other question, why in orthodox churches like constatinople, said the succesors of Andrew? Why?

I believe St. Andrew the Apostle established the See at Constantinople and ordained St. Stachys as Bishop there.

 

[Philip]

My problem with that "kepha" translation is this...

That isn't the way the disciples translated it. If he said kepha the second time and meant Peter, they wouldn't have translated it as feminine and as petra instead of petros.

If he meant Peter, it would have been translated as both words being petros. But it wasn't...

You are inserting your own understanding into the text. To Greek-speakers, the change in gender would go almost unnoticed. It is completely natural to change the gender of the metaphoric rock to match Peter's gender. There is nothing to be read into it.

Anyhow... My arguement is this... If it was to withstand the gates of hell, then why did the Roman Catholic Church (supposedly a church that comes from Peter) break off from the Orthodox Church?

Why they separated from us well documented history.

I think you may, like some Catholics, be equating St Peter and his faith with the Church in Rome. There is no doubt Peter and his faith were instrumental in the establishment of the Church after Christ ascended. He was the primary speaker at Pentecost. He opened the Church to Gentiles. He founded the Church of Antioch. He participated in the Council of Jerusalem. He led the Church in Rome. He sent St Mark to establish the Church of Alexandria. He died a martyr. I have no doubt that Christ used both St Peter and his faith to establish His Church.

However, there are several mistakes made by people who ascert the primacy of Peter. The first is to assume that St Peter held authority over the other Apostles, rather than just serving as their leader and spokesman. The second is to assume that this authority was passed on to the person who served in the same place as Peter. The third is to assume that this authority was only passed on in the last place Peter served.

 

[Philip]

Among the Fathers who interpreted that passage for us, there was no real disagreement. Many of them said the Rock of Matthew 16:18 was St. Peter. Many of the same Fathers also said the Rock was St. Peter's confession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah. Many of the Fathers said the Rock was Christ Himself. My own opinion, after reading what they had to say, is that the Rock of Matthew 16:18 was all three of those.

I agree with Marjorie 100% in her first post here. Also Maximus. I think that some Orthodox prefer the idea that "this rock" refers to ONLY the confession because of protestant influences. For whatever reason we have been lead to believe (At least in America) that if you believe "this rock" referred also to Peter himself that this somehow leads one to believe in the Supremacy of Rome and therefore makes them Catholic.

These are both good points. There is a great tendency in Catholic vs Protestant America to think this verse refers to St Peter or his confession/faith. But, this is a mistake. It is not possible, especially in the Ancient mindset, to separate the man from his faith. At times, it might be useful to emphasize the person Peter over his particular words. At other times, it might be benefitial to emphasize the words. But to force a dictomy between to the two, to say the verse refers to Peter (but not his faith) or to the confession (but not the person) is wrong. To me, it seems to be a denial of the Christian understanding of what a person is.

 

[prodromos]

The Bishop of Rome was the "first among equals" in the Church not merely because Rome was the old capital, but also because of St. Peter. The Orthodox popes were empowered to hear appeals from all over Christendom and acted in a sort of presidential way in the college of bishops.

I believe we must consider the historical context to understand why Rome was given certain perogatives. Basically, when bishops all over the East were falling into error, Rome remained Orthodox par excellence so she was naturally looked up to as an example and as a trustworthy arbiter. Irenaeus explains the reason for Rome's steadfastness as being due to the faithful believers everywhere, since Christians went to Rome from all over the empire and it would have been readily apparent to them if Rome had strayed from Tradition. With the decline of Rome after the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople, it no longer enjoyed that benefit described by Irenaeus.

John.

 

[prodromos]

I believe St. Andrew the Apostle established the See at Constantinople and ordained St. Stachys as Bishop there.

Of course it was a town by the name of Byzantium at the time

 

[Konstantinos]

I think I should build a new Byzantion in greece somewhere so all of us Greeks in old Byzantion could move there

 

[Maximus]

I believe we must consider the historical context to understand why Rome was given certain perogatives. Basically, when bishops all over the East were falling into error, Rome remained Orthodox par excellence so she was naturally looked up to as an example and as a trustworthy arbiter. Irenaeus explains the reason for Rome's steadfastness as being due to the faithful believers everywhere, since Christians went to Rome from all over the empire and it would have been readily apparent to them if Rome had strayed from Tradition. With the decline of Rome after the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople, it no longer enjoyed that benefit described by Irenaeus.

John.

If one reads the transcripts of the ecumenical councils that were held a good while after the transfer of the civil capital to Constantinople and, in the West, to Ravenna, it is apparent that Rome was still regarded as the Apostolic See, and the Bishop of Rome as St. Peter's successor and "first among equals" for that reason.

I am not defending the RC argument. I'm just stating the facts.

 

[88Devin07]

The facts is not that the pope is an apostolic successor. He has no link to Peter whatsoever and the Roman Catholic Church is only a seperation of the true church. If it had any direct link to Peter, it wouldn't have fallen into heresies and wouldn't have broken from the Apostolic Church.

The RC Church isn't the true church and shouldn't ever be considered as being linked to the Apostles since it chose to reject the true and original church. The only thing they have now is the fact they are a part of the Heavenly Church.

 

[Marjorie]

The facts is not that the pope is an apostolic successor. He has no link to Peter whatsoever and the Roman Catholic Church is only a seperation of the true church. If it had any direct link to Peter, it wouldn't have fallen into heresies and wouldn't have broken from the Apostolic Church.

Successors of Peter have fallen into heresy before. It's a fact that the See of Rome derived apostolic succession from St. Peter; no one denies that. St. Peter was the first bishop there, and he appointed Linus, and so on. The Church is what will never fall into heresy, not every single one of Peter's successors. The Lord said that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church, not just Peter's successors.

You're right that NOW there is no apostolic succession because they broke from the apostolic faith. But Rome used to have apostolic succession. As Maximus and prodromos pointed out, Rome was often a bastion of orthodoxy in the early Church.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Maximus]

The facts is not that the pope is an apostolic successor. He has no link to Peter whatsoever and the Roman Catholic Church is only a seperation of the true church. If it had any direct link to Peter, it wouldn't have fallen into heresies and wouldn't have broken from the Apostolic Church.

The RC Church isn't the true church and shouldn't ever be considered as being linked to the Apostles since it chose to reject the true and original church. The only thing they have now is the fact they are a part of the Heavenly Church.

Well, I agree to an extent; however, the current Pope does have Apostolic Succession from St. Peter in the strictly literal, physical sense. In other words, he holds the office St. Peter once held and sits in that direct line of succession.

On the other hand, Apostolic Succession is worse than meaningless if the supposed successor has departed from the faith of the Apostles, and that, we believe, the RCC and its Pope have done.

Many of those who were direct successors to the Apostles have fallen into heresy. In fact, some of the worst heretics have been Patriarch of Constantinople!

Sadly, Apostolic Succession in and of itself is no guarantee of doctrinal orthodoxy.

 

[88Devin07]

Well, I agree to an extent; however, the current Pope does have Apostolic Succession from St. Peter in the strictly literal, physical sense. In other words, he holds the office St. Peter once held and sits in that direct line of succession.

I disagree with this... Once they broke from the Orthodox Church they lost even the physical succession from Peter's position.

 

[Maximus]

[/size][/font]

I disagree with this... Once they broke from the Orthodox Church they lost even the physical succession from Peter's position.

How is that possible?

All one needs for physical succession is an unbroken line of physical acts of ordination extending back to St. Peter.

That the Pope has for sure.

His is probably better documented than almost any other, in fact.

 

[Marjorie]

I think he just misunderstands what you're saying... all Maximus is saying is that the successors of Peter who fell into heresy physically ordained people and they were their successors. Obviously they don't have apostolic succession from the Orthodox POV, but they can trace their succession back to legitimate successors of Peter.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[88Devin07]

I'm saying it's like someone like Judas who traces their lineage back to say David... It may make them physically descendants of him, but it doesn't mean they deserve that distinction or title.

 

[pilgrimtim]

According to Church canon regarding raising up Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs. There must be at the elevation three Hierarch of superior or Equal rank to elevate the person.
On that count alone the church in Rome separated itself from the rest of the church it could not legitimately elevate someone to the Patriarchal throne, according the ecumenical canons of the church. so shortly after 1054 when the next bishop of rome was selected there was not legitimate elevation to the see of Saint Peter.
Saint Gregory the Great of Rome wrote about the position of the bishop of Rome in the church.

 

[88Devin07]

And it also makes me mad when they lie and say they are the successors of Peter when they are only mockers of the Bishops before the schism

 

[Unified in Christ]

The facts is not that the pope is an apostolic successor. He has no link to Peter whatsoever and the Roman Catholic Church is only a seperation of the true church. If it had any direct link to Peter, it wouldn't have fallen into heresies and wouldn't have broken from the Apostolic Church.
The RC Church isn't the true church and shouldn't ever be considered as being linked to the Apostles since it chose to reject the true and original church. The only thing they have now is the fact they are a part of the Heavenly Church.

I agree with you totaly. If Pope has TODAY apostolic succession, then why do we need to have Metropolitan of Italy? (His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadios, Archbishop of Italy & Exarch of Southern Europe, based in Venice if I'm not mistaken)

 

[gzt]

And it also makes me mad when they lie and say they are the successors of Peter when they are only mockers of the Bishops before the schism.

I don't think this is an appropriate response. Calm down.

 

[Philip]

I think he just misunderstands what you're saying... all Maximus is saying is that the successors of Peter who fell into heresy physically ordained people and they were their successors. Obviously they don't have apostolic succession from the Orthodox POV, but they can trace their succession back to legitimate successors of Peter.

Similar things can be said for the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, the Archbishop of Cantebury, and the bishops of the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden. How should we view them?