Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Peter the Rock

[jcrichton]

So you’d rather hear yourself talk then, than to engage me and perhaps convince me. I see…

Hi!
…let’s see… JWs go out into the world with prepared statements and writings… the only sources that they accept as true/factual are their own printer’s take on reality… reading a ton of sources from JWs will lead me at square “zero.”

When someone cites a source through a link they are suggesting that the material must be read/absorb so that engagement could take place (I’ve seen some quote their links to responses given to queries on previous dates–that’s not engagement).

I suggest you cite a compelling statement so that we can dissect (study) it… (ie: a poster stated that Peter was never referred to as the rock… once I found a statement that demonstrated differently, I offered it—I did the research; I studied the e-page; I presented the quotation (I knew that it would be rejected–yet, I allowed the person to accept or reject it).

When I speak/write about Faith I do so for my own benefit (we all must preach to the choir before we seek out an audience), and I do so for the benefit of the party I’m addressing (I hope to entice his/her heart and mind… to awaken something deep in his/her spirit), and I do so for the benefit of those around us (those who are listening to the exchange or who are reading through the threads).

I do not always succeed in bringing my point across.

I am sometimes misunderstood or misread or dismissed or rejected…

…but if you follow my posts, you will find that I will attempt to engage everyone–always seeking the Unity of the Body (yes, even when I may seem abrasive and combatant).

In Christ there’s only one “i”, which already Belongs to the I AM, so that “i” cannot translate to me (as in: me, me, me).

So I welcome the exchange–bearing in mind that I will not follow links for the sake of engaging others on the same plane of thought (as in building my understanding by conversion or hear/though) and I will not engage in circular arguments (through I do extend my patience a little on this one).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Some of y’all may have seen this before, but some (you perhaps, Susan lo?) may not have. In any case, I think it’s bears repeating because it captures my feelings remarkably well:

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/53996422.jpg

Hi, Peter!
Thank!



I may have noticed the pic (but I usually ignore everything–I am illiterate when it comes to signs); I slowed down enough to read the bottom caption!

Thanks, again!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Taken from this website: ronconte.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/was-pope-honorius-i-a-heretic//Hi, Duane!
…wait, so 40 years after his death Pope Honorius I is deemed a heretic for not teaching against heresy? What had been transpiring in the Church during that period (Pope Honorius I, posthumous accusations, the 40 years between and Pope Leo II)-I mean in regards to the following:

Further, if Honorius was anathematized, explained Pope Hadrian II, in the Roman Synod of 869, “the reason is that Honorius was accused of heresy, the only cause for which it is licit to inferiors to resist their superiors and to repel their perverse sentiments” (Mansi, XVI, col. 126).

Thank you for your patience!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Rohzek]

Hi!
…let’s see… JWs go out into the world with prepared statements and writings… the only sources that they accept as true/factual are their own printer’s take on reality… reading a ton of sources from JWs will lead me at square “zero.”

When someone cites a source through a link they are suggesting that the material must be read/absorb so that engagement could take place (I’ve seen some quote their links to responses given to queries on previous dates–that’s not engagement).

I suggest you cite a compelling statement so that we can dissect (study) it… (ie: a poster stated that Peter was never referred to as the rock… once I found a statement that demonstrated differently, I offered it—I did the research; I studied the e-page; I presented the quotation (I knew that it would be rejected–yet, I allowed the person to accept or reject it).

When I speak/write about Faith I do so for my own benefit (we all must preach to the choir before we seek out an audience), and I do so for the benefit of the party I’m addressing (I hope to entice his/her heart and mind… to awaken something deep in his/her spirit), and I do so for the benefit of those around us (those who are listening to the exchange or who are reading through the threads).

I do not always succeed in bringing my point across.

I am sometimes misunderstood or misread or dismissed or rejected…

…but if you follow my posts, you will find that I will attempt to engage everyone–always seeking the Unity of the Body (yes, even when I may seem abrasive and combatant).

In Christ there’s only one “i”, which already Belongs to the I AM, so that “i” cannot translate to me (as in: me, me, me).

So I welcome the exchange–bearing in mind that I will not follow links for the sake of engaging others on the same plane of thought (as in building my understanding by conversion or hear/though) and I will not engage in circular arguments (through I do extend my patience a little on this one).

Maran atha!

Angel

The links I provided are nothing but quotes from the Church Fathers. If that’s not good for you, then nothing is. Like I explained in my original post here, it is far easier to link it, than to post 10 different posts with the original Latin, the translations, and the arguments I’ve mustered all because of a character limit on posts here. I am not inclined to spam something here.

 

[jcrichton]

The links I provided are nothing but quotes from the Church Fathers. If that’s not good for you, then nothing is. Like I explained in my original post here, it is far easier to link it, than to post 10 different posts with the original Latin, the translations, and the arguments I’ve mustered all because of a character limit on posts here. I am not inclined to spam something here.

…but would it not be more productive to place a quote and study it, rather then make a statement an throw in multiple arguments/quotes?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Duane1966]

Hi, Duane!
…wait, so 40 years after his death Pope Honorius I is deemed a heretic for not teaching against heresy? What had been transpiring in the Church during that period (Pope Honorius I, posthumous accusations, the 40 years between and Pope Leo II)-I mean in regards to the following:

…quoted from your post #79:

Thank you for your patience!

Maran atha!

Angel

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

 

[Duane1966]

So Cyprian does understand Rome to have a symbolic unity, but an equal authority. This is best noted in his disagreements with Bishop of Rome Stephen who Cyprian disagreed with regarding re-baptism of heretics. Cyprian and 87 Bishops gathered to oppose Stephen and all agreed that:
“**For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”
**newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

The following is taken from this site:matt1618.freeyellow.com/unity7.html

The papacy undeniably has undergone development historically. In this section though we will look at the papacy from how it manifested itself in the pre-Nicaea period. This is being done to aid in properly understanding the later developments of papal authority by assessing the seeds of what would later be called papal jurisdiction and (by implication) papal infallibility. The Primacy of the Roman See is a well-established fact of Church history that was even attested to by Orthodox scholars Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff and Fr. Alexander Schmemann. They did not concede everything on the matter that the Catholic Church claims of course. However, it is important to notice how what they do say is perfectly consistent with the development of doctrine paradigm. This is concerning the Catholic doctrine of primacy of the Roman See as well as Rome being the final court of appeal in the early Church. In discussing the topic of St. Peter’s Primacy, we will start with** Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff. Fr Afanassieff was a professor of canon law and church history at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. The quotations from him and Fr. Alexander Schmemann were taken from an Orthodox source titled The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (edited by John Meyendorff):**

As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since **Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government.**

And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy…

The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches... Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.

Like St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian it is quite clear had no problem with the Bishop of Rome exercising a wide span of authority. In the case of St. Cyprian he had urged Pope Stephen (before falling out of favour with him) to send to Gaul, excommunicate the Bishop of Arles, and supply a successor (cf. Epistle 68, 3). So it seems that Bishop Cyprian’s problems were not with Pope Stephen exercising a wide span of authority (as Arles was in France about fiven hundred miles from Rome) but only when the Bishop of Rome opposed his (Cyprian’s) positions. However, before the controversy with Stephen (and even afterwards) Cyprian is still an effective witness, both in a positive as well as in a negative way, of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In speaking of St. Cyprian of Carthage, Fr. Afanassieff makes the following observations, which bear noting:

**According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise].**

[16]

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

St. Cyprian says almost the exact same thing in his own words when speaking of the temerity of the Novatian schismatics of his time to appeal to the Church of Rome as this interpretation of Fr. Afanassieff’s. It is further interesting to note what Cyprian himself stated about the faith of the Church of Rome and how it factors into what the Church of Rome has always claimed for herself:

…and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.

[17]

**How could faithlessness have no access to the Church of Rome??? It is a rather strange statement unless it referred somehow to the Church of Rome having some sort of special function in the church. The decisions of Rome predetermining the attitudes and actions of the other churches is evidence of a form of universal jurisdiction being utilized a long time before Nicaea.**This is even admitted by the renowned Orthodox scholar Fr. Alexander Schmemann (albeit by implication). The following quote is from the book Primacy of Peter again this time on the topic of universal primacy. Fr. Alexander Schmemann was dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary for over twenty years where he taught church history and liturgical theology…:

Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…

It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome -- "presiding in agape," according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. **Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.**

**IT IS ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF BIASED POLEMICS THAT ONE CAN IGNORE THESE TESTIMONIES, THEIR CONSENSUS AND SIGNIFICANCE.** It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. **Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history -- AN EVALUATION FREE FROM POLEMICAL OR APOLOGETIC EXAGGERATIONS. **[18]

…
The foundation and underlying logic for this universal primacy was explained in the following manner by Russian Orthodox convert Vladimir Soloviev:

All Orthodox Christians are agreed that the apostolic power of binding and loosing was not conferred upon the Twelve as private individuals or in the sense of a temporary privilege, but that it is the genuine source and origin of a perpetual priestly authority which has descended from the Apostles to their successors in the hierarchy, the bishops and priests of the Universal Church.** But if this is true, then neither can the two former attributes connected particularly with St. Peter in a still more solemn and significant manner be individual or accidental prerogatives; the less so, in that it was with the first of these prerogatives that our Lord expressly connected the permanence and stability of His Church in its future struggle against the powers of evil.**

...Ought not they also to refer to some fundamental and permanent institution, of which the historic personality of Simon Bar-Jona is but the outstanding and typical representative? The God-Man did not establish ephemeral institutions. In His chosen disciples He saw, through and beyond all that was mortal and individual, the enduring principles and types of His work. What He said to the college of the Apostles included the whole priestly order, the teaching Church in its entirety. The sublime words which He addressed to Peter alone created in the person of this one Apostle the undivided sovereign authority possessed by the Universal Church throughout the whole of its life and development in future ages.

The fact that Christ did not see fit to make the formal foundation of His Church and the guarantee of its permanence dependent on the common authority of all the Apostles (for He did not say to the apostolic college: “On you I will build My Church”)** surely goes to show that our Lord did not regard the episcopal and priestly order, represented by the Apostles in common, as sufficient in itself to form the impregnable foundation of the Universal Church i**n her inevitable struggle against the gates of hell. In founding His visible Church Jesus was thinking primarily of the struggle against evil and in order to ensure for His creation that unity which is strength, He crowned the hierarchy with a single, central institution, absolutely indivisible and independent, possessing in its own right the fullness of authority and of promise: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. [19]

 

[SyroMalankara]

No one here is going to solve the dilemma of division between the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches.

It isn’t a fork in the road, as far as development of doctrine on each side – it’s more like a strand of DNA:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

All sides can find quotes referencing their position, because Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria/Antioch and Edessa each chose verses and quotes as they deemed fitting in their day, to further what they theologized at the time. It’s both relevant and irrelevant today, since it proves nothing, except that there was no consensus. At some point Rome fixed at a position, which it to this day ebbs and flows with; while EO/OO/ACoE bishops vary in time and place.

Generally today:
Latin Catholics tend to favor a strong Pope, except when they don’t
Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Churches a more conciliar synodal structure
Eastern Catholics of Oriental and Chaldean Churches a very strong Head
Eastern Orthodox conciliarity, with plenty of exception
Oriental Orthodox conciliarity, with a very strong Head
Assyrian Church of the East, conciliarity with a very strong Head

 

[jcrichton]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301

Hi, Duane!

Thanks for the link!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No one here is going to solve the dilemma of division between the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches.

It isn’t a fork in the road, as far as development of doctrine on each side – it’s more like a strand of DNA:
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/icons-land/medical/256/Body-DNA-icon.png

All sides can find quotes referencing their position, because Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria/Antioch and Edessa each chose verses and quotes as they deemed fitting in their day, to further what they theologized at the time. It’s both relevant and irrelevant today, since it proves nothing, except that there was no consensus. At some point Rome fixed at a position, which it to this day ebbs and flows with; while EO/OO/ACoE bishops vary in time and place.

Generally today:
Latin Catholics tend to favor a strong Pope, except when they don’t
Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Churches a more conciliar synodal structure
Eastern Catholics of Oriental and Chaldean Churches a very strong Head
Eastern Orthodox conciliarity, with plenty of exception
Oriental Orthodox conciliarity, with a very strong Head
Assyrian Church of the East, conciliarity with a very strong Head

Hi!
…so your suggestion is “be silent?”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[SyroMalankara]

No, except pray and realize it’s more complex than what is commonly, repeatedly mentioned.