What did Jesus mean when He told Peter he was the rock he would build his church upon?

[Erik Nelson]

But that does not mean what you need and want it to mean regarding Rome...ALL Catholic churches at the time had Apostolic succession...beginning in Jerusalem, not Rome.

it would be nice if knowledgeable Catholics could find support from Greek or Anatolian fathers as well

unambiguously, Corinthians appealed to Clement of Rome who wrote them letters in the first century

 

[Erik Nelson]

to my knowledge, the Johannine east, of the modern OOC, acknowledged Roman authority the least

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Clement of Alexandria calls Peter “the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples.”

Again, that still has no bearing on Rome's claims...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

it would be nice if knowledgeable Catholics could find support from Greek or Anatolian fathers as well

unambiguously, Corinthians appealed to Clement of Rome who wrote them letters in the first century

lots of letters were written to and from many churches to and from many provinces

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Origen [of Alexandria & Caesarea] recognizes that Jesus’ words and actions elevate Peter to a role of apostolic primacy:

If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens.

again, it is Rome that makes the claim they are related... Peter + apostolic primacy = Rome

 

[Erik Nelson]

again, it is Rome that makes the claim they are related... Peter + apostolic primacy = Rome

Alexandria founded by Mark the secretary of Saint Peter. So Alexandria was a Petrine See. Perhaps unsurprisingly. Major Alexandrian luminaries. Like. Clement and Origen promote Petrine primacy.

I think certainly in theory, everyone everywhere on all sides can agree to Petrine primacy to some extent.

You are correct that Rome focuses Petrine primacy in practice to the Roman see alone.

Cyprian of Carthage is the only early church father I've found so far who explicitly ties Petrine primacy with Roman primacy.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You are correct that Rome focuses Petrine primacy in practice to the Roman see alone.

Cyprian of Carthage is the only early church father I've found so far who explicitly ties Petrine primacy with Roman primacy.

Yes...that is the problem

 

[Erik Nelson]

Yes...that is the problem

why? Why is it a problem for Christendom to have a focus of unity?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Jesus adds a promise which concerns the Church till time's end. Addressing Peter, the 12's spokesman, he tells him that upon his confession he'll build his Church.

Jesus says: "On this rock." The passage's gist: Peter-like faith in Christ admits into Christ's Church. "Upon faith's confession which makes you a rock, I'll build my Church. This foundation will hold; Satan won't be able to throw it down."

Against this Church, hell's gates can't prevail, hell's powers cannot conquer it. It's strong, so long as the faith in God and in Christ and in the Spirit, as giving this certainty, reigns in it.

 

[FireDragon76]

As has been said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to use this as a proof-text for Roman Catholicism. Though it's obvious Peter's confession of faith has something to do with his being named so by Christ, it's not clear to me how that makes Peter or Peter's successors infallible. On many matters, Peter was simply wrong, time and again, even if he was right about who Jesus was.

 

[FireDragon76]

Papal primacy does not necessarily entail papal infallibility.

 

[Jonaitis]

There was many advantages for Rome at that time to gain more attention than Alexandria and Antioch. Still learning about the history, though...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

why? Why is it a problem for Christendom to have a focus of unity?

no problem with concilular unity....that is not what Rome promotes...its focus is supreme authority

 

[tz620q]

no problem with concilular unity....that is not what Rome promotes...its focus is supreme authority

How would that work? Who would call it? Who would set the agenda? Who would attend? Since we have never required unanimous voting, what constitutes a majority? What would constitute a quorum? All of these issues exist and prevent any effective ecumenical council from being called now irregardless of papal authority. I'll just throw out a couple of hypothetical examples. Say the Byzantine Emperor was to call a council... oops that won't work. OK, say the Ecumenical Patriarch was to call a council... but members from Russia would not come and 2/3rd of Orthodoxy would not be represented and would not follow anything decided. OK, say the Pope was to call a council... well probably only one side of Orthodoxy would show up, either the Greek or the Russian; but not both. So there is noone in this world that could get together a truly ecumenical council.

Now for hypothetical number two, if we did this using a form of democratic representation, then for X number of church members, a voting representative is sent. Let's use the equation of 5 million members gets you 1 representative. So there would be roughly 240 representatives from the Catholic church and 52 Orthodox representatives. How do you think the Orthodox would take any decisions coming from that ecumenical council?

You see, there is no motivation for the Orthodox church to have such a council and short of an act of God, I don't ever see it occurring. So really, papal authority is limited now to the Catholic Church and will probably never be an issue for the Orthodox, short of a bullet point on a list that keeps such ecumenical councils from happening.

 

[prodromos]

How would that work? Who would call it? Who would set the agenda? Who would attend? Since we have never required unanimous voting, what constitutes a majority? What would constitute a quorum?

Same way it worked in the past, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Erik Nelson]

How would that work? Who would call it? Who would set the agenda? Who would attend? Since we have never required unanimous voting, what constitutes a majority? What would constitute a quorum? All of these issues exist and prevent any effective ecumenical council from being called now irregardless of papal authority. I'll just throw out a couple of hypothetical examples. Say the Byzantine Emperor was to call a council... oops that won't work. OK, say the Ecumenical Patriarch was to call a council... but members from Russia would not come and 2/3rd of Orthodoxy would not be represented and would not follow anything decided. OK, say the Pope was to call a council... well probably only one side of Orthodoxy would show up, either the Greek or the Russian; but not both. So there is noone in this world that could get together a truly ecumenical council.

Now for hypothetical number two, if we did this using a form of democratic representation, then for X number of church members, a voting representative is sent. Let's use the equation of 5 million members gets you 1 representative. So there would be roughly 240 representatives from the Catholic church and 52 Orthodox representatives. How do you think the Orthodox would take any decisions coming from that ecumenical council?

You see, there is no motivation for the Orthodox church to have such a council and short of an act of God, I don't ever see it occurring. So really, papal authority is limited now to the Catholic Church and will probably never be an issue for the Orthodox, short of a bullet point on a list that keeps such ecumenical councils from happening.

The MIDDLE GROUND between Orthodox and Catholic. Be it, right or wrong. Appears to me to be the following...

To my knowledge, the greatest support for Roman primacy based on Petrine primacy has always come from Carthage and Lyons and the West. For those places, Rome really always has been there Mother Church. The Apostles only made it as far as Rome. Carthage and Leone were only evangelized secondarily. By the Apostolic Fathers, but not by the Apostles directly themselves.

Where is Saint John directly evangelized in ministered in Ephesus say?

So Carthage and Lyon. And the West may not stand in relation to Rome in the exact same way as Ephesus and. Loudachaia and the church is evangelized by the other Apostles' hands themselves.

Rome may be more of a parent to Carthage and Lyons and the West. Then it is 2 Ephesus and the East?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

How would that work? Who would call it? Who would set the agenda? Who would attend? Since we have never required unanimous voting, what constitutes a majority? What would constitute a quorum? All of these issues exist and prevent any effective ecumenical council from being called now irregardless of papal authority. I'll just throw out a couple of hypothetical examples. Say the Byzantine Emperor was to call a council... oops that won't work. OK, say the Ecumenical Patriarch was to call a council... but members from Russia would not come and 2/3rd of Orthodoxy would not be represented and would not follow anything decided. OK, say the Pope was to call a council... well probably only one side of Orthodoxy would show up, either the Greek or the Russian; but not both. So there is noone in this world that could get together a truly ecumenical council.

Now for hypothetical number two, if we did this using a form of democratic representation, then for X number of church members, a voting representative is sent. Let's use the equation of 5 million members gets you 1 representative. So there would be roughly 240 representatives from the Catholic church and 52 Orthodox representatives. How do you think the Orthodox would take any decisions coming from that ecumenical council?

You see, there is no motivation for the Orthodox church to have such a council and short of an act of God, I don't ever see it occurring. So really, papal authority is limited now to the Catholic Church and will probably never be an issue for the Orthodox, short of a bullet point on a list that keeps such ecumenical councils from happening.

That scenario is NOW...after 1054 AD...it was different THEN, when Rome was part of the Church. Papal authority is no different now than then...it was always limited to your own Patriarchate...ROME.

 

[Erik Nelson]

That scenario is NOW...after 1054 AD...it was different THEN, when Rome was part of the Church. Papal authority is no different now than then...it was always limited to your own Patriarchate...ROME.

why do you dislike Rome so much?

 

[prodromos]

To my knowledge, the greatest support for Roman primacy based on Petrine primacy has always come from Carthage and Lyons and the West.

It would appear then, that there is little support then since you greatly misinterpret the statements of St Cyprian and St Irenaeus.

 

[Erik Nelson]

It would appear then, that there is little support then since you greatly misinterpret the statements of St Cyprian and St Irenaeus.

How else do you interpret this? These words of St Cyprian

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”