It is not false, Prodomos is being rather anachronistic, i.e., the papal legates along with everyone at the council agreed with the statements, there is no indication whatsoever that they disagreed with what was said.Wasn’t the entire point at this council to address heresy? Wouldn’t that have thrown up a few red flags about the person in question? Why was this issue not worthy of excommunication if it was known to be false?
And what if Jesus had never resurrected, and what if the Gospel of Thomas was not rejected, and what if the Church had not survived the persecutions, and what if Arianism had won, and what if . . . . . . etc.What would have happened if Paul built a Church in Rome first and then Peter died in Paul’s area… Would Paul get the keys?
It was addressed by an Orthodox fella, and I have since replied how I would reply if I was Catholic.Did you happen to miss the part of my original post to you that states Sacred Tradition upholds the Catholic conviction of Rome holding the primacy (the council of Ephesus in 449)?
Ah, here it is; the answer to my question. Although the “probably” doesn’t sound too convincing; did he or didn’t he?Moreover, even if Peter ordained others does not mean that they held his office, i.e., only ONE person could hold his office (a ****person he probably appointed before his death)
“It is what it is” isn’t exactly sound to me. And who’s sacred Tradition? The Roman Catholic one? The one who apparently has the only right to interpret Sacred Tradition?and it seems logical and historically sound and in line with sacred Tradition to believe that that person who now retains his office was/is the bishop of Rome. Peter for whatever divine reason felt compelled to go to Rome and stay there until his death, as such who are we to contemplate why he didn’t give it to another apostle or why not to Antioch or Alexandria. . .etc., IT IS WHAT IT IS.
I’m actually wondering if in that case Paul would get the keys? It sounds logical following your logic does it not? Just a hypothetical.And what if Jesus had never resurrected, and what if the Gospel of Thomas was not rejected, and what if the Church had not survived the persecutions, and what if Arianism had won, and what if . . . . . . etc.
You made no mention to ME about that particular aspect of my original post.It was addressed by an Orthodox fella, and I have since replied how I would reply if I was Catholic.
If you want something concrete, i.e., something from Peter’s own hand than you’re not going to get it, i.e., we can however emphatically state from Sacred Tradition (councils, the fathers from both east and west) that Peter’s successors were the bishops of Rome (Rome did not hold the primacy because it happened to be the capital of an empire but because it was the actual successor to Peter).Ah, here it is; the answer to my question. Although the “probably” doesn’t sound too convincing; did he or didn’t he?
Do the research and find out for yourself, i.e., look up the councils, look up the fathers (both East and West) and make your own deductions!“It is what it is” isn’t exactly sound to me. And who’s sacred Tradition? The Roman Catholic one? The one who apparently has the only right to interpret Sacred Tradition?
I never said that only Rome has the authority to say who was given the keys, I said look to Sacred Tradition prior to the schism by bishops from both the East and West for your answers, and you will have a greater understanding of why Catholics believe Rome holds the primacy.Unfortunately that argument doesn’t work with Peter’s supremacy because it’s circular. “Peter gave the keys to Rome so only Rome has the authority to say who was given the keys… which was Peter… to Rome.”
But I’m not just basing my argument on logic alone.I’m actually wondering if in that case Paul would get the keys? It sounds logical following your logic does it not? Just a hypothetical.
It was not something that was declared world wide via an ecumenical council prior to the schism, be that has it may, papal primacy was/is accepted by both Catholics and Orthodox, we just disagree upon what that primacy entails. I would suggest that you read the fathers and the councils to come to your own conclusions of whether we or the Orthodox are right regarding the primacy.Josie, that is a very solid point you made that was addressed by an Orthodox member. When was Papal Primacy (or even supremacy) officially declared by all Christian Church’s world wide prior to the Schism and not by one man from Rome who believed it? (That isn’t to say that others did not believe in it, but apparently not everyone did and this was not a declaration by the entire Church but rather something someone stated.)
I did respond however; why would a council looking to address heresy not stand up against his comments if it was in fact a heresy. I would be interested to know that.
No, it’s not that it goes to the “closest ordained fella”, it is because Peter chose Rome to operate his office/primacy (and it was an ideal city being that it was the capital of an empire), i.e., he remained there and died there, thus his office would continue on in Rome (if he didn’t want it to continue on in Rome than we would have evidence of that, but we don’t), moreover, Sacred Tradition (and I believe a few fathers imply or state that Peter did choose his successor before he died) states that Rome held the primacy because of Peter, i.e., the bishop of Rome is his successor, i.e., holds his office.Also Josie, my questions are sincere so I hope you don’t take me as aggressive or something. I don’t know if you have, but I like to clear that up just in case.
I still don’t understand how “wherever Peter dies the keys go to the closest ordained fella.” And if you are appealing to Tradition, could you please give me the Tradition that Peter gave the keys prior to his death? Again, you said “probably” which isn’t very comforting.
And logically if history did have Paul build a Church where Peter died then Paul would get the keys I would think?
Sums up this thread.Sigh.
The proceedings simply record what was said by the papal legate. It does not say whether the council agreed or disagreed with the statement. The practice of the council, however, clearly did not demonstrate an understanding that the bishop of Rome held authority over them. Over and over it demonstrates that the pope is answerable to the council, not the other way around, hence why I state that the papal legate was politely ignored.It is not false, Prodomos is being rather anachronistic, i.e., the papal legates along with everyone at the council agreed with the statements, there is no indication whatsoever that they disagreed with what was said.
Interestingly enough, an ecumenical council stated that Rome had honour because it was the Imperial city (Canon 28, fourth Ecumenical Council). No council has stated that Rome had primacy because Peter died there. It seems you have made an untrue statement.If you want something concrete, i.e., something from Peter’s own hand than you’re not going to get it, i.e., we can however emphatically state from Sacred Tradition (councils, the fathers from both east and west) that Peter’s successors were the bishops of Rome (Rome did not hold the primacy because it happened to be the capital of an empire but because it was the actual successor to Peter.
You’re twisting the analogy. We were never talking about government, only unity. I suppose being Catholic, and growing up in a unitary state (devolved as it may be) such as the UK it might be possible to confuse the two. In a Federation such as the United States, or my own Canada (even though our symbol of unity is once again the monarch) the government is not synonymous with national unity.There is one capital and one government at a time in the united states, but you have synods in different places at the same time with no head synod.
You might say America doesn’t have full unity, but it seems like more unity than the Orthodox Church
But it has already been stated several times to you that we don’t have that, have never had it, and don’t want it.I mean top-down yeah
The apostles were Bishops which is why of Judas it was said “let his BISHOPrick be given to another”. Supreme power is vested into Blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles, for he was given the keys (Matthew 16:18-19) and if you read that in union with Isaiah 22 about David’s kingdom (Jesus is the heir to David) you will know it means Supremacy:The apostles were apostles, not bishops. The bishops were those who they ordained to oversee each of the churches they established. There is no supreme power vested in any one man save Christ Himself.
Pope John Paul II did not say to Benedict “you have the keys now”. When the next Bishop becomes Bishop their they had that episcopal chair which the keys logically lie with since Peter died whilst in that chair.So he actually said to a person in Rome, “you have the keys now”? Or he simply died there and someone picked em up?
Then the keys would have to float across to another episcopal chair, there would be no logical way of knowing who they went to and it would cause confusion.If there was some special charism that Peter alone had, you would expect that it would pass on to one of the other Apostles who were still alive when Peter died. That makes a lot more sense than it being the bishop who was geographically closest out of those he had ordained.
In those days when a Bishop died, his priests elected his Successor, so the priests of the diocese of Rome could determine who the next Bishop of Rome was.What would have happened if Paul built a Church in Rome first and then Peter died in Paul’s area… Would Paul get the keys?