If the Papacy was really meant to be only honorary, then what about the Orthodox bishops?

[rinnie]

I like this one! Tetullian is referring to the Rock as Peter’s confession of faith…as he tells us that everyone can carry the keys.

But here is where I have a big problem with this. You are saying the Rock is Peters faith, Then if God is building his Church on PETERS FAITH, this makes no sense.

Peter has NOTHING that does not come from the GRACE of GOD. The Church was not build on PETERS faith, the Church was build on CHRIST.

We did not and to this date do not rely on the faith of St Peter or the faith of our POPE today. We rely on the Power of the HOLY SPIRIT to speak THRU the Pope and the Bishops.

The Popes faith can FAIL, just like anyone elses. We never rely on ANY one elses faith. We rely on Christ and his GRACE to lead us and the Pope. Not the Popes faith.

If you read what Christ said, he never said Peter your FAITH revealed this to you, CHRIST said FLESH AND BONE never revealed this to you, BUT MY FATHER ABOVE. This was not Peters faith but DIVINE power from up abouve that would lead St Peter, and who leads the Pope today. THE HOLY SPIRIT.

The only thing we can be SURE of as Jesus said. FLESH and BONES Did not reveal this to you. Thats how it words today. THE FAITH that we are taught is not From the POPE it is from GOD the same way, from DIVINE wisdom relayed to him straight from GOD.

That is why we are told I WILL NOT leave your ORPHANS, I will be with you until the end of age.

Jesus promised us the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT that would be found in the PILAR OF TRUTH the Church.

Jesus promised us that the POPE or the Bishops with him, WHEN they speak IN HIIS NAME willNOT mislead us. EVER.

When the POPE speaks in the name of CHRIST he is speaking FOR CHRIST, not for himself, or leading us with HIS FAITH. It is the faith of CHRIST leading him, not his faith leading us.

How many false teaches are leading us with their faith today. MANY!!

Yes Peter had great faith, and our POPE does today. I will never deny that. But the Pope does not lead us by his faith, he leads us by the GRACE of God that is given to him by the Holy Spirit. IT began that way, and will end that way.

Peter is given his teaching from the Divine. The same way it is revealed to us today as Christ promised.

 

[Mickey]

And incorrectly Mickey state’s this…

“We know that St Peter was given the keys (as were the others).”

That is not an incorrect statement.

 

[Mickey]

I don’t disagree with you or father Schmemann on this point.

Ditto.

They make claims for Rome’s supremacy, which is actually a different sort of thing altogether.

Yes.

And they have to, because that is what the Papacy claims for itself, and Roman Catholics have no choice but to try and make a case for it.

Yes.

I for one am making the case that the Rome had zero supremacy over the other Sees.The highest order of clergy is a bishop. There is no higher sacramental order. Everything else is an office, and this is also what your church teaches.

 

[Mickey]

The Church was not build on PETERS faith, the Church was build on CHRIST.

Christ is the Head…the Cornerstone. The foundation is the Prophets and Apostles.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is not an incorrect statement.

You just want to debate. It truth their will be no resolution till there’s an ecumenical council. MIck did you hear what Rome said to the SSPX last night?

 

[Mickey]

You just want to debate.

Isn’t that the purpose of this forum? Let us pray that the debate always remain charitable.

MIck did you hear what Rome said to the SSPX last night?

I did not.

 

[lyrikal]

Hello Mickey,

Thank you for your reply.

St Cyprian certainly did not recognize a supreme papacy.

You’ll find St. Cyprian espousing a view of papal primacy that comes remarkably close to how Orthodox Christianity has generally understood the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church, that is, he is the first bishop to whom the college of bishops owes great deference in his witness to the Orthodox faith insofar as his doctrinal orthodoxy (and the church of Rome) is recognised. Scholarship (as distinct from amateur internet “apologists”) i dare say, bears a resounding mark of unanimity on this important feature of St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology. Let me give you a few such quotes which convey the mind of this important Father in witnessing to one of the most ancient beliefs about the primacy of Peter, keeping in mind that some of these sources are Roman Catholic:
"In a letter to Cyprian, Firmilian endorsed everything the bishop of Carthage had said and added a few strokes of his own…Recalling the earlier dispute about the date of Easter, he upheld the practice of Asia Minor by commenting that, in the celebration of Easter and in many other matters, the Romans did not observe the practices established in the age of the Apostles, though they vainly claimed apostolic authority for their aberrant forms. The decree of Stephen was the most recent instance of such audacity, an instance so grave that Firmilian ranked Stephen among heretics and blasphemers and compared his doctrines and discipline with the perfidy of Judas. The Apostles did not command as Stephen commanded, Firmilian wrote, nor did Christ establish the primacy which he claimed…To the Roman custom, Firmilian, like Cyprian, opposed the custom of truth, ‘holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the Apostles.’ And, Firmilian argued, by his violence and obstinacy, Stephen had apostacized from the communion of ecclesiastical unity; far from cutting heretics off from his communion, he had cut himself off from the orthodox and made himself ‘a stranger in all respects from his brethren, rebelling against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord…’ "
(Morrison, K 1969, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, Princeton: Princeton University, pp. 31-32.

That does not answer my question directly. I keep seeing this from Orthodox Christians here:

“All Bishops are equal.”

My St. Cyprian post shows St. Cyprian going to the Bishop of Rome about a matter that had been settled by many other Bishops in a council that was held. My argument is, if all Bishops are equal, then St. Cyprian did not need to go the Bishop of Rome with a letter regarding this council. The many Bishops that were at the council should have been satisfactory and sufficient for him.

I too can quote Scholars who will contradict your Scholars’ views on St. Cyprian. I am aware that this is debatable. My question has to do with people who say “All Bishops are equal.”

I am trying to get a better grasp of the Orthodox teachings of this matter but I keep hearing different answers with regards to what Orthodox Christians believe. Are all Bishops equal or not? If not, then how are they different? What distinguishes them? Are there differences in power? If so, what kind of differences?

If all Bishops are equal, then I direct you to St. Cyprian and St. Leo the Great to name a couple.

God bless.

 

[lyrikal]

Holy Orthodoxy looks to the patristic consensus for Scriptural interpretation. I do not know why a few protestant sources have arrived at this interpretation. Here is another protestant point of view for you:

Sometimes Matthew 16 is compared to Isaiah 22:22: “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.” A Catholic apologist argues, “Christ also gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), a direct reference to Is. 22:22 where the servant Eliakim is granted, using the symbol of the keys, the authority of his master to become the Prime Minister, as it were, of the Davidic Kingdom. Here in Matthew we have Christ using the same language and the same symbol of the keys to grant His authority to His servant Peter, making Peter the Prime Minister of His Kingdom.” 2]

It is doubtful whether Matthew 16 is at all a direct reference to Isaiah 22. For example, Isaiah speaks about “the key” (singular) while Matthew of “the keys” (plural). There is in fact a direct reference to Isaiah 22 in the New Testament but it is found in Revelations 3:7: “These things says He who is holy, He who is true, ‘He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.’” The person holding the “key of David” is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not Peter or the bishop of Rome.
justforcatholics.org/a46.htm

Well if a singular key is what you need in order for you to conclude that it is from Isaiah 22 then how about:

"O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the **Key **(singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly **House**; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the **Key **(singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it." (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

Compare this to Isaiah 22, which reads:

"On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. ...I will place the **Key **of the **House **of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open."

Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/num18.htm

There are possibilities as to why Jesus handed Peter keys (plural) and not a key (singular). The two possibilities are:

1.) The keys that Peter was to have are two-fold. There are two places involved: Heaven and earth.

2.) Peter is perhaps holding two keys (plural), one for the Kingdom of Heaven and one for the gates of hell.

We can quote an Early Church Father to show support to this view:

“Thee, O Simon Peter, will I proclaim the blessed, who holds the **Keys **which the Spirit made. A great and ineffable word that he binds and loosens those in Heaven and those under the earth…” (Ephraem, Asseman. Bibl. Orient. t. i. p. 95) in Colin Lindsay, Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, 1870), 31.

Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/num18.htm

But really, I think your whole point is made void when you said:

It is doubtful whether Matthew 16 is at all a direct reference to Isaiah 22. For example, Isaiah speaks about “the key” (singular) while Matthew of “the keys” (plural). There is in fact a direct reference to Isaiah 22 in the New Testament but it is found in Revelations 3:7: “These things says He who is holy, He who is true, ‘He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.’” The person holding the “key of David” is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not Peter or the bishop of Rome.

because I quoted an Early Church Father that applied the key (singular) to Peter. Not only that, but he used the word “House” which shows further support that he is drawing from Isaiah 22 and not from Matthew 16.

God bless.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Isn’t that the purpose of this forum? Let us pray that the debate always remain charitable.
I did not.

Most definately, however you would like to imagine the last 2000 years were an illusion and somehow by mistake the Primacy has remained in “Rome” since St Peter. I’ve conceded it could be no other way than Bible/“God”. I see nothing concrete to support anything but Apostle Peter’s chair/Keys/Primacy.

I have seen some vague interpretation of “quotes” from the ECFs posted here.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Christ is the Head…the Cornerstone. The foundation is the Prophets and Apostles.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Right, and this confirms the Apostles equality as Gods chosen one’s, he loved them all, even Judas. However, He gave to St Peter the Keys. “All” had the authority to bind and lose all were equal otherwise.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matthew 16

And “Jesus” answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee: That thou art “Peter”; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to “you” the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever “you” shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever “you” shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Keys (κλεῖδας)

The church or kingdom is conceived as a house, Cornerstone of the Foundation is Christ, of which Peter is to be the stewart, bearing the keys[Word of God]". “Even as he had been the first to utter the confession of the church, so was he also privileged to be the first to open its hitherto closed gates to the Gentiles, when God made choice of St Peter, that, through his mouth, the Gentiles should first hear the words of the God, and at his bidding first be baptized” (Edersheim, “Life and Times of Jesus”).

So yes the Primacy is in Rome from the Bible, the transference then becomes the same word of God equally given to all the Apostles to bind and lose, build and teach Christainity as we see with St Paul and his travels.

So in the strictest sense of the word “Keys-word-of God”, the path to heaven, travels to all the churchs with Apostolic Succession. However the Primacy still exists and remains in Rome.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

In fact, back to Isaiah 22, Davids Key, whom is the Primacy as King through God on Earth. In Matthew a true Apostle, he opens up his works connecting the Davidic Blood line to Jesus. Its established Jesus Chirst has the Blood-Line/Keys and is Aire to the Kingdom.

[Of course King David suffer’s the Dark Night of the Soul and many trials of the Soul. St John of the Cross to a very large extent quotes King David to explain St Johns points, jacobs ladder etc. Very human as are we.]

Jesus Christ is leaving, He knows “His Hour” [and btw St Mary ushers in that Hour for Jesus at Cana, which that 'Hour" also can be correctly Ministry and as the Cross]. Christ prepares the Apostles/and St Mary/St Joseph etc. He is holding the Key at this point. He has no need for the Key {He is God} He’s teaching the correct word of God the Father, he chose the Apostles/Ministry for this on Earth. He passed the “symbolic” “Key of the Kingdom” as its refered to, to St. Peter. “The walking on water incident, the words in Matthew”, “no-one revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven” etc. Also passed is the Primacy of David to St Peter. Now we know the Apostles were all given the Word of God. It took them a moment to process what happened. Christ returns explains. We open up with Acts and the ministry of Christ on earth, Pentecost. Its understood those ordained through the one Holy Apostolic Church have the authority to bind and lose, to teach the word of God. I’m gonna assume here, thats “why” we all attend one of these churchs.

We still have the Primacy of St. Peters Chair, none of which is distracted through the Apostles/Bible of ECFs. Which is why I mentioned St Pauls letter to Carthage. Just like St Augustine, St Paul points to Rome. When the word of God seemed astry the last word is there. With St Paul its symbolic to point to the truth, which Carthage was misguided at that moment, Christian heresy was existing. With St Augustine its literal and again Christian heresy. Point being not whom, or what they were talking about. Both ulimately are saying the same. “The case is closed, Rome has spoken”

I further pointed to Revelation which has “zip” to do with Rome since it was Asia MInor. Only to show how Christs Keys are held by one original of seven Churchs. So there was a covenant there by God, same as Biblical with St Peter/Rome. This remained there {Rome} 2000-years through Apostolic Succession which is verified. And by many cultures other than Christians. The fact that Apostles have equal authority to bind/lose/spead word of God by Apostolic Successon is not of issue or my point. Nor is it to translate Revelation.

I use a 1869 “Protestant Bible” Rev Hitchcock “The Holy Bible, Complete and How to Understand it” So in this sense “Keys” could be research to the “6” times they appear in scripture 3X Revelation, 1X Matthew, 1X Isaiah. 1X Judges. Judges isn’t needed, All the others refer to Christ and His ministry on Earth. The other two times Keys are mentioned in Revelation Christ is holding the Keys. He is “not” holding the Keys given to the Church of Brotherly Love. The Church “is”. That is my point.

And in Matthew it comes back to the singluar use of the word “Upon You Peter” through Divine Providence. This even extends past to the Key 3X. But I believe properly understood even here there becomes a seperation in Gods Ministry. However the intitial conversation of Divine/Human in the singular as are the Keys X3 its a reality. Nothing contridicts this in time. Certainly not the first 4-centurys. Nor in Revelation.

However, thats where I’m at. And what say you? So yes the Keys of the Kingdom/Primacy/Apostolic Succession/St Peters Chair…All very real, all still in Rome and has been a very long time.

Peace

 

[Mickey]

Are all Bishops equal or not?

Indeed!

If all Bishops are equal, then I direct you to St. Cyprian and St. Leo the Great to name a couple.

Neither of these two great saints have ever said anything otherwise.

Letters being written to the Bishop of Rome do not prove any case in support of some type of Roman bishop supremacy.

Rome had a position of high esteem within the Church. Apart from the fact that the city was the first capital of the Empire, the See was founded by both Peter and Paul. This honor was given not because of the ‘primacy’ of Peter, but on the position of both Peter and Paul. This was the accepted position, even in the west.

 

[Mickey]

Well if a singular key is what you need in order for you to conclude that it is from Isaiah 22 then how about:

That was a protestant writing. You attempted to offered proof by posting protestant “scholars”…and I was showing you that there are other protestant views.

There is no patristic support showing that it was ONLY St Peter who received the keys. And there is no patristic support linking the St Matthew passage to the Issaiah passage to show that ONLY St Peter received the keys.

“Thee, O Simon Peter, will I proclaim the blessed, who holds the **Keys **which the Spirit made. A great and ineffable word that he binds and loosens those in Heaven and those under the earth…” (Ephraem, Asseman. Bibl. Orient. t. i. p. 95) in Colin Lindsay, Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, 1870), 31.

This also does not tell us that St Peter was the ONLY Apostle to have the keys…and it does not tell us there is a link to Issaiah 22.

St John Chrysostom says this:

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.

 

[Mickey]

Most definately, however you would like to imagine the last 2000 years were an illusion

Not at all. Looking back over 2000 years shows us the whole picture…and it was not a supreme infallible bishop of Rome.

 

[Mickey]

“All” had the authority to bind and lose all were equal otherwise.

Binding and loosing is linked to the keys.

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church.”
The City of God, by St. Augustine

 

[rinnie]

I did not realize the Christian faith centered around communion with Peter’s successor, the Pope; this entire time I thought it was communion with the Triune God through the mystery of the Eucharist, but I guess I was mistaken.

At what point in time did The Christian faith centered around communion with Peter become a SEPARATION from God in the mystery of the Eucharist.

Did God not say DO THIS in memory of me. Where did the Pope St Peter or any Bishop or Priest for matter NOT SAY DO THIS in memory of Christ.

I cannot understand when and where in the bible that Peter was not TOLD to do this. If he was TOLD was he not obeying God. If he was Obeying God and did as God said DO THIS, how could the faith be centered around commumion with Peters successor?

Our faith is Centered around the Eucharist, it is the center of our faith. Without the living Christ in the Eucharist and the Apostles given the authority to do so, how do you suppose we receive the Eucharist.

Christ made Peter the leader of the Sheep, not the center of the Eucharist. I cannot undersand this response. Could you explain it better.

 

[rinnie]

Christ is the Head…the Cornerstone. The foundation is the Prophets and Apostles.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Correct Christ is the Cornerstone. What is a Cornerstone? Is it not the foundation stone, You are saying that the Foundation is build on the Prophets and Apostles. Then why is Christ the Cornerstone and not the Prophets and Apostles then?

If the Church was build on the Apostles then how could the Church exist after thousands of years. The Apostles were not the Holy Spirit, they were not the foundation, the leader of the Church. If so, why did Christ say he was sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead us until the end of age.

 

[Mickey]

He passed the “symbolic” “Key of the Kingdom” as its refered to, to St. Peter.

He passed them to all the Apostles and to all bishops through Apostolic succession.

Also passed is the Primacy of David to St Peter.

Just like St Augustine, St Paul points to Rome.

I have already posted some of St Augustine’s thoughts on the matter. As for St Paul…we know that he did not see St Peter as some type of supreme Apostle…in fact, he had to correct him.

Galatians 2:11-15
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners.

Both ulimately are saying the same. “The case is closed, Rome has spoken”

Again…here is the correct translation:
Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est; utinam finiatur error!

“For already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back from there. The case is ended; would that the error may end likewise!”

I use a 1869 “Protestant Bible” Rev Hitchcock “The Holy Bible, Complete and How to Understand it”

I’ve never heard of it. Is it a protestant interpretation?

Nothing contridicts this in time.

St Jerome writes this to Iovinianus the heretic:

“You claim that the Church was established on the Apostle Peter, but the truth is that it was established on all the apostles, and the power of the Church became manifest in all of them.”
(St Jerome, Adversus Iovinianum, I. See also, In Evangelio S. Matt, lib. VI.)

 

[Mickey]

The Apostles were not the Holy Spirit, they were not the foundation

Huh?

**Eph 2:19-20
**Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: