Catholicism on Eastern Orthodoxy

[josie_L]

Considering that this is a Catholic apologetics site, and that people constantly use its materials of quotations, etc. throughout many of its threads, I fail to see how my link is remotely inappropriate.

Because it’s your link and you did not admit it was yours when you linked it in your post. Because, this is an Orthodox apologetics site/blog, written by someone whose credentials we nothing about other than his religion. Because, ultimately it is your interpretation of the fathers (not even sure its the Orthodox perspective since I’ve already noticed there are discrepancies between what you say and famous Orthodox theologians have stated).

Additionally, because it is the Catholic view that the keys bestow a specific power to the office of St. Peter, it flies in the face of it. Even Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this, yet is straightforward with the idea that the Fathers and early scholastics were wrong according to them.

The fact that Jesus singled out Peter to hand over the keys is significant in that Jesus is making it known that Peter is the pre-eminent steward of his Kingdom (think Isaiah 22), so in this respect, yes, it connotes the power of his office, but this does not mean that the other apostles are not stewards or lack the power of the keys.

That’s a recklessly liberal usage of the term “misleading.” I cited the Latin tradition within a very specific genre that got to the heart of the issue, ie Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew. There is no justification to accuse me of misleading. And once again, my issue is with assertion that the Rock only applies to Peter.

No, it’s not and I stand by my usage of the word, although you are within your right to report or flag my post.

But, I’ve never asserted that Peter alone is rock, I am stating that he was the only one whose name was changed by Jesus to “rock” and that in itself is singular and unique, which must mean Jesus is bestowing upon him a title that is beyond just one of honour.

 

[josie_L]

That’s not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching very clearly states that Peter is the only one who has the keys AND is the only one (excluding Christ) who is the rock. Again, Catholic Encyclopedia argues very fervently about this point, as I pointed out. Your position is in direct violation of Lumen Gentium, proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council in 1964:

No, my position is not in violation of anything, I simply do not want to mischaracterize my faith, by espousing an “ultramontane” view of the papacy. So, here goes again, Peter is considered the “key bearer” in that Jesus specifically entrusts the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to him (no one else is mentioned), but the whole of the Church in a sense holds the keys (those in communion with Peter’s successors) because the power of the keys is given to all the apostles and their successors, just that with Peter that power is pre-eminent.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

1. Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt 16:19]. The ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15-17; cf. 10:11]. The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles [cf. Matt 18:18] and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

II. THE POWER OF THE KEYS

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations."526 The apostles and their successors carry out this “ministry of reconciliation,” not only by announcing to men God’s forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:527

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit’s action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.528

It very clearly does deny it, as per Lumen Gentium. And while I often ignore Abu, I suggest you try looking at some of his posts throughout this thread and others like it. He seems to grasp this point better than anybody.

Then, I suggest you ignore my posts and start responding to ABU’s, if you believe that.

 

[Rohzek]

Because it’s your link and you did not admit it was yours when you linked it in your post. Because, this is an Orthodox apologetics site/blog, written by someone whose credentials we nothing about other than his religion. Because, ultimately it is your interpretation of the fathers (not even sure its the Orthodox perspective since I’ve already noticed there are discrepancies between what you say and famous Orthodox theologians have stated).

First, tell me, what difference in the discussion would this have made if I had declared that it was my blog? What does that have to do with the merits of the arguments? You’re making a big to-do out of nothing.

Credentials? lol, what is this? The academy? Listen, it just sounds like to me that you are trying to kill the messenger because you can’t handle a well-formed argument of a contrary view. So the best thing you can do is try to claim I don’t have the credentials. Nevermind the fact that I’ve provided citation after citation, Latin translation after Latin translation. What are your credentials? Time after time you have accused me of some sort of neglect, questioned my motives, and only rarely engage in my arguments. Notice how you didn’t even address my point about Lumen Gentium? The only thing that I’ve asked you is whether or not you’ve read anything I’ve posted.

You want my credentials? Fine, let us make this about each other rather than the merits of our arguments. After all, you seem far more eager to do that. I specialize in early medieval European history, hold a masters in it, and am currently in a PhD program. My areas of research and interests are primarily Late Antique exegeses, Carolingian exegeses, and the Latin Church from approximately the fourth century AD to the eleventh century AD. I read the scholarly material in three modern languages, as well as being highly proficient in Latin. Now please tell me, what are your qualifications?

Now I have no idea which Orthodox scholars you are referring to that somehow contradict anything that I’ve said. I’ve denied no primacy, but only the Catholic understanding of it. That’s fairly Orthodox in my book, and I would be surprised to see any Orthodox patristics scholar disagree with that assessment. Someone alleged something against me earlier, but really wasn’t able to substantiate that claim precisely because they were quoting the secondary-source work of John Meyendorff, who inspired me to finally convert to Orthodoxy, from a secondary-source written by a Catholic apologist. And there is nothing wrong with something being written by a Catholic apologist. What’s wrong is that they couldn’t quote Meyendorff directly nor with fuller context. Ultimately, what matters are the merits of their arguments.

Furthermore, it is apparent that you don’t know how academia works. There is no monolith position on most things, especially upon the controversial topic of Papal Supremacy/Primacy. So even if I were out of mainstream Orthodox thought on the matter, that in no way nullifies the efficacy of the evidence I’ve put forward. If you really think I am wrong, then please tell me how I am wrong with the evidence I’ve put forward. All you’ve done thus far, aside from basically attacking the messenger, is to change what it means to be Catholic, claiming that all of the apostles are rocks and that they all hold the power of the keys. That’s not a Catholic position. That’s an Orthodox position.

The fact that Jesus singled out Peter to hand over the keys is significant in that Jesus is making it known that Peter is the pre-eminent steward of his Kingdom (think Isaiah 22), so in this respect, yes, it connotes the power of his office, but this does not mean that the other apostles are not stewards or lack the power of the keys.

Again, it is Catholic understanding that the Bishop of Rome alone holds the power of the keys. No one else has it according to Catholic dogma. It isn’t a matter of whether you’re an ultramontane or not. It’s a fundamental matter of Catholic dogma. And all that you have done is bent definitions over backwards, so you can avoid directly engaging the challenging arguments that I’ve put forward, whereby I problematize Catholic claims. Lumen Gentium:

This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

No, my position is not in violation of anything, I simply do not want to mischaracterize my faith, by espousing an “ultramontane” view of the papacy. So, here goes again, Peter is considered the “key bearer” in that Jesus specifically entrusts the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to him (no one else is mentioned), but the whole of the Church in a sense holds the keys (those in communion with Peter’s successors) because the power of the keys is given to all the apostles and their successors, just that with Peter that power is pre-eminent.

That’s not Catholic. Again, see Lumen Gentium. Nevermind the fact that you position holds terrible complications when coupled with the indelible priesthood doctrine of Catholicism.

Then, I suggest you ignore my posts and start responding to ABU’s, if you believe that.

Sounds like you just want to avoid discussion. And besides, I’ve already debated Abu a lot in times past. I see no reason to rehash old debates with him.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Phooey!! And while your requesting EVERYONE else to provide a fuller context/evidence, please provide some of your own!!!

In case you are interested, an excellent source providing the often-cited patristic quotations on papal authority, and providing their context, and the primary arguments concerning them, is Edward Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, AD 96-454. Giles was an Anglican, I believe.

 

[josie_L]

In case you are interested, an excellent source providing the often-cited patristic quotations on papal authority, and providing their context, and the primary arguments concerning them, is Edward Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, AD 96-454. Giles was an Anglican, I believe.

I will look it up, thank you!! And God bless!

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I will look it up, thank you!! And God bless!

You are very welcome.

 

[Abu]

The Pope and the Keys.
saltandlighttv.org/blog/general/pope-benedicts-homily-on-the-feast-of-st-peter-and-st-paul
Pope Benedict’s homily on the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul
June 29, 2012 by Salt and Light Media
Here is the official English translation of the Holy Father’s homily during Mass on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul.
Extract:
‘Let us move on now to the symbol of the keys, which we heard about in the Gospel. It echoes the oracle of the prophet Isaiah concerning the steward Eliakim, of whom it was said: “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (Is 22:22). The key represents authority over the house of David. And in the Gospel there is another saying of Jesus addressed to the scribes and the Pharisees, whom the Lord reproaches for shutting off the kingdom of heaven from people (cf. Mt 23:13). This saying also helps us to understand the promise made to Peter: to him, inasmuch as he is the faithful steward of Christ’s message, it belongs to open the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to judge whether to admit or to refuse (cf. Rev 3:7). Hence the two images – that of the keys and that of binding and loosing – express similar meanings which reinforce one another. The expression “binding and loosing” forms part of rabbinical language and refers on the one hand to doctrinal decisions, and on the other hand to disciplinary power, that is, the faculty to impose and to lift excommunication. The parallelism “on earth … in the heavens” guarantees that Peter’s decisions in the exercise of this ecclesial function are valid in the eyes of God.’ [My emphasis].

 

[josie_L]

First, tell me, what difference in the discussion would this have made if I had declared that it was my blog? What does that have to do with the merits of the arguments? You’re making a big to-do out of nothing.

No, I don’t think I’m making a big to do, I just would have appreciated that you had stated that this was your blog from the beginning, and that the interpretation/perspective advocated was your own.

Credentials? lol, what is this? The academy? Listen, it just sounds like to me that you are trying to kill the messenger because you can’t handle a well-formed argument of a contrary view.

You cited an unknown apologetics/blog site wherein the credentials of the blogger is not mentioned, I don’t understand why this is hard to accept? And weren’t you the one asking others if they knew “Greek” when I posted some short excerpts/quotes from the fathers?

So the best thing you can do is try to claim I don’t have the credentials. Nevermind the fact that I’ve provided citation after citation, Latin translation after Latin translation.

I too have been providing citation after citation, and although I know a little Latin, it’s not the translation with which I have a problem with, but the way in which you’re interpreting the quotes you cited.

What are your credentials? Time after time you have accused me of some sort of neglect, questioned my motives, and only rarely engage in my arguments. Notice how you didn’t even address my point about Lumen Gentium? The only thing that I’ve asked you is whether or not you’ve read anything I’ve posted.

Yes, I have engaged you in debate, but when someone states that Latin Tradition does not support the current Catholic view of the Petrine primacy, we have an issue, especially since I’ve already stated why I thought you were wrong, i.e., you limited your scope to the commentaries on Matthew made by Latin fathers without taking into consideration that primary sources like epistles, hymns, homilies, orations, and even the transcripts of ecumenical/local councils are just as valid in elucidating what the fathers thought concerning any number of theological views.

And I thought I did address your point regarding “Lumen Gentium”, by stating that Peter is indeed the “keybearer”, in that he is the only apostle/disciple who is specifically given the keys, however, the power of the keys are not exclusively his. That is why I quoted two excerpts from the catechism . But if you wish me to elucidate further, here is an excerpt from New Advent, concerning the power of the keys:

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in “Dict. Christ. Antiq.”, s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church’s hierarchy throughout the world.

**The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez **(De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees.

 

[josie_L]

You want my credentials? Fine, let us make this about each other rather than the merits of our arguments. After all, you seem far more eager to do that. I specialize in early medieval European history, hold a masters in it, and am currently in a PhD program. My areas of research and interests are primarily Late Antique exegeses, Carolingian exegeses, and the Latin Church from approximately the fourth century AD to the eleventh century AD. I read the scholarly material in three modern languages, as well as being highly proficient in Latin. Now please tell me, what are your qualifications?

I wasn’t trying to make this about you, but you cited your own blog/apologetics site, so yes, I’m going to ask for your credentials. Moreover, you don’t get to say things like Latin tradition doesn’t support the current Catholic view of the Petrine primacy, without getting an eyebrow or two raised, sorry!!!

Now I have no idea which Orthodox scholars you are referring to that somehow contradict anything that I’ve said. I’ve denied no primacy, but only the Catholic understanding of it. That’s fairly Orthodox in my book, and I would be surprised to see any Orthodox patristics scholar disagree with that assessment. Someone alleged something against me earlier, but really wasn’t able to substantiate that claim precisely because they were quoting the secondary-source work of John Meyendorff, who inspired me to finally convert to Orthodoxy, from a secondary-source written by a Catholic apologist.

Does Meyendorff believe like you do that the designation and/or name change from Simon to Peter has no significance other than to connote his confession of faith?

Furthermore, it is apparent that you don’t know how academia works. There is no monolith position on most things, especially upon the controversial topic of Papal Supremacy/Primacy.

I err on the side of caution when it pertains to topics like papal primacy (too much polemics out there), and I will not be persuaded to read something that is written by someone who is relegated to the fringes of that community either.

So even if I were out of mainstream Orthodox thought on the matter, that in no way nullifies the efficacy of the evidence I’ve put forward. If you really think I am wrong, then please tell me how I am wrong with the evidence I’ve put forward.

I have said you are wrong, by stating that your interpretation of the Catholic position regarding the power of the keys is not in fact Catholic. Look at what I posted again, to understand that that is the underlying reason why I’m arguing with you.

All you’ve done thus far, aside from basically attacking the messenger, is to change what it means to be Catholic, claiming that all of the apostles are rocks and that they all hold the power of the keys. That’s not a Catholic position. That’s an Orthodox position.

It is the Catholic position, i.e., the apostles are part of the foundation and they do share in the power of the keys, yet not in the same manner as Peter. This is because he was the sole person specifically entrusted with the keys, and literally called “rock” by Jesus. It is rock/Peter upon which, Christ said, the Church would be built, which as a Catholic means that Christ is conferring upon him a title/role of primacy within the Church that is a necessary component of Christ’s Church. He would be the chief steward of the kingdom set by Christ, the King.

There is nothing un-Catholic about this.

 

[Rohzek]

This is a web-forum, josie. Not a medieval or Late Antique conference. Credentials don’t matter here as long as people can cite the appropriate primary and secondary sources. I’ve abided by that custom. You’re making a big to-do about nothing. I don’t question the credentials about those who write the things that you’ve cited, and no one else here questions much of the materials people put forward either.

And no, I don’t recall ever bringing up Greek.

As for me somehow being fringe, when did you ever establish that? Most medievalists whom I’ve spoken to generally feel that the Catholic conception of the papacy is a Carolingian outgrowth, more of a historical accident more than anything.

As for Lumen Gentium, you’re wrong. Again, you seem to think that the power of the keys is shared through the pope to all. But again, read further in the CE article you cite:

(3) Hence there were not wanting theologians who narrowly restricted the scope of the gift, and asserted that it denoted the special prerogatives appertaining to St. Peter and his successors, and these alone. Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws. A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed.

This sentiment is once again highlighted in Lumen Gentium. The materials I presented quite clearly stated that the power of the keys were THE SAME as opening and closing, in addition to the all of the apostles receiving them. It contradicts the Catholic understanding on two major points. Catholic dogma states that the opening and closing, and the keys are separate things.

 

[Abu]

Papal Infallibility
Misconceptions?
catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html
Infallibility belongs to the Pope in a special way since Christ gave him primacy (Mt. 16:17-10 “you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it.”) **Only Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (see Isaiah 22) and only Peter is declared the rock (see Jn 1:42 where the Aramaic term Cephas or rock is given to him by Jesus). **This primacy is seen in John 21: 15-17, where Jesus instructs Peter as chief shepherd of the flock, his Church, to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep.”

Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

**CCC
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
**
936 **The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. **The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is “head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth” (CIC, can. 331).

Peter’s Authority
More Solid Than a Rock
By: Fr. Dwight Longenecker
catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority
First of all, the image of the rock is, by its very nature, a timeless and everlasting image. That’s why the image of the rock was chosen. That’s how rocks are. They’re there to stay. Then in Matthew 16 Jesus himself says that the steward’s ministry will have an eternal dimension. He holds the keys to the Kingdom of God and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Finally, the image of the shepherd, as we have seen, is an eternal one because God himself is the ultimate Good Shepherd. If the rock, the steward, and the shepherd are eternal ministries, then for it to last that long, the ministry must be successive. How could this eternal ministry have died out with Peter himself and still have been eternal? [My emphasis].

St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm
Just as the prime minister or chief steward (other terms include major domo, grand vizier, royal chamberlain, or palace administrator) had the “keys” and the other ministers did not, the Lord made Peter the prime minister in His visible Church, making him the visible head of the apostles over the Church, giving him the “keys of the kingdom” with a special and unique authority in Matthew 16:18-19. The office of prime minister was one of dynastic succession, and this is the language Jesus borrows from Isaiah 22:15ff.
**
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)**
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM
Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
2. **For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood **[46].
[My emphases].

Nowhere are the Keys given to others.*

 

[Rohzek]

Josie, this isn’t a medieval conference. I don’t have to present my credentials, although I have. I didn’t present my blog as a vetted secondary published source. And no one else read it that way. My About Page makes very clear how casual my blog is. They read it as a simple blog post that presented primary evidence in the Orthodox favor. You’re trying to treat it like a published scholarly book. This is a web forum on the internet. What we do here is cite primary and secondary sources, but we don’t ask other posters for their credentials. The fact that you’re asking for mine is laughable.

What does Meyendorff have to do with any of this? Does Meyendorff believe what I think about the Petrine Primacy? Why should I have to answer that question? You figure it out. Go read Meyendorff yourself. You’re looking for a way to say I am fringe. I’m not. My position is actually fairly similar to George E. Demacopoulos’, another Orthodox scholar and church historian. He recently published a very good and well-received book by the title: The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity.

And sir, I’m not relegated to the fringe. Go find yourself a secular medieval historian, who make up the vast majority of us, and you find that most concur that the modern Catholic understanding of the papacy has its roots in the Carolingian period. You’re making baseless accusations without backing them up. You haven’t presented any Orthodox scholar to show that they agree that Peter held supreme authority. Why? Because no Orthodox scholar says that. And let me make myself clear, my position is that Peter was made first in honor by Christ by virtue of being first. That’s the Orthodox position, which no Orthodox deviates from one iota.

And finally, my understanding of Catholic dogma is just fine and is solid. I was raised Catholic, left it, converted back, and then left again. And throughout all of that, I developed a very strong knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Yours, however, is completely at odds with Catholic teaching. It is Catholic dogma that Peter alone is the rock. It is Peter alone who holds the keys.

And I thought I did address your point regarding “Lumen Gentium”, by stating that Peter is indeed the “keybearer”, in that he is the only apostle/disciple who is specifically given the keys, however, the power of the keys are not exclusively his.

A keybearer is a key holder. They are synonymous terms. No one else has the keys. They are exclusively the papacy’s. “Exercising them [the keys] in due measure” is not the same as holding them. You seem to think that it is so. That’s not Catholic. Let’s look at Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum:

The Church is typified not only as an edifice but as a Kingdom, and every one knows that the keys constitute the usual sign of governing authority. Wherefore when Christ promised to give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he promised to give him power and authority over the Church…

Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran “that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear, not only from the testimony of Holy Writ, from the teaching of the Fathers and of the Roman Pontiffs, and from the decrees of the sacred canons, but from the teaching of the very Councils themselves.” Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter. Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html

The keys deal exclusively with the power of the office of the papacy. Your belief that others share in this authority dilutes the papacy according to Catholic tradition. You’re dancing around the patristic evidence that I’ve presented so you can still claim that they accord with Catholic teaching. In fact, they do not and to pretend otherwise is pure sophistry. And the later Scholastics were at least honest in saying that the Fathers got something wrong. You would do well to read Lumen Gentium, Satis Cognitum, and much of Abu’s excellent citation of proper Catholic dogma.

Nowhere are the Keys given to others.

While I do not agree with the Catholic position, I just want to thank you for being so clear as to what Catholic doctrine is. As a former Catholic, it is shocking to see how few Catholics understand this.

 

[Abu]

Confronting the Claim of Eastern Orthodoxy to be the True Church
January 1, 2012 by James Likoudis (Homiletic and Pastoral Review)
hprweb.com/2012/01/confronting-the-claim-of-eastern-orthodoxy-to-be-the-true-church/
Extract:
'For any Orthodox engaged in the search for truth, there is a fatal consequence to the denial of “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” He is not only left with no easily ascertained objective and visible mark by which the true Church can be easily identified, but the very visibility of the Church becomes obscured. It is her Catholic unity which distinguishes the Catholic Church from all other ecclesiastical bodies, for she uniquely possesses unity and Catholicity, as visible marks characterizing its presence throughout the world. Orthodox theologians’ inability to identify the Church-as-institution’s infallible teaching authority, external to the individual, puts the Church in grave danger of dissolving into a vague mysticism. The philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, acclaimed as the “Russian Newman,” has referred to his countrymen most opposed to reunion, as the “Anti-Catholic Orthodox”. In attempting to justify their rejection of Catholic doctrines, and adherence to the infallible Petrine office of the Bishop of Rome, they inevitably fall victim to all the vagaries of religious subjectivism and spiritual illuminism.

'It is not, however, the proper role of private judgment to determine the content of the doctrines of Christianity. It is rather to identify the true Church, which alone possesses the divine authority from Christ to be the teacher of truth (i.e., all the doctrines belonging to the deposit of faith). As noted, that true Church must at least claim to possess the attribute of infallibility. What should be stressed to any Catholic tempted to jump ship to Orthodoxy is that infallibility cannot possibly be the possession of an ecclesiastical body that has no identifiable visible, supreme authority acknowledged by its members as an infallible teacher of faith and morals. The patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow, nor any other grouping of Orthodox bishops, pretend to possess the charism of infallibility. How could anyone be certain that in adhering to their ecclesiastical communion, one has embraced the fullness of orthodoxy?

'Those, therefore, tempted to defect from Catholic unity must be encouraged to reflect on the truth that the oneness of the Church must be manifested in the hierarchical structure of the episcopate itself. This logically demands of those who would be truly Orthodox the acceptance of the Petrine Primacy of the Pope, which makes concrete the headship of Christ, and his supreme authority in the Church. If Christ be in truth, and not merely verbally, the head of the Church, his headship of the visible Church Militant, cannot be a purely spiritual and invisible affair. The seekers of the true Church must be brought to see the impossibility of the visible body of the Church being without a supreme visible head, and that a visible body without a visible head simply has no meaning.

‘As the Australian Orthodox Archbishop Stylianos Harkianakis wrote:” “The infallibility of the Church undoubtedly constitutes the most central article of faith in the Christian Church, the ‘articulus standis et cadentisEcclesiae’ ”. It is too bad under Protestant influence that many Orthodox no longer believe in the Infallibility of the apostolic episcopate. Those Orthodox who still do cannot defend the Infallibility of the Teaching Church that has severed its visible bond with the Rock of the Episcopate, the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, head and chief of the Apostles. Concerning the Infallibility of the Church (as in other matters), we see that todays Eastern Orthodox no longer possess Unity of faith and doctrine.’

The reality is that James Likoudis is a convert from Greek Orthodoxy and his home page is at:
credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm
and his Reply to a Lapsed Catholic, now Eastern Orthodox, is at:
credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm

 

[SyroMalankara]

Abu,

James Likoudis overstates the case, and does not reflect reality. EO are united in faith/doctrine within their Communion; OO are united in their Communion; Catholicism is united in their Communion. I don’t believe he presents the EO position accurately.

 

[josie_L]

Papal Infallibility
Misconceptions?
catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html
I
nfallibility belongs to the Pope in a special way since Christ gave him primacy (Mt. 16:17-10 “you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it.”) Only Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (see Isaiah 22) and only Peter is declared the rock (see Jn 1:42 where the Aramaic term Cephas or rock is given to him by Jesus). This primacy is seen in John 21: 15-17, where Jesus instructs Peter as chief shepherd of the flock, his Church,
to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep.”

St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm
Just as the prime minister or chief steward (other terms include major domo, grand vizier, royal chamberlain, or palace administrator) had the “keys” and the other ministers did not, the Lord made Peter the prime minister in His visible Church, making him the visible head of the apostles over the Church, giving him the “keys of the kingdom” with a special and unique authority in Matthew 16:18-19. The office of prime minister was one of dynastic succession, and this is the language Jesus borrows from Isaiah 22:15ff.
**
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)**
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
2. **For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood **[46].
[My emphases].

Nowhere are the Keys given to others.

And I agree with everything you said here, but the power of the keys are not exclusively Peter’s, i.e., he is the “key bearer”, the one specifically entrusted with the keys by Jesus, and as such, from Christ through Peter does the Church receive the power of the keys:

II. THE POWER OF THE KEYS

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations."526 The apostles and their successors carry out this “ministry of reconciliation,” not only by announcing to men God’s forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:527

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit’s action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.528

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a10.htm

Power of the Keys

By the Scholastic theologians the precise significance of the term was closely analysed.

(1) The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees.

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

 

[josie_L]

Josie, this isn’t a medieval conference. I don’t have to present my credentials, although I have. I didn’t present my blog as a vetted secondary published source. And no one else read it that way. My About Page makes very clear how casual my blog is. They read it as a simple blog post that presented primary evidence in the Orthodox favor. You’re trying to treat it like a published scholarly book. This is a web forum on the internet. What we do here is cite primary and secondary sources, but we don’t ask other posters for their credentials. The fact that you’re asking for mine is laughable.

I only asked for your credentials because you seem to think highly of your interpretation of the ECFs.

What does Meyendorff have to do with any of this? Does Meyendorff believe what I think about the Petrine Primacy? Why should I have to answer that question? You figure it out. Go read Meyendorff yourself.

Well, that would mean that I would have to buy his book, since I could not find anything from Meyendorff that will not be connected to a second source/apologetics site.

You’re looking for a way to say I am fringe. I’m not.

No, I did not mean that you are on the fringe, but I do think that your article you linked us to is erroneous and somewhat polemical.

And sir, I’m not relegated to the fringe.

And I’m a female.

Go find yourself a secular medieval historian, who make up the vast majority of us, and you find that most concur that the modern Catholic understanding of the papacy has its roots in the Carolingian period. You’re making baseless accusations without backing them up. You haven’t presented any Orthodox scholar to show that they agree that Peter held supreme authority. Why? Because no Orthodox scholar says that. And let me make myself clear, my position is that Peter was made first in honor by Christ by virtue of being first. That’s the Orthodox position, which no Orthodox deviates from one iota.

Wow, you’re assuming a lot of things from what little I said, i.e., I never ever stated that there are Orthodox scholars who agree that Peter held supreme authority, otherwise they would be Catholic. And, yes, I am aware that the Orthodox position is that Peter’s primacy is one of honour, which is why I stressed in other posts that his was not just a position of honour.

I want to ask you, do you believe that the “rock” in Matthew 16:18-22 refers to both Peter personally as well as his confession of faith??

And finally, my understanding of Catholic dogma is just fine and is solid. I was raised Catholic, left it, converted back, and then left again. And throughout all of that, I developed a very strong knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Yours, however, is completely at odds with Catholic teaching. It is Catholic dogma that Peter alone is the rock. It is Peter alone who holds the keys.

Yes, he is the only one who is called “rock” and specifically told by Jesus that upon this rock will his Church be built. Can you name another apostle who was specifically called rock and/or told this??? And look at what the catechism states:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation /B] and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Do you see that last sentence, wherein it states that the other apostles are part of the Church’s very foundation?

And furthermore, he was the only one who was specifically entrusted with the keys, but that does not mean that the power of the keys are exclusively his, even though he is the “key bearer”:

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations."526 The apostles and their successors carry out this “ministry of reconciliation,” not only by announcing to men God’s forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:527

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit’s action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.528

From Christ through Peter to the Church.

The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees

.

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

Divinely instituted hierarchy refers to the other bishops.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Josie, this isn’t a medieval conference. I don’t have to present my credentials, although I have. I didn’t present my blog as a vetted secondary published source. And no one else read it that way. My About Page makes very clear how casual my blog is. They read it as a simple blog post that presented primary evidence in the Orthodox favor. You’re trying to treat it like a published scholarly book. This is a web forum on the internet. What we do here is cite primary and secondary sources, but we don’t ask other posters for their credentials. The fact that you’re asking for mine is laughable.

What does Meyendorff have to do with any of this? Does Meyendorff believe what I think about the Petrine Primacy? Why should I have to answer that question? You figure it out. Go read Meyendorff yourself. You’re looking for a way to say I am fringe. I’m not. My position is actually fairly similar to George E. Demacopoulos’, another Orthodox scholar and church historian. He recently published a very good and well-received book by the title: The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity.

And sir, I’m not relegated to the fringe. Go find yourself a secular medieval historian, who make up the vast majority of us, and you find that most concur that the modern Catholic understanding of the papacy has its roots in the Carolingian period. You’re making baseless accusations without backing them up. You haven’t presented any Orthodox scholar to show that they agree that Peter held supreme authority. Why? Because no Orthodox scholar says that. And let me make myself clear, my position is that Peter was made first in honor by Christ by virtue of being first. That’s the Orthodox position, which no Orthodox deviates from one iota.

And finally, my understanding of Catholic dogma is just fine and is solid. I was raised Catholic, left it, converted back, and then left again. And throughout all of that, I developed a very strong knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Yours, however, is completely at odds with Catholic teaching. It is Catholic dogma that Peter alone is the rock. It is Peter alone who holds the keys.

A keybearer is a key holder. They are synonymous terms. No one else has the keys. They are exclusively the papacy’s. “Exercising them [the keys] in due measure” is not the same as holding them. You seem to think that it is so. That’s not Catholic. Let’s look at Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum:

The keys deal exclusively with the power of the office of the papacy. Your belief that others share in this authority dilutes the papacy according to Catholic tradition. You’re dancing around the patristic evidence that I’ve presented so you can still claim that they accord with Catholic teaching. In fact, they do not and to pretend otherwise is pure sophistry. And the later Scholastics were at least honest in saying that the Fathers got something wrong. You would do well to read Lumen Gentium, Satis Cognitum, and much of Abu’s excellent citation of proper Catholic dogma.

While I do not agree with the Catholic position, I just want to thank you for being so clear as to what Catholic doctrine is. As a former Catholic, it is shocking to see how few Catholics understand this.

There was a historical evolution within the western church from the notion of an Apostolic Tradition which bound the bishops of the Church, even the Bishop of Rome, to an idea of the Bishops, and especially the Bishop of Rome, having an independent authority to make doctrinal decisions. A great book on this subject, if you have not already read it, is Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, 300-1014 AD.

 

[josie_L]

A keybearer is a key holder. They are synonymous terms. No one else has the keys. They are exclusively the papacy’s. “Exercising them [the keys] in due measure” is not the same as holding them. You seem to think that it is so. That’s not Catholic. Let’s look at Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum:

I have reiterated over and over again that Peter was specifically entrusted with the keys, but the power of the keys are not exclusively his, what part of that did you not understand???

Moreover, what other apostle apart from Peter is called “rock”? None. And where else do you see in Scripture that another apostle would SPECIFICALLY be the “rock” upon which the Church would be built? No where. Therefore, the Church is right in stating that Peter alone was called “rock” and told that upon this “rock” Christ’s Church would be built.

Having stated this does not mean however that the other apostles are not part of the foundation of the Church:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Peter is the rock upon which the Church would be built but that does not ipso facto mean that the other apostles are not PART OF THAT FOUNDATION.

Peter is the keybearer, but that does not mean ipso facto that the power of the keys are his alone. The Church received the power of the keys through Peter from Christ.

The keys deal exclusively with the power of the office of the papacy. Your belief that others share in this authority dilutes the papacy according to Catholic tradition. You’re dancing around the patristic evidence that I’ve presented so you can still claim that they accord with Catholic teaching. In fact, they do not and to pretend otherwise is pure sophistry. And the later Scholastics were at least honest in saying that the Fathers got something wrong. You would do well to read Lumen Gentium, Satis Cognitum, and much of Abu’s excellent citation of proper Catholic dogma.

There is nothing that ABU cited that I disagree with it, it is your misinterpretation of those quotes and others that I take umbrage with, i.e., you are not presenting the Catholic position fairly. Moreover, nothing that I said would undermine the pope’s primacy/supremacy, in fact, how I view it is exactly how it was summed up in the New Advent quote I posted earlier:

Power of the Keys

The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees.

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

While I do not agree with the Catholic position

Because you have an erroneous understanding of what that is.

 

[Rohzek]

From Christ through Peter to the Church.

Cool story josie, except for the fact that the Fathers I quoted clearly state that the other apostles have the keys given directly to them by Christ. They don’t state your position: that Christ gave the keys only to Peter and then the others have the keys through Peter. The Patristic position is that they all have the keys directly from Christ. Checkmate. Game over.

And yes, I do take my own opinions seriously. I would hope everyone does, because if they can’t take themselves seriously, then why should anyone else take them seriously? This shouldn’t have anything to do with credentials.

Do you see that last sentence, wherein it states that the other apostles are part of the Church’s very foundation?

Being part of the foundation and being THE ROCK are two very different things in Catholic dogma.

Divinely instituted hierarchy refers to the other bishops.

Exactly, which doesn’t include the keys. The other apostolic authorities are different in nature from the pope’s, according to Catholic dogma. Sure, they both have authority, but it is different.

As for the rest of your rebuttals, it is a waste of my time. You didn’t really say much of anything new. And you keep asking me questions I’ve already answered. The keys are peculiar to the papal office, and that office isn’t share by anyone.

There was a historical evolution within the western church from the notion of an Apostolic Tradition which bound the bishops of the Church, even the Bishop of Rome, to an idea of the Bishops, and especially the Bishop of Rome, having an independent authority to make doctrinal decisions. A great book on this subject, if you have not already read it, is Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, 300-1014 AD.

Thanks. I’ll look into it.

The reality is that James Likoudis is a convert from Greek Orthodoxy and his home page is at:
credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm
and his Reply to a Lapsed Catholic, now Eastern Orthodox, is at:
credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm

I will be sure to read these.

 

[Abu]

Scott Hahn on the Papacy
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
Extract:
Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In **Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king’s cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.
**
Now you might say, “Well, this is just Peter.” No, the keys symbolize succession, an office which is left vacant must be filled. This is something that the Church understood. This is something that was well-known to the early Church. I hardly have time to get into this, but I have all these note cards about the early Church, after the death of the last Apostles, recognizing that the Bishop of Rome had Peter’s authority and that was final and absolute. [My emphases].