Actually, what you have stated about the power to bind and to loose in incorrect. In Matthew 16:19, the power to bind and loose appears to be given solely to Peter, however in Matthew 18:18, the power is given to all the Apostles.
Shame on me for forgetting. Peter you are the rock I build my church upon. That sure tells me who is top authority on earth.
The rock is St Peter’s confession of faith.
That would be Christ.
I have engaged in many debates regarding this topic and I think it comes down to one important question: does it make sense that a bishop would be needed for the locus of orthodoxy and ecclesial unity for a particular Church, while at the same time, no unique bishop being necessary for the locus of orthodoxy and ecclesial unity for the universal Church?
The higher authority of the three sees (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) and their order was affirmed at that council of Nicaea on the basis of the shared tradition. It wasn’t as if (prior to the council) the Church at Rome just took the first place, and the Church at Alexandria took the second place, and the Church at Antioch took the third place. The order was recognized by the council on the basis of the origin of the Sees, which was why the council declared, “Let the ancient custom be maintained …”
Does anyone think there is an important distinction to be made between the “worldwide church” which is the entire body of christ currently present on earth and the “universal Church” which is the eschatological body of christ consisting of all the faithful in the past, present and future times?
Every bishop is a successor of St. Peter just as every Deacon is a successor of St. Stephen.
When I think of the universal church I think of the Catholic Church; that’s how the ECFs viewed it. When I think of the “worldwide Church” (autonomous churches to be more accurate) I think of all of the Protestant Churches for lack of a better term, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic church.
While I see where you’re coming from, Joe, I think where you might run into problems if you present this to Orthodox people in particular is that our conception of the Church (at least in the Coptic Orthodox Church; I can’t speak for the EO) is not amenable to such a characterization as you have provided. It’s not that we don’t see a difference between particular parishes and some sort of higher conceptual “all Orthodox churches in the world, taken together” idea (e.g., we pray in the liturgy of St. Basil for the protection of “every place and every monastery of our Orthodox fathers”, which would logically include churches), but rather that wherever the local Orthodox Church is located, that is the Church in that particular city or town. It’s not really just some tiny particle of the Church that revolves around a nucleus located in Rome, or Alexandria, or wherever else. It is the Church in a particular geographic and ecclesiastical territory that has been placed under the care of its bishop, in communion with all the other churches of its diocese, jurisdiction, communion, etc. that is the body of Christ, the Church.
Indeed, because there is no compromise on truth. We don’t really expect there to be anything to compromise on regarding issues on which the only alternative to proclaiming the truth as we have received it from our fathers is to proclaim something else received from someone else. I hope this isn’t scandalous to read, as I assume a committed Roman Catholic would say essentially the same to us (I’d be worried if they didn’t, honestly).
I don’t think this is true, at least not entirely (we don’t disagree with the need for authority, only the form that RCs insist it take). In many, many cases we have plenty of existent writings from the Fathers and various canons from the Councils that give us a very reliable and authoritative source on what the early Church believed. It’s not really an academic exercise to look up what a particular synod had to say about jurisdiction or to note the response of the Eastern bishops to Roman overreaching. That’s just knowing your own history.
You read the Fathers, the Canons, Church histories, etc. Immerse yourself in old writings (like, wayyyy pre-schism…how far back you should go depends on what issue you’re wanting to know about), and you’ll find what was (and wasn’t) on the mind of the early Church.
Ah, so we’re back to sola scriptura. What Cavaradossi is adverting to is the Tradition of the early Church.
Not according to the Catechism. Did you read the quotes that I included in my previous post? The Pope is Vicar of Christ throughout the Church Universal, but each bishop is a vicar of Christ in his own particular church (diocese). This is the clear teaching of the Magisterium.
What Tradition exactly? Is this the one where Unity/Communion isn’t needed?
Is this the Unity/Communion not needed or sought after we speak of?
Are not all bishops successors to the Apostles…including St Peter?
Not the point, the point is “though not by you”, that Unity/Communion isn’t of issue. I used your quote to emphasis my point.
The thread is about submission to the Pope. The Orthodox Church is united by their common Orthodox faith. We have Patriarchs, bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, and laypersons.
Clearly, the misguided idea that Unity/Communion of the One Church isn’t of issue. I find that a rather disturbing concept in light of Scripture, the Councils, and the Early Church Fathers/Saints.
I think I know.
In other words, the Body of Christ, (which includes all of the autocephalous Eastern or Orthodox churches) is not amenable to such a characterization but nonetheless, all of said autocephalous communities are in fact being protected and ineffably guided by God. However one thing occurred to me: Neither of us would ever claim to view any particular ECF in isolation, just as we would never view any particular author of scripture in isolation, and yet, this is kind of what we see in terms of the autocephalous communities, in a way, sort of analogous to a few cells being examined in isolation from the organism of which they are members. That’s just my take on it…