Apostle Peter

[Paul_theApostle]

Does a Church say for instance like the Orthodox Churches have to be in Communion with Rome to be in Communion with the Apostle Peter?

So are the Orthodox Churches in Spiritual Communion with the Apostle Peter Himself or only with St Andrew or their own Saints?

Does St Peter expect of the Orthodox to be in union with the Pope in order for the Orthodox to be Led by or in union with the Chief Imortant Apostle as he is?

Or is St Peter fully a part of the Orthodox Communion just as much as Rome ?

Why do the Orthodox have to be in union with the Pope to have the Chief Leader involved in their Spirirtual Lives?

 

[Filioque]

From the Catholic perspective the authority that the Apostles had was given to them by Christ. The Scriptures tell us that among those Apostles the leader was St. Peter. It was he who was given the task of ruling as the vicar of Jesus. His successors carry on that authority.

While the Orthodox may have validly consecrated bishops, and ordianed priests and deacons. And while the Catholic church sees them as having authority over their own subjects, it is an imperfect situation. The ideal, and perfect Church is the one as it was founded by Christ, with Peter as the head on earth, those in Purgatory and in Heaven (who based on the fact they are there, have had any misunderstanding clarified, and are in accord with as well as now formally members of the Catholic Church). With Christ as our head and Peter (and his successors) as His Vicar we form the Church.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

If its true that St Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome

then whats the difference between the Antioch Sucessors and the sucessors of Rome,both coming from St Peter?

As i asked do you think that the Orthodox have no contact in their Spiritual and Church lives with the Chief Apostle Peter? yes or no?

 

[Filioque]

Peter founded the Church in Antioch, that is true, but he left it in the capable hands of his successor there to go to Rome. Rome is where he was when he was martyred, Rome is the city he was the bishop of for the final years of his life. There are other minor Churches that St. Peter founded, not as famous as Antioch or Rome, who could also claim their succession from him.

Orthodox honor all the Apostles, St. Peter included. They do not recognize St. Peter as the head of the Church, but believe in a government in which each bishop is of equal status (in Council) and while in communion with each other, each bishop is independent in the rule of his territory. The Patriachs of the individual Orthodox Churches claim a status of the first among equals in their individual Churches, just as they give the Pope in Rome the title as First among Equals, and a Primacy of Honor, but not authority to the Roman See.

If you could clarify your question

…do you think that the Orthodox have no contact in their Spiritual and Church lives with the Chief Apostle Peter? yes or no?

I’m not really sure what it is that you are asking.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Patriachs of the individual Orthodox Churches claim a status of the first among equals in their individual Churches, just as they give the Pope in Rome the title as First among Equals, and a Primacy of Honor, but not authority to the Roman See.

To clarify this, Rome would be recognised as First Among Equals if it were in communion with us. As it is Constantinople holds that honour.

 

[Tomster]

Does a Church say for instance like the Orthodox Churches have to be in Communion with Rome to be in Communion with the Apostle Peter?

So are the Orthodox Churches in Spiritual Communion with the Apostle Peter Himself or only with St Andrew or their own Saints?

Does St Peter expect of the Orthodox to be in union with the Pope in order for the Orthodox to be Led by or in union with the Chief Imortant Apostle as he is?

Or is St Peter fully a part of the Orthodox Communion just as much as Rome ?

Why do the Orthodox have to be in union with the Pope to have the Chief Leader involved in their Spirirtual Lives?

In the theological field orthodox means that which corresponds perfectly with the doctrine of faith. But the term has a historical importance due to its abusive employment, by way of usurpation on the part of the Byzantine Church, after the schism attempted by Photius (ninth century) and consummated in the eleventh century by Michael Cerularius. The so-called “Orthodox” Church applied this name to itself, as if it were the custodian of the true faith.

If we prescind from the primacy of the Pope, the so-called “Orthodox” Church does not present real dogmatic divergencies from the Roman Catholic Church, especially in the beginning. In the course of the centuries, however, certain doctrinal or liturgical disagreements have been stressed, or even created, by reaction against the definitions of the Popes or of the ecumenical councils. But the true and fundamental reason of the Eastern Schism and, therefore, its principal error is the negation of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, which it once adhered to, as the successor of St. Peter.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

If you could clarify your question I’m not really sure what it is that you are asking.

Spiritual life or Spiritual guidance and salvation is the whole purpose of the Church right?
Maybe i didnt quite grasp the beginning of your last post but if St Peters Sucessors are also at Antioch ,the Eastern Churches are in communion with Antioch and Peters Sucessors.

So what Spiritual benefits or Spiritual Chief Apostolate Guidance from the Chief Apostle are they missing being not connected to Rome?

As the Chief Apostle also laid his ‘Hands’ and ‘Spiritual Powers’ on the Bishops of Antioch

Sure Peter was Martyred there and its a greater city but does Gods Power and Grace care about Earthly Cities and their Earthly powers?

So he spilt his Blood there,does that mean his succesor Bishop at Rome has more Spiritual Grace or Power and Chief Guidance then the Antioch Bishop?

Do the Roman Bishops Bath in his Blood or so or recieve extra special Grace from his Tomb?

In the End if Peter laid his hands on the head of his sucessor at Rome and at Antioch ,what would be the differnce in those ordinations?

Maybe if his hands were unwashed with one and dirty and greasy with the other it could have effected the power of Grace flowing out of his Hands? what do you think?

 

[TheosisM]

Spiritual life or Spiritual guidance and salvation is the whole purpose of the Church right?
Maybe i didnt quite grasp the beginning of your last post but if St Peters Sucessors are also at Antioch ,the Eastern Churches are in communion with Antioch and Peters Sucessors.

So what Spiritual benefits or Spiritual Chief Apostolate Guidance from the Chief Apostle are they missing being not connected to Rome?

As the Chief Apostle also laid his ‘Hands’ and ‘Spiritual Powers’ on the Bishops of Antioch

Sure Peter was Martyred there and its a greater city but does Gods Power and Grace care about Earthly Cities and their Earthly powers?

So he spilt his Blood there,does that mean his succesor Bishop at Rome has more Spiritual Grace or Power and Chief Guidance then the Antioch Bishop?

Do the Roman Bishops Bath in his Blood or so or recieve extra special Grace from his Tomb?

In the End if Peter laid his hands on the head of his sucessor at Rome and at Antioch ,what would be the differnce in those ordinations?

Maybe if his hands were unwashed with one and dirty and greasy with the other it could have effected the power of Grace flowing out of his Hands? what do you think?

I think that you’re mixing up ideas here. The Catholic view is that the primacy of Peter was/is just that: it is of Peter. Tradition says that he established churches in Antioch and Rome. Since it is traditionally believed that Peter was martyred in Rome, his primacy therefore is in Rome/Bishop of Rome (since that’s the last place it was). Antioch is still a Petrine see of course, however the primacy resides in Rome.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

I think that you’re mixing up ideas here. The Catholic view is that the primacy of Peter was/is just that: it is of Peter. Tradition says that he established churches in Antioch and Rome. Since it is traditionally believed that Peter was martyred in Rome, his primacy therefore is in Rome/Bishop of Rome (since that’s the last place it was). Antioch is still a Petrine see of course, however the primacy resides in Rome.

Maybe i dont know what you mean by Primacy or what that really means?

But with the Holy Spirit embracing our souls,im saying do you think the Eastern Churches lack Spiritual benefit because they are not in communion with the Pope or Rome?

Sure, it must be important for all Christians to be untited to the Chief Apostle and to his Sucessors but im saying that the Orthodox Churches are in Communion with Peters successors at Antioch.

What do they lack not being in Communion with Rome?

They have their Chief Apostle and his Sucessor at Antioch to guide them with the ‘Power’ or "Primacy’ of Peter,no?

But what do you mean by the ‘primacy’ of Rome,compared to Antioch?

 

[rinnie]

To clarify this, Rome would be recognised as First Among Equals if it were in communion with us. As it is Constantinople holds that honour.

Nine 2, Thank-you No one has ever explained it that easy and simple. Perfect!

 

[Filioque]

So what Spiritual benefits or Spiritual Chief Apostolate Guidance from the Chief Apostle are they missing being not connected to Rome?

As the Chief Apostle also laid his ‘Hands’ and ‘Spiritual Powers’ on the Bishops of Antioch

It would be wrong to suppose that those that St. Peter laid his hands on were limited to Antioch and Rome alone. There is an ancient story about St. Peter’s consecration of the first missionary bishop of Treve, among others. As there can only be one Pope, or head of the Church, (from the Catholic perspective) one successor of the Primacy, the bishops of Antioch, or any other see that traces it’s bishop’s succession from St. Peter, is just that, a bishop who traces his lineage to St. Peter. The office of the Papacy however is a jurisdiction that is superior in authority and jurisdiction over the entire Church.

As an example, I know several priests who were ordained by Pope John Paul II. The fact that the Pope ordained them does not transmit any authority or jurisdiction of office superior to any other priest. However if any were appointed to a position of authority or jurisdiction such as a Domestic Prelate, or a Papal Legate, the priesthood would be equal to all other priests, but he would have jurisdiction and authority superior to other priests.

As to the Orthodox rejecting the Primacy of Honor being held by Rome, and transferred to Constantinople, it is not universally held by all Orthodox. Some hold that Moscow, (The Third Rome) has that honor, others still regard Rome as having that honor. Some Antioch, there is no unity of agreement on the subject.

 

[Filioque]

It would be wrong to suppose that those that St. Peter laid his hands on were limited to Antioch and Rome alone. There is an ancient story about St. Peter’s consecration of the first missionary bishop of Treve, among others. As there can only be one Pope, or head of the Church, (from the Catholic perspective) one successor of the Primacy, the bishops of Antioch, or any other see that traces it’s bishop’s succession from St. Peter, is just that, a bishop who traces his lineage to St. Peter. The office of the Papacy however is a jurisdiction that is superior in authority and jurisdiction over the entire Church. As Catholics we do believe that Communion with Rome is essential, however that does not mean that graces cannot even if imperfectly received be granted to individuals who through no fault of their own find themselves out of communion with the Holy See.

As an example, I know several priests who were ordained by Pope John Paul II. The fact that the Pope ordained them does not transmit any authority or jurisdiction of office superior to any other priest. However if any were appointed to a position of authority or jurisdiction such as a Domestic Prelate, or a Papal Legate, the priesthood would be equal to all other priests, but he would have jurisdiction and authority superior to other priests.

As to the Orthodox rejecting the Primacy of Honor being held by Rome, and transferred to Constantinople, it is not universally held by all Orthodox. Some hold that Moscow, (The Third Rome) has that honor, others still regard Rome as having that honor. Some Antioch, there is no unity of agreement on the subject.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

It would be wrong to suppose that those that St. Peter laid his hands on were limited to Antioch and Rome alone. There is an ancient story about St. Peter’s consecration of the first missionary bishop of Treve, among others. As there can only be one Pope, or head of the Church, (from the Catholic perspective) one successor of the Primacy, the bishops of Antioch, or any other see that traces it’s bishop’s succession from St. Peter, is just that, a bishop who traces his lineage to St. Peter. The office of the Papacy however is a jurisdiction that is superior in authority and jurisdiction over the entire Church.

As an example, I know several priests who were ordained by Pope John Paul II. The fact that the Pope ordained them does not transmit any authority or jurisdiction of office superior to any other priest. However if any were appointed to a position of authority or jurisdiction such as a Domestic Prelate, or a Papal Legate, the priesthood would be equal to all other priests, but he would have jurisdiction and authority superior to other priests.

[SIGN]As to the Orthodox rejecting the Primacy of Honor being held by Rome, and transferred to Constantinople, it is not universally held by all Orthodox. Some hold that Moscow, (The Third Rome) has that honor, others still regard Rome as having that honor. Some Antioch, there is no unity of agreement on the subject.

[/SIGN]

This is the Part Filioque, that always confused me. Which Orthodox rejected it and which did not.

 

[Filioque]

[SIGN][/SIGN][/SIGN]

This is the Part Filioque, that always confused me. Which Orthodox rejected it and which did not.

Once again we are speaking here of a Primacy of “Honor” that being that they say the Pope has no more authority than any other bishop, but that as successor of St. Peter, his office has no jurisdiction attached to it.

Depending on who you speak to the answer could be different. I have met Greek Orthodox priests who decry the Filioque as heretical, others who accept it as a truth but protest the right of the Pope to unilaterally insert it into the creed. Some who accept the Immaculate Conception others who protesta against the definition.With Primacy, the same rings true. The more sober among the Orthodox clergy I have met would support what our Orthodox friend posted here, others would find it too excessive. The East tends to be less legalistic than the Latin Church.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

The office of the Papacy however is a jurisdiction that is superior in authority and jurisdiction over the entire Church.

I dont understand why,

Who made it so? Peter? why Rome and not Antioch/or his other succesors?

I thought it was because Peter is the Chief Shepherd and the Pope is his Succesor,but as im saying so is the Antioch Bishop?

Whats the difference between the two Bishops if they both come from Peter?

Why is the one at Rome more Special?

 

[Filioque]

The Catholic Church holds that Peter did establish the Church in Antioch, and was the first bishop there. Peter also established other Churches elsewhere. They can all claim that they were founded by Peter. Only one can claim that it has presidence over all Churches. I’ll snip from the Catholic Encyclopedia some of the writings of the Early Fathers, Eastern and Western who attest to the Roman See being the See that is first in both honor and authority.

History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries.

St. Clement
The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his “Epistle to the Corinthians”, written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. “If any man”, he says, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger” (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them “render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit”. The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as “the first step towards papal domination” (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men’s minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.

St. Ignatius of Antioch
A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, “pre-eminent in works of love”.

St. Irenaeus
The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus — a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work “Adversus Haereses” (III:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes:

Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].

He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see. Non-Catholic writers have sought to rob the passage of its importance by translating the word convenire “to resort to”, and thus understanding it to mean no more than that the faithful from every side (undique) resorted to Rome, so that thus the stream of doctrine in that Church was kept immune from error. Such a rendering, however, is excluded by the construction of the argument, which is based entirely on the contention that the Roman doctrine is pure by reason of its derivation from the two great Apostolic founders of the Church, Sts. Peter and Paul. The frequent visits made to Rome by members of other Christian Churches could contribute nothing to this. On the other hand the traditional rendering is postulated by the context, and, though the object of innumerable attacks, none other possessing any real degree of probability has been suggested in its place (see Dom. J. Chapman in “Revue Benedictine”, 1895, p. 48).

 

[Paul_theApostle]

sorry why does Rome have Primacy and not Antioch?