I am considering the Orthodox Church

[Mickey]

St. Ephraem does not mention that the apostles were key bearers

No. He says we all are.

 

[josie_L]

No. He says we all are.

When he says we he means the Church, i.e., the Church received the keys through Peter. Moreover, your initial argument was about how no Church father made the connection between Isaiah 22:22 (the steward of the kingdom with the keys) and Matthew 16:18 (Peter, the steward of the kingdom with the keys), and that is not true.

Edit: You speak heresy if you believe every individual in the Church received the keys.

 

[Mickey]

You speak heresy if you believe every individual in the Church received the keys.

By “we” I mean the priests and bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church. The Apostles received the keys and hence the Orthodox Church. And the power to bind and loose is given to our priests and bishops. You had better be careful with whom you call a heretic my dear josie. When you point the finger at someone–there are three more pointing back at yourself.

If we say to ourselves ’ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ then we too become Peter, for whoever is united to Christ becomes Peter.
Origen

 

[SSTeacher]

josie L;6459762:

You speak heresy if you believe every individual in the Church received the keys.

The Apostles received the keys and hence the Church. Who is the Church? All of us. You had better be careful with whom you call a heretic my dear josie. When you point the finger at someone–three more are pointing back at yourself.

If we say to ourselves ’ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ then we too become Peter, for whoever is united to Christ becomes Peter.
Origen

Hey Mickey,

I hope you won’t mind me interpolating. That question you’ve asked and answered above as to who is the Church. Do you mind if I use the question for a new thread? It would be interesting to get a few different perspectives (I’m sure there are a few).

Glory to God forever.

In Christ,
Mick

 

[Mickey]

Hey Mickey,

I hope you won’t mind me interpolating. That question you’ve asked and answered above as to who is the Church. Do you mind if I use the question for a new thread? It would be interesting to get a few different perspectives (I’m sure there are a few).

Glory to God forever.

In Christ,
Mick

Sure Mick, but I edited the above quote to clarify. The keys were given to the apostles and to their successors (bishops and priests) who were given the authority to bind and loose. The “We” or “The Church” is the Holy Orthodox Church.

 

[josie_L]

By “we” I mean the priests and bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church. The Apostles received the keys and hence the Orthodox Church. And the power to bind and loose is given to our priests and bishops. You had better be careful with whom you call a heretic my dear josie. When you point the finger at someone–there are three more pointing back at yourself.

If we say to ourselves ’ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ then we too become Peter, for whoever is united to Christ becomes Peter.
Origen

Mickey, if you noticed I used the words “if you believe”, moreover, I am well-aware that the bishops and priests have the power of the keys (a thing I never denied) but they are not the key-bearers, i.e., the steward of the kingdom (who could open what was shut and shut what was opened). Furthermore, when Peter (the rock) was given the keys of the kingdom and the power to loose and bind it was in a singular manner (this connotes that Peter can loose and bind apart from the other apostles, i.e., papal infallibility). But in Matthew 18 when the power of loosing and binding was bestowed (without reference to the keys) on the apostles it was done as a collective body with Peter present, i.e., the magisterium which is headed by the bishop of Rome, the successor to Saint Peter.

Your quote from Origen states only that we are like Peter when we profess the truth as he did, however, it mentions nothing of his office which only one (primacy) can attain to.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great point, Josie. This reminds me a lot of these many posts we read where non-Catholics or the Protestant and Orthodox brand try to point out a litany of ECF quotes saying Peter’s ‘confession’ is the rock, not Peter himself. As if the confession and the man himself were really mutually exclusive.

Mickey, if you noticed I used the words “if you believe”, moreover, I am well-aware that the bishops and priests have the power of the keys (a thing I never denied) but they are not the key-bearers, i.e., the steward of the kingdom (who could open what was shut and shut what was opened). Furthermore, when Peter (the rock) was given the keys of the kingdom and the power to loose and bind it was in a singular manner (this connotes that Peter can loose and bind apart from the other apostles, i.e., papal infallibility). But in Matthew 18 when the power of loosing and binding was bestowed (without reference to the keys) on the apostles it was done as a collective body with Peter present, i.e., the magisterium which is headed by the bishop of Rome, the successor to Saint Peter.

Your quote from Origen states only that we are like Peter when we profess the truth as he did, however, it mentions nothing of his office which only one (primacy) can attain to.

 

[trophybearer]

Great point, Josie. This reminds me a lot of these many posts we read where non-Catholics or the Protestant and Orthodox brand try to point out a litany of ECF quotes saying Peter’s ‘confession’ is the rock, not Peter himself. As if the confession and the man himself were really mutually exclusive.

So if St. Peter’s confession is the ‘rock’ , and St. Peter is called ‘rocky’ because of his confession, then anyone who confesses the same is equally as ‘rocky’. What one confesses and the person confessing can’t be seperated? Fine, say that, but realize that anyone who confesses the same is just as inseperable from their confession. Because Peter confessed this he was called ‘rocky’. What if he had then denied this confession? It happens, and it is called “apostacy”. Would he then still be ‘rocky’? The vast majority of the Church Fathers believed the ‘rock’ to be Peter’s confession- including St. Augustine as noted in his work “Retractions”. That’s a concensus worth considering.

Peter is the ‘rock’ for what reason? Just because? Denying Christ three times doesn’t seem to show the characteristic of ‘rockiness’ if we mean to imply steadfastness in faith. Either Peter was called a ‘rock’ for his confession of faith, or he was called such for no reason at all, and this naming was completely arbitrary. If that is the case we are then expected to throw out the partistic concensus and logic itself.

 

[Mickey]

I am well-aware that the bishops and priests have the power of the keys (a thing I never denied) but they are not the key-bearers, i.e., the steward of the kingdom (who could open what was shut and shut what was opened).

The keys were given to all the Apostles (binding and lossing) (Matt18:18)

Furthermore, when Peter (the rock) was given the keys of the kingdom and the power to loose and bind it was in a singular manner

St Peter’s confession of faith is “Rock”—and all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose–hence the keys (Matt 18:18).

(this connotes that Peter can loose and bind apart from the other apostles,i.e., papal infallibility).

Papal infallibility is a 19th century innovation.

But in Matthew 18 when the power of loosing and binding was bestowed (without reference to the keys)

Oh come on now. Binding and loosing is a clear reference to the keys.

Your quote from Origen states only that we are like Peter when we profess the truth as he did,

Yes. We are loke St Peter when we confess that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

 

[Mickey]

So if St. Peter’s confession is the ‘rock’ , and St. Peter is called ‘rocky’ because of his confession, then anyone who confesses the same is equally as ‘rocky’. What one confesses and the person confessing can’t be seperated? Fine, say that, but realize that anyone who confesses the same is just as inseperable from their confession. Because Peter confessed this he was called ‘rocky’. What if he had then denied this confession? It happens, and it is called “apostacy”. Would he then still be ‘rocky’? The vast majority of the Church Fathers believed the ‘rock’ to be Peter’s confession- including St. Augustine as noted in his work “Retractions”. That’s a concensus worth considering.

Peter is the ‘rock’ for what reason? Just because? Denying Christ three times doesn’t seem to show the characteristic of ‘rockiness’ if we mean to imply steadfastness in faith. Either Peter was called a ‘rock’ for his confession of faith, or he was called such for no reason at all, and this naming was completely arbitrary. If that is the case we are then expected to throw out the partistic concensus and logic itself.

Indeed!

 

[jam070406]

So if St. Peter’s confession is the ‘rock’ , and St. Peter is called ‘rocky’ because of his confession, then anyone who confesses the same is equally as ‘rocky’. What one confesses and the person confessing can’t be seperated? Fine, say that, but realize that anyone who confesses the same is just as inseperable from their confession. Because Peter confessed this he was called ‘rocky’. What if he had then denied this confession? It happens, and it is called “apostacy”. Would he then still be ‘rocky’? The vast majority of the Church Fathers believed the ‘rock’ to be Peter’s confession- including St. Augustine as noted in his work “Retractions”. That’s a concensus worth considering.

Peter is the ‘rock’ for what reason? Just because? Denying Christ three times doesn’t seem to show the characteristic of ‘rockiness’ if we mean to imply steadfastness in faith. Either Peter was called a ‘rock’ for his confession of faith, or he was called such for no reason at all, and this naming was completely arbitrary. If that is the case we are then expected to throw out the partistic concensus and logic itself.

But your reading into the text what is not there. Jesus didn’t say you are rocky and anyone that makes this same confession is likewise rocky. The other disciples got it wrong. Were they not united to Christ?
He said, “YOU (Peter) are rock”
Peter is rock because the Truth was revealed to him by the Father. He was to be the leader of the Apostles, as many Fathers say, and the one to strengthen his brothers. He was singled out by the Father. Did the Father reveal the Truth to the other Apostles standing there along side Peter? No, only Peter. His denial has nothing to do with his position because it’s not on his own power that he was capable of speaking the Truth.
You seem to strengthen the Catholic position which has always said that Popes can be rotten personally but when strengthening their brothers they are protected from error. This passage is the seed that reveals this Truth.
All the Apostles betrayed Christ btw, Thomas refused to believe.
Jesus predicted early on the Simon was to be renamed Peter, how can you claim it was arbitrary? Why didn’t Jesus change Andrew’s name to Peter. Didn’t Andrew say he had seen the messiah before Peter’s confession?

Also why do Orthodox only use Augustine when it’s convient? You practically consider him a heretic and reject many of his teachings.

 

[Mickey]

But your reading into the text what is not there.

No he’s not. You read papal supremacy/infallibility into the text when it is not there.

He was singled out by the Father.

All of the Apostles were given the authority to bind and loose. They were all “singled out”.

His denial has nothing to do with his position

He needed the triple affirmation of Jesus Christ to restore his apostolic standing.

You seem to strengthen the Catholic position which has always said that Popes can be rotten personally but when strengthening their brothers they are protected from error.

Do you remember the heretic Honorius?

Also why do Orthodox only use Augustine when it’s convient? You practically consider him a heretic and reject many of his teachings.

Huh?

 

[Lapell]

Not only have I heard of it, I am experiencing it right now, as I have been for quite some time. In fact, I would add to that that this is the ONLY legitimate reason to ever leave one church for another.

O.K., which dogmas in the Catholic Church are not true? I am speaking of dogmas here.

 

[Lapell]

You did not answer my question. The Fathers of the Church loved and venerated St Peter as we all do. We have a feast day dedicated to St Peter and Paul preceded by a four week Lenten fast. But your quotes do not make your case. Sorry.
Of course St Peter received the keys–nobody disputes that. But they were not exclusive to him. Do you understand?

In times of temptation
console yourselves with God’s promises,
for there is no deceit
in the word of Him who repays all,
and His treasure house is not so paltry
that we should doubt His promise;
He has surrendered His own Son for us
so that we might believe in Him;
His Body is with us, His assurance is with us,
**He came and gave us His keys,
**since it is for us that His treasures lie waiting.

Blessed is He who, with His keys,
has opened up the Garden of Life

St. Ephrem The Syrian

As for “us” having “received the keys” to the Kingdom of Heaven… how are you so sure? For one, can you sacramentally forgive me for sins I have not done to you but to other people?

 

[Mickey]

As for “us” having “received the keys” to the Kingdom of Heaven… how are you so sure? For one, can you sacramentally forgive me for sins I have not done to you but to other people?

Huh?

“Us” is the Church.

 

[Catholic20064]

I became Catholic four years ago. It is embarrassing to have to live through these scandals to say the least. I considered Orthodoxy before I became Catholic. I am not convinced you would not find the same sort of scandal among Orthodox priests. Like Billy Graham once said, if you find a perfect church join it and it won’t be perfect anymore. Wheat and tare grow side by side – it’s not easy to know who is a wheat and who a tare. Most people are a little bit of both.

I am a bit afraid that if Hollywood ever makes a remake of Bells of Saint Mary’s or Going My Way they will decide to star Ricky Martin in them. That’s becoming the unfortunate stereotype.

 

[Mickey]

For one, can you sacramentally forgive me for sins I have not done to you but to other people?

God forgives.

 

[Lapell]

Yes. We are like St Peter when we confess that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

Ahem! Hum, Mickey, when we confess with all our being (including the deeds) that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, we may be eligible to some access to the mystery of God, but as to being in hold of the keys… we may do foolish things after that, even lose our salvation through our own fault, and then how can we even be admitted in the Kingdom of God?

 

[Lapell]

Huh?

“Us” is the Church.

Yes. The Church, provided that she remains in unity with Peter who is the only one in the Gospels having explicitly been told by Jesus: “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”. It was so with the Apostles, it has been so with the Church. In Ephrem’s days, the Church certainly was in unity with the pope in Rome, wasn’t she?

 

[Lapell]

God forgives.

Can you sacramentally say to a faithful that you forgive him his sins in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit?