Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[joe370]

Shaky, I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind giving me one example of the church, either east or west, illustrating that the keys were in fact given to another apostle other than Peter, as I have done below, regarding Peter, regarding Eastern Patriarchs?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of the Eastern part of the Church in AD 363:

“For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven.” (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures AD 350).

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (AD 387)

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles…Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one **set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church…who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.
**
Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645):

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826); Writing to Pope Leo III:

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

 

[AveChriste11]

If you really put some thought to this it would be easy to imagine that even God the Father was on the Cross with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Don’t you believe the Father suffered watching His Son suffer on the cross. That’s why we talk about Mary’s, the Blessed Mother’s, Passion. She suffered watching her son suffer. I know it would be excruciating to watch my child suffer. I wouldn’t be loving like the father towards those that made my child suffer. I’d probably take the law into my own hands. Mary was very special in that way. Gotta love our Mother.

Even that description too borders on modalism, or that big word patripassionism (spelling?). The idea that it was really the Father who suffered on the Cross and not Jesus because they were the same person…

 

[JackQ]

Don’t we already tolerate and love each other? I don’t see why anyone should have to be under Rome in order to love Catholics. or in the Eastern Orthodox communion to love the EO.

That’s true from the standpoint of where we are right now. But if you actually effectuate a schism, it’s hard to see that you’re loving the brethren in the manner called for by Jesus.

 

[JackQ]

While I do not agree 100% with what Shaky said, I also think you too easily dismiss the necessity of history in knowing what the Church taught in the past, and how that should affect it understands itself now.

That would put an illiterate person in a tight spot wouldn’t it? He wouldn’t be able to read all of that history, weigh what sometimes seems to be contradictory information, and reach a conclusion about the Church’s positions in the past. Moreover, he wouldn’t be in a position to evaluate gaps in the history. Such a person would need a Magisterium to sort it all out for him, and a real simple test to determine if someone was speaking with authority such as whether the speaker was in communion with the Petrine See.

If one’s religion requires an education then something is wrong. My reliance on my Church doesn’t come from my study of history–I’m not even an historian! Rather, I rely on the Magisterium to put Scripture and Tradition together for me, because I know that Christ promised us that the Spirit would always be with the Church to guide and teach us.

 

[Nine_Two]

That would put an illiterate person in a tight spot wouldn’t it? He wouldn’t be able to read all of that history, weigh what sometimes seems to be contradictory information, and reach a conclusion about the Church’s positions in the past. Moreover, he wouldn’t be in a position to evaluate gaps in the history. Such a person would need a Magisterium to sort it all out for him, and a real simple test to determine if someone was speaking with authority such as whether the speaker was in communion with the Petrine See.

If one’s religion requires an education then something is wrong. My reliance on my Church doesn’t come from my study of history–I’m not even an historian! Rather, I rely on the Magisterium to put Scripture and Tradition together for me, because I know that Christ promised us that the Spirit would always be with the Church to guide and teach us.

You assume history is unique to a literate society.

 

[JackQ]

You assume history is unique to a literate society.

That’s the kind of history I was addressing, the kind that would be recognized as such in modern academia. The history you’re talking about is tradition, which is one of the three prongs of Catholic doctrine (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium).

 

[MusicforMovies]

Yes, I do support - and pray - for a reunification, but that is going to be in the Lord’s timing.

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s the kind of history I was addressing, the kind that would be recognized as such in modern academia. The history you’re talking about is tradition, which is one of the three prongs of Catholic doctrine (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium).

Tradition is not simply oral history.

The first ever written history was itself a collection of oral histories.

 

[JackQ]

Tradition is not simply oral history.

The first ever written history was itself a collection of oral histories.

That’s fine. There really isn’t an argument on this point between you and me best as I can tell. I was answering what someone else posted, and was talking about history as academically understood.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Even that description too borders on modalism, or that big word patripassionism (spelling?). The idea that it was really the Father who suffered on the Cross and not Jesus because they were the same person…

Friend, you need to take a break. Your putting words in peoples mouths without reason. I’m not saying that the FAther was on the Cross, I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit or the Blessed mother was on the cross. I’m saying that it is logical to subscribe that though they were not physically on the cross they were either spiritually or emotionally or theologically on the cross, suffering by watching Jesus suffer.

GO fishing or something. This is the second time I believe you twisted somebody else words. To skin of my back, just suggesting you lighten up just a bit and not put a slant on other people’s words. We’re not writing a dissertation, just chatting about concepts. We’re not stating things as doctrine, and if you are then you should stop.

 

[shaky]

I see what you mean. But we wouldn’t be asking the Orthodox to do anything that we’re not demanding of ourselves: to tolerate each other, indeed, to strive to love each other, in spite of our differences. That’s the uniqueness of Catholicism. When people in other Churches can’t abide one another anymore, they simply split off from one another and form separate churches. But since Catholics have to be in communion with the Pope, we can’t do that. So we have to learn to put up with each other, which is exactly how God wants it.

From my personal point of view i love all people. Its horrible when there are Christians divided over theological Issues. Sometimes i think why can’t we all Chiristians be in communion with each other including the protestants regardless of your theology.

What gets me i can invite a Jehovah witness into my house. They seem very nice people but once you cant agree with what they teach they turn on you like wolves. Although you are a christian that Just See’s things different to them.

 

[shaky]

If you really put some thought to this it would be easy to imagine that even God the Father was on the Cross with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Don’t you believe the Father suffered watching His Son suffer on the cross. That’s why we talk about Mary’s, the Blessed Mother’s, Passion. She suffered watching her son suffer. I know it would be excruciating to watch my child suffer. I wouldn’t be loving like the father towards those that made my child suffer. I’d probably take the law into my own hands. Mary was very special in that way. Gotta love our Mother.

Apparently the Person God the father was not with the Person God the Son on the Cross.
It was the Person God the holy spirit that was with the Person God the Son on the Cross.

God the Father Never prays. God the Son Prays and God the holy spirit Prays

 

[shaky]

Shaky, I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind giving me one example of the church, either east or west, illustrating that the keys were in fact given to another apostle other than Peter, as I have done below, regarding Peter, regarding Eastern Patriarchs?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of the Eastern part of the Church in AD 363:

“For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven.” (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures AD 350).

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (AD 387)

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles…Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one **set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church…who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.
**
Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645):

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826); Writing to Pope Leo III:

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

From how i understand things the Kingdom of heaven is within us. I would have thought Jesus had to Entrust One of the Apostles with the keys. It could have been Any one of the Apostles but still he had to choose One which was Peter. I would have thought it was Peters role was to hand out these keys to the other Apostles to set up churches elsewhere.

So why would it be Keys and not Just One Key to the kingdom of Heaven?
Was Peter to keep all the Keys to himself?
How did the other Apostles go out to other cities to set up churches without keys themselves?
The Kingdom of heaven is in the body of believers=Church. How was bishops Appointed to be head of a church without keys?
When Peter was told by Jesus to Feed my sheep. Did this mean that Peter would at Times receive Divine Revelation apart from the rest of the Apostles and the Other Apostles are Just the sheep while Peter was the Shepard over them?

Also why is it today that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs Act is if they hold keys to the Kingdom of heaven?

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s fine. There really isn’t an argument on this point between you and me best as I can tell. I was answering what someone else posted, and was talking about history as academically understood.

The original post was Formosus saying he thought people should understand the history of what the church has taught. At no point did he mention they should necessarily have to pour through books to get that history. Academia was not brought up.

 

[shaky]

That would put an illiterate person in a tight spot wouldn’t it? He wouldn’t be able to read all of that history, weigh what sometimes seems to be contradictory information, and reach a conclusion about the Church’s positions in the past. Moreover, he wouldn’t be in a position to evaluate gaps in the history. Such a person would need a Magisterium to sort it all out for him, and a real simple test to determine if someone was speaking with authority such as whether the speaker was in communion with the Petrine See.

If one’s religion requires an education then something is wrong. My reliance on my Church doesn’t come from my study of history–I’m not even an historian! Rather, I rely on the Magisterium to put Scripture and Tradition together for me, because I know that Christ promised us that the Spirit would always be with the Church to guide and teach us.

What tradition is that earler tradition or later tradition. There are some teachings in the Roman church that came later on in history. The Apostle themselves did not know of such teachings.
That is exactly the same Attitude as the Jehovah witnesses. They don’t need to study to find the truth themselves. They rely totally on the watchtower society which is guided by the holy spirit for the Truth.
Jehovah witness tradition goes back to 250AD with Arius

 

[JackQ]

The original post was Formosus saying he thought people should understand the history of what the church has taught. At no point did he mention they should necessarily have to pour through books to get that history. Academia was not brought up.

Honestly, I don’t understand what the debate is here.

 

[JackQ]

What tradition is that earler tradition or later tradition. There are some teachings in the Roman church that came later on in history. The Apostle themselves did not know of such teachings.
That is exactly the same Attitude as the Jehovah witnesses. They don’t need to study to find the truth themselves. They rely totally on the watchtower society which is guided by the holy spirit for the Truth.
Jehovah witness tradition goes back to 250AD with Arius

I’m not saying that study is a bad thing, necessarily, although not enough study clearly has some unfortunate results if that is all one is relying on. It’s impossible for us to be perfect in our studies or our understanding of what we are studying. In the last analysis we have to rely on what the Holy Spirit is teaching through the Church. This is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, not the Jehovah’s Witnesses who didn’t come along until much much later. We acknowledge this authority in the Church that was founded by Christ on the rock who is Peter. That’s very simple, and, ultimately, I suppose, even though the Church certainly uses scholarship, Catholicism is not a religion primarily for scholars. As Jesus said, “I confess to you, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father: for so has it seemed good in your sight.” The simple, who are attuned to God’s voice, can see the truth spoken though the Church much easier than can the intellects and scholars. These latter individuals have a much harder time with it.

I don’t know what teachings your referring to, but the Roman Church did not simply make up new things to teach, but has preserved the faith of the Apostles from the beginning because it is the See of Peter with whom all must agree. We don’t know this because we are all historians, but because we have faith in the one who founded his Church. History is involved in coming to know these things, to be sure. But we don’t rely just on history. Historians will tell you that the Resurrection cannot be deemed an historical event. Some historians will tell you that there was no normative Christianity, i.e., no Orthodoxy prior to Constantine; that prior to that time Gnostic Christianity had as good a claim to be the normative Christianity as anything else.

There’s nothing wrong with history, or physics, or philosophy, or mathematics, or literature, as long as their limitations are understood. But we don’t rely on them solely for the foundation of our religion. Instead we rely on the same gospel that was preached by St. Paul, whose “preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in showing of the Spirit and power: That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”

 

[joe370]

Hey Shaky…

From how i understand things the Kingdom of heaven is within us.

Shaky, I don’t see a scriptural or historical basis for embracing that notion, but I do of course, respect your particular take on the keys of the kingdom.

I would have thought Jesus had to Entrust One of the Apostles with the keys. It could have been Any one of the Apostles but still he had to choose One which was Peter. I would have thought it was Peters role was to hand out these keys to the other Apostles to set up churches elsewhere.

To me, it seems that the other eleven apostles wouldn’t need a set of metaphorical keys to carry out their mission; their apostolate was entrusted to them directly by Jesus Christ, and they of course would have entrusted their apostolate to their successors etc. etc… just as Peter did. In my humble opinion, there seems to be a direct correlation between Simon, renamed Rock on which Jesus’ church is built, (and continues to be built) - and the keys of Jesus’ Kingdom, given to Rock alone. Jesus tells Peter that He is going to build His church, the House of the Living God, on him and him alone, and then hands Peter alone the keys to His House. The fact that Jesus’ universal church, comprised of all CC’s, (regardless of geographical location) - founded by the other apostles and their successors, as time marched forward, is in fact the church of Matthew 16, goes without saying, but the Petrine office was entrusted to Simon alone, as both scripture and church history readily testifies, unless of course I am wrong, which brings me right back to my original question on post #1?

So why would it be Keys and not Just One Key to the kingdom of Heaven? Was Peter to keep all the Keys to himself? How did the other Apostles go out to other cities to set up churches without keys themselves? The Kingdom of heaven is in the body of believers=Church. How was bishops Appointed to be head of a church without keys? When Peter was told by Jesus to Feed my sheep. Did this mean that Peter would at Times receive Divine Revelation apart from the rest of the Apostles and the Other Apostles are Just the sheep while Peter was the Shepard over them?

The keys are symbolic; they represent authority. Be it a key or the keys, seems to be a question of semantics only, to me. In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after - “On this rock”) - Jesus gives Peter, (the chief shepherd, who, in several places in scripture, speaks for all of the Apostles) - the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose (the latter also given to the others) - From scripture we can see that this is case of typology, a fav. topic of Paul, and the type being referenced here seems to be the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22. Like then, the keys to the kingdom were a symbolic representation of the authority to make pronouncements and judgments in the King’s name (the authority to “bind and loose”). The fact that the same phrase is used in both passages of Scripture (old and new testament) - makes the comparison clear. Peter is being appointed, by King Jesus, from the cabinet of royal ministers (the 12 apostles) - as the prime minister of the new covenantal Kingdom – an office which has the authority to speak for the King, as was the case in Hezekiah’s day, and was the case King Jesus’ day. In Hezekiah’s day the prime minister Shebna and eventually Eliakim, were chosen from among the cabinet of royal ministers; once Shebna’s office was vacant, Eliakim stepped in, as is the case with the Petrine office. Of course the Petrine office of the prime minister of the kingdom does not give him authority to dictate to Heaven; that authority itself remains with God, but it is exercised on earth through said office, and it is said office, due to the fact that even the gates of hell (the power of Satan) - can never negatively influence it, that is protected, by God, from doctrinal error which is why it is said that the person occupying the Petrine office can speak infallibility. Of course, that infallibility has nothing to do with the fallible person occupying the Petrine office, but has everything to do with God’s divine protection! If the Petrine office was in fact entrusted to all of the apostles and not just Peter, then surely history would have something to say about that fact, which again, brings me right back to post #1?

Also why is it today that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs Act is if they hold keys to the Kingdom of heaven?

Good question!!! Another question that brings us all right back to post #1???

 

[shaky]

Hey Shaky…

Shaky, I don’t see a scriptural or historical basis for embracing that notion, but I do of course, respect your particular take on the keys of the kingdom.

To me, it seems that the other eleven apostles wouldn’t need a set of metaphorical keys to carry out their mission; their apostolate was entrusted to them directly by Jesus Christ, and they of course would have entrusted their apostolate to their successors etc. etc… just as Peter did. In my humble opinion, there seems to be a direct correlation between Simon, renamed Rock on which Jesus’ church is built, (and continues to be built) - and the keys of Jesus’ Kingdom, given to Rock alone. Jesus tells Peter that He is going to build His church, the House of the Living God, on him and him alone, and then hands Peter alone the keys to His House. The fact that Jesus’ universal church, comprised of all CC’s, (regardless of geographical location) - founded by the other apostles and their successors, as time marched forward, is in fact the church of Matthew 16, goes without saying, but the Petrine office was entrusted to Simon alone, as both scripture and church history readily testifies, unless of course I am wrong, which brings me right back to my original question on post #1?

The keys are symbolic; they represent authority. Be it a key or the keys, seems to be a question of semantics only, to me. In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after - “On this rock”) - Jesus gives Peter, (the chief shepherd, who, in several places in scripture, speaks for all of the Apostles) - the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose (the latter also given to the others) - From scripture we can see that this is case of typology, a fav. topic of Paul, and the type being referenced here seems to be the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22. Like then, the keys to the kingdom were a symbolic representation of the authority to make pronouncements and judgments in the King’s name (the authority to “bind and loose”). The fact that the same phrase is used in both passages of Scripture (old and new testament) - makes the comparison clear. Peter is being appointed, by King Jesus, from the cabinet of royal ministers (the 12 apostles) - as the prime minister of the new covenantal Kingdom – an office which has the authority to speak for the King, as was the case in Hezekiah’s day, and was the case King Jesus’ day. In Hezekiah’s day the prime minister Shebna and eventually Eliakim, were chosen from among the cabinet of royal ministers; once Shebna’s office was vacant, Eliakim stepped in, as is the case with the Petrine office. Of course the Petrine office of the prime minister of the kingdom does not give him authority to dictate to Heaven; that authority itself remains with God, but it is exercised on earth through said office, and it is said office, due to the fact that even the gates of hell (the power of Satan) - can never negatively influence it, that is protected, by God, from doctrinal error which is why it is said that the person occupying the Petrine office can speak infallibility. Of course, that infallibility has nothing to do with the fallible person occupying the Petrine office, but has everything to do with God’s divine protection! If the Petrine office was in fact entrusted to all of the apostles and not just Peter, then surely history would have something to say about that fact, which again, brings me right back to post #1?

Good question!!! Another question that brings us all right back to post #1???

Hi Joe. Thanks for your explanation it has left me with quite a bit to pray about study and meditate on.

Luke 17:20-21 Jesus says the kingdom of God is within us. I am taking it as the kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven means the same thing.

The question as to the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs Act as if they hold keys to the kingdom of heaven needs to be explored. So i will put this Question to Orthodox Christians on their web sites and see what Answers they Give.

 

[shaky]

I’m not saying that study is a bad thing, necessarily, although not enough study clearly has some unfortunate results if that is all one is relying on. It’s impossible for us to be perfect in our studies or our understanding of what we are studying. In the last analysis we have to rely on what the Holy Spirit is teaching through the Church. This is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, not the Jehovah’s Witnesses who didn’t come along until much much later. We acknowledge this authority in the Church that was founded by Christ on the rock who is Peter. That’s very simple, and, ultimately, I suppose, even though the Church certainly uses scholarship, Catholicism is not a religion primarily for scholars. As Jesus said, “I confess to you, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father: for so has it seemed good in your sight.” The simple, who are attuned to God’s voice, can see the truth spoken though the Church much easier than can the intellects and scholars. These latter individuals have a much harder time with it.

I don’t know what teachings your referring to, but the Roman Church did not simply make up new things to teach, but has preserved the faith of the Apostles from the beginning because it is the See of Peter with whom all must agree. We don’t know this because we are all historians, but because we have faith in the one who founded his Church. History is involved in coming to know these things, to be sure. But we don’t rely just on history. Historians will tell you that the Resurrection cannot be deemed an historical event. Some historians will tell you that there was no normative Christianity, i.e., no Orthodoxy prior to Constantine; that prior to that time Gnostic Christianity had as good a claim to be the normative Christianity as anything else.

There’s nothing wrong with history, or physics, or philosophy, or mathematics, or literature, as long as their limitations are understood. But we don’t rely on them solely for the foundation of our religion. Instead we rely on the same gospel that was preached by St. Paul, whose “preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in showing of the Spirit and power: That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”

Hi Jacko. I am certainly no type of scholar myself i have no scholarship. I certainly do not desire some type of new revelation of doctrine from God to set up a new church like protestants do.
I am Just a simple man looking for only the Truth in the Christian faith. If i had to rely on my brains to figure out the truth by study alone i will get nowhere.
All i can do is pray and ask God first to show me the Truth and trust that he will through the holy spirit.
Scripture is clear on this. You dont need anybody to teach you. God alone will teach you.
1 John 2:27

The only history that i look into is the history within the church.
The new teaching and traditions i was referring was the Immaculate conception of Mary. The Assumption of Mary. Purgatory etc. These are teachings that the early church nor the Apostles had.