Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seraphim73 said:
Not in English speaking countries. But in Russia and Eastern Europe and many traditionally Orthodox countries you would be.
Click to expand...
I’ll just take one example to disprove that

http://www.spc.rs/eng/vatican_meeting_catholicos_all_armenians_and_pope_francis note the distinction(s) being made between Catholic and Orthodox. There is no confusion here. And this is a Serbian Orthodox site. While ~98% of all Catholics in the world are “Latin / Roman” rite, the remaining “rites” (~2% of the total) in the Catholic Church are 100% Catholic. And IMV it’s an affront to the Eastern Rite Catholics, by always calling the Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church”. The pope is over the “Catholic Church” not just the “Roman” rite.
 
steve_b said:
I’ll just take one example to disprove that

http://www.spc.rs/eng/vatican_meeting_catholicos_all_armenians_and_pope_francis note the distinction(s) being made between Catholic and Orthodox. There is no confusion here. And this is an Orthodox site. While ~98% of all Catholics in the world are “Latin / Roman” rite, the remaining “rites” (~2% of the total) in the Catholic Church are 100% Catholic. And IMV it’s an affront to the Eastern Rite Catholics, by always calling the Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church”. The pope is over the “Catholic Church” not just the “Roman” rite.
Click to expand...
I said RUSSIA and MANY traditionally Orthodox countries.
 
Seraphim73 said:
I said RUSSIA and MANY traditionally Orthodox countries.
Click to expand...
You made the point, so I took one country in the East that I knew had a large Orthodox population. I posted what I found. Are you saying Serbian Orthodox aren’t “traditional” enough to be Orthodox? And Re: Russia, they didn’t convert till approx the turn of the 1st millenium. I’m not sure the point you’re making.
 
steve_b said:
You made the point, so I took one country in the East that I knew had a large Orthodox population. I posted what I found. Are you saying Serbian Orthodox aren’t “traditional” enough to be Orthodox? And Re: Russia, they didn’t convert till approx the turn of the 1st millenium. I’m not sure the point you’re making.
Click to expand...
I’m am not a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church so I can’t speak for them. I certainly have zero familiarity with the Armenian Church.

I mean you’re the one who brought the name up so whatever the point is you’ll have to say. The term “Orthodox Church” was not used as a normative term until very recently. The same as the term “Roman Catholic.”
 
Seraphim73 said:
I’m am not a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church so I can’t speak for them. I certainly have zero familiarity with the Armenian Church.
Click to expand...
You made the following point #871

So I gave you an Orthodox Church from a “non English” speaking nation, making the distinction between Orthodox Church and Catholic Church #874

Would you agree, I answered you using your parameter?
S:
I mean you’re the one who brought the name up so whatever the point is you’ll have to say. The term “Orthodox Church” was not used as a normative term until very recently. The same as the term “Roman Catholic.”
Click to expand...
Actually going back to this post #851 . My question that followed from that #852 seemed to me to fit the context, considering the topic of the thread.

“Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church”. Seems to me we 1st have to go back and prove which Church (in writing) was there from the beginning.
 
Seraphim73 said:
When is the 1st time in history, in writing, that we see Roman Catholic Church? 😉
Click to expand...
In my experience, most (I don’t want to make a false generalization of course) of your fellow Orthodox call us “the Catholic Church”.
 
Seraphim73 said:
I don’t think that is correct. It would be the Melkite Greek Catholic Church or the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
You are quite correct.

It’s rather confusing, of course, since there are some churches that share their name with a rite: for example, the Maronite Church uses the Maronite Rite. However, there is no such thing as “the Melkite Rite”. (The Melkite Church uses the Byzantine Rite. (And, as I observed not too long ago, the Melkite Church is not run by the Byzantine Rite.))
 
Peter_J said:
In my experience, most (I don’t want to make a false generalization of course) of your fellow Orthodox call us “the Catholic Church”.
Click to expand...
And most would call you “Eastern Catholic.” We all know what we consider ourselves to be. We should accept that and stop playing the name game. 🙂
 
prodromos said:
As I’ve mentioned before, in the context of “sheep”, the Greek word “poimaino” means “shepherd”.
Click to expand...
Veselin Kesich

“In the last scene of John’s gospel, we have an interchange between Jesus and Peter (Jn 21:15-17). This is a truly Petrine passage. Three times Jesus asks Peter, ‘Do you love Me?’; and three times Peter answers that he loves the Lord. After each response, the Risen Christ commissions Peter to feed (boskein) and tend (poimainein) his, I.e., Christ’s, flock. Clearly, after the resurrection, Peter is reestablished and give the role of shepherd. The verb poimainein conveys more than boskein. In a figurative sense, **poimainein points to the duties and responsibilities of church leaders – protecting, governing, leading, and caring for the people under their charge. **Boskein, on the other hand, points to the shepherd’s activities of feeding or tending.” (Veselin Kesich, “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition,” in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), 43.

Philo (20 BC? - AD 49?)

“Those who feed boskein] supply nourishment…but those who tend poimainein] have the powers of rulers or governors.” (*Quod deterius *VIII 25)

Boo. Yah.
 
John 21 : 10 -11 and 15 : Bring some of the fish you have just caught, Jesus said to them: 11 and Simon Peter, going on board, hauled in the net to land.

15 And when they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, dost thou care for me more than these others? Yes, Lord, he told him, thou knowest well that I love thee.

I think Jesus here upon seeing Peter’s “decision” to take it upon himself to get the Fish when Jesus asked “them”, knew this was the right question to ask to the right man for the job to catch more men for Jesus’ work when he goes to his Father. 😃

MJ
 
Randy_Carson said:
I like what he said here:
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

An illustration may help: Is the Province of Quebec a province of France united to the British Crown through Canada, or a Canadian province with special relations to France? Is the Melkite Church a hundred per cent Catholic with special relations with the Orthodox Churches or a hundred per cent Orthodox with special relations to Rome. Certainly, the first case is true:

The Melkite Church is a hundred per cent Catholic, but not a hundred per cent Orthodox.

Independence and sovereignty or dependence on another Church? Such a decision is difficult to make. However, the Melkite Church has chosen dependency as a price for unity, in order to comply with the will of our Lord who prayed repeatedly “that all may be one.” (John 17)
I wish others from the East would choose similarly for the same reason.
Click to expand...
I’ve quoted Bp John many times on these forums answering various questions. He’s solid, clear, and quick to the point.
 
prodromos said:
Its a red herring because we Orthodox never understood Peter to have supremacy as understood by the Latin church.
Click to expand...
That’s because your Orthodox view of Peter’s supremacy is new, when Peter’s supremacy predates your post Constantinople view by five hundred years of Church history.

The Latin Church or the Bishop of Rome existed when Peter and Paul lived, who practiced the Hebrew Tradition of Judge and key holder supremacy over the whole church.
 
Steve,
I do not ever remember being taught about Peter being made
the head of the Church. When I went to Catholic grammar school
they did not teach much about the Pope / Popes. At the time,
Pope Pius the twelvth was on board. As we now know, he has
become somewhat controversial due to his lack of standing up
for the persecuted Jews and Poles. At least, I THINK that is
what it is about.
I am of Italian descent and I can tell you that Mussolini and
his ways were horrible. Pius X11 had to know what was going
on. That is all I will say on the subject.
Now, as for Peter. He is always portrayed as the older of
the Apostles. The “Papa” if you will. I can understand why
Jesus would entrust him with the founding of the CHURCH.
BUT, was it the CATHOLIC CHURCH? If you wore a FISH
you were a CHRISTIAN. Now tell me when the ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH came into being?
I have given you enough to answer. Have a great weekend. A:)👍
 
Alex_Swol said:
Steve,
I do not ever remember being taught about Peter being made
the head of the Church. When I went to Catholic grammar school
they did not teach much about the Pope / Popes. At the time,
Pope Pius the twelvth was on board. As we now know, he has
become somewhat controversial due to his lack of standing up
for the persecuted Jews and Poles. At least, I THINK that is
what it is about.
I am of Italian descent and I can tell you that Mussolini and
his ways were horrible. Pius X11 had to know what was going
on. That is all I will say on the subject.
Now, as for Peter. He is always portrayed as the older of
the Apostles. The “Papa” if you will. I can understand why
Jesus would entrust him with the founding of the CHURCH.
BUT, was it the CATHOLIC CHURCH? If you wore a FISH
you were a CHRISTIAN. Now tell me when the ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH came into being?
I have given you enough to answer. Have a great weekend. A:)👍
Click to expand...
Perhaps instead of innuendo and half truths - then the cop out of saying "at least I think … "

Educate yourself … easy start - here’s an article: catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/controversies/pope-pius-xii-and-the-holocaust/

Better yet - a book … *Hitler, the War and the Pope *by Ronald Rychlak

barnesandnoble.com/w/hitler-the-war-and-the-pope-ronald-rychlak/1101338890?ean=9780879732172

I would even have you read John Cornwall’s book *Hitler’s Pope *… find it yourself though - I wont do Cornwall’s work for him … compare the scholarship between the two - I did … guess who I think paints a more accurate picture …
 
Please do not tell me that “I think” is a cop-out. Who are you?
I know all about the Holocaust and WW11 and Hitler. You are surmizing
things about me that I do not like. Enough.
When I have time, I may read the books you suggest. Any further
communication with you will be friendly and I will not accuse YOU of
anything if you do the same. Thank you.:(:confused:🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top