Need an Orthodox response to this deviation from Sacred Tradition...

[cfh99nyc]

Hello, I was recently looking into Orthodox apologetics and came across countless contradictions. The first one being the primacy of Peter. The Orthodox claim that ecunemical councils are the highest authority and that Matt 16:18 refers to either “the faith” of Peter or to Jesus when he said “I will build my church”…

When did these unhistorical interpretations seep in?? I recently read the Ecunemcial Council of Chalcedon which states:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…”

• Ecunemical Council of Chalcedon Session III 451 A.D.

What is the Orthodox response to the modern teachings contrary to the common traditions east and west that saying Peter is not the rock? How does that bode for the Orthodox saying they have the “same faith” as the early church yet contradicting councils?

Thank You

 

[Diak]

Since you are specifically looking for an Orthodox response, this should probably be posted in the “Non-Catholic Religions” section.

 

[Madaglan]

Hello, I was recently looking into Orthodox apologetics and came across countless contradictions. The first one being the primacy of Peter. The Orthodox claim that ecunemical councils are the highest authority and that Matt 16:18 refers to either “the faith” of Peter or to Jesus when he said “I will build my church”…

When did these unhistorical interpretations seep in?? I recently read the Ecunemcial Council of Chalcedon which states:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…”

• Ecunemical Council of Chalcedon Session III 451 A.D.

What is the Orthodox response to the modern teachings contrary to the common traditions east and west that saying Peter is not the rock? How does that bode for the Orthodox saying they have the “same faith” as the early church yet contradicting councils?

Thank You

Matthew 16:18 does indeed refer to the faith of Peter. It’s not just the Orthodox who say this, but a great number of Church Fathers.

I remember seeing on here a year or two ago a breakdown of Patristic interpretation of this verse. Anybody remember that?

You might be interested in reading The Primacy of Peter:
amazon.com/Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology-Church/dp/0881411256/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231012771&sr=1-9

The book is a collection of essays by Orthodox scholars on the issue of which you write.

 

[Luke65]

Matthew 16:18 does indeed refer to the faith of Peter. It’s not just the Orthodox who say this, but a great number of Church Fathers.

No, it refers to Peter. Some of the Fathers did refer it to Peter’s faith, but that is not the primary meaning. St. Augustine was one of those Fathers, but he also said the “rock” is Peter himself, and I don’t know of any Father who denied this. Regardless, we can prove this from Scripture:

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:19-20)

The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14)

Notice it doesn’t say “Peter’s faith” on that foundation stone! Just his name. And it was Augustine’s own rule of Scripture interpretation, which the Church adopted, that said when we come to a difficult passage we look for other relevant, easier passages to help us interpret the more difficult ones. And those two passages confirm that Peter himself is the “rock”, the primary foundation stone of the universal Church of Christ - the Catholic Church.

 

[Madaglan]

No, it refers to Peter. Some of the Fathers did refer it to Peter’s faith, but that is not the primary meaning. St. Augustine was one of those Fathers, but he also said the “rock” is Peter himself, and I don’t know of any Father who denied this. Regardless, we can prove this from Scripture:

Notice it doesn’t say “Peter’s faith” on that foundation stone! Just his name. And it was Augustine’s own rule of Scripture interpretation, which the Church adopted, that said when we come to a difficult passage we look for other relevant, easier passages to help us interpret the more difficult ones. And those two passages confirm that Peter himself is the “rock”, the primary foundation stone of the universal Church of Christ - the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox do not deny the Apostles as foundations of the Church.

 

[Luke65]

The Orthodox do not deny the Apostles as foundation of the Church.

No, they just deny Peter his primacy, even though it is Peter’s successor who holds the Keys of Christ’s Kingdom, just like the Orthodox bishops have the full power and authority that the other apostles had. But don’t worry, this debate will soon be over! We will be one flock, under one shepherd, according to our Lord’s commandment: “Simon… Tend my sheep” - “Rule my people”. God’s will be done! On earth as it is in Heaven. :bowdown:

God bless all the Orthodox, and all Christians, and may we all pray, with our Lord, that we will all be one.

 

[slavko]

When did these unhistorical interpretations seep in?? I recently read the Ecunemcial Council of Chalcedon which states:

It sept in in 1870, when RC promulgated belief that was unheard before, so now you are shocked to discover Orthodox believe what we always believe (along with you for 'bout thousand years), that Matthew 16:16-18 refers both to Peter’s confession and Peter.

BTW direct successors of Peter chairs the cathedras in: Antioch, Alexandria (check the New Testament), MP & ROCOR (check the Patriarch Theophan of Antioch performing hirotonia’s in Kiev at the beginning of 17th century).

Peter symbolizes every bishop.

 

[Madaglan]

No, they just deny Peter his primacy, even though it is Peter’s successor who holds the Keys of Christ’s Kingdom, just like the Orthodox bishops have the full power and authority that the other apostles had. But don’t worry, this debate will soon be over! We will be one flock, under one shepherd, according to our Lord’s commandment: “Simon… Tend my sheep” - “Rule my people”. God’s will be done! On earth as it is in Heaven. :bowdown:

God bless all the Orthodox, and all Christians, and may we all pray, with our Lord, that we will all be one.

You should read the book I referenced. It’s a really good book that goes to show that the Orthodox do not reject Petrine Primacy–they just don’t equate it with Petrine Supremacy.

 

[Luke65]

Peter symbolizes every bishop.

Then why didn’t Jesus simply say to all His apostles: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”? And: “Tend my sheep”. And: “But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32)? And, oh yeah: “Get behind me, Satan”! Because to whom much has been given, much more will be required.

In John 10 our Lord’s flock only has one “watchman” (v.3). And in Luke 12 there is one “faithful and wise manager” (v.42), who is “in charge of all his [the Master’s] possessions” (v.44). And at the Council of Jerusalem it was Peter who stood up, “after much discussion”, and infallibly laid down the Law of Christ (Acts 15:7).

The only thing these passages “symbolize” is that Peter is the “chief shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4), in the place of Christ, on earth (note that the term “chief shepherd” is only used by Peter).

This is God’s will, and if God is with us, who can be against us?

 

[slavko]

Then why didn’t Jesus simply say …

It’s completely irrelevant for the subject of this thread.

The question was asked about the date of the deviated belief. The response was provided - the date was 1870.

There is more direct successors of Peter on the East, than is on the West.

Going into every twist of a twisted belief is not something I find attractive to engage.

 

[slavko]

…may we all pray, with our Lord, that we will all be one.

We are one.

You left on your own.

 

[Luke65]

It’s completely irrelevant for the subject of this thread.

The question was asked about the date of the deviated belief. The response was provided - the date was 1870.

There is more direct successors of Peter on the East, than is on the West.

Going into every twist of a twisted belief is not something I find attractive to engage.

The OP said: “Hello, I was recently looking into Orthodox apologetics and came across countless contradictions. The first one being the primacy of Peter.” But you’re right, quarreling over words like “primacy” or “supremacy”, is not “attractive”:

Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:14-15)

 

[slavko]

The OP said: “Hello, I was recently looking into Orthodox apologetics and came across countless contradictions. The first one being the primacy of Peter.” But you’re right, quarreling over words like “primacy” or “supremacy”, is not “attractive”:

No, the OP asked for clarification of a deviated belief.

He’s got it.

I can’t see the point of splitting the hair to four over your twisted belief about Petrine primacy/supremacy/whatever, since we have dozens times more Petrine successors than RC’s.

What’s the point of debating one half of your misunderstanding if you keep the other one?

 

[slavko]

I recently read the Ecunemcial Council of Chalcedon which states:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…”

• Ecunemical Council of Chalcedon Session III 451 A.D.

More precisely:

1. You are reading an introductory part of the Fourth Council (Chalcedon) and not a canon of it.
2. You are not differentiating a honorary etiquette and theological reasoning.

2.1) If the said part of Chalcedon was meant to
a) pertain Petrine Successor’s attributes to the Pope of Rome only
b) do a) above on the grounds of Matthew 16:18

it would then

c) refer explicitly to Matthew 16:18
d) not refer to themselves as “through us” in the meaning of Peter’s confession of faith (which was actually the point of a dispute with high stakes, where a significant part of Christians hasn’t adhered to that Council until present)

Moreover

e) Councild of Sardica wouldn’t need to decide about special powers of the Pope of Rome, since it would be already believed and acknowledged
f) Council of Sardica would mention Matthew 16:18 as the base of it’s decision
g) There would be no need for the second canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council to elevate decisions of Sardica, passed some three centuries before it, to generally-applicable decisions (along with a number of other local councils), since it would be generally-applicable already.

I hope I clarified to you your misunderstanding of the quoted minutes of Chalcedon.

 

[Luke65]

There has been no deviation in the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding the primacy or supremacy of Peter, they have only been clarified, strengthened and codified into law over the centuries. And there’s only one “successor of Peter” - the bishop of Rome, the pope:

THE PRIMACY OF PETER
Tradition / Church Fathers

II. Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“…that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

“Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.” Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

“Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments…For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken” Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus *? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.” Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).
*

And there are many more quotes at that link.

 

[jam070406]

Peter symbolizes every bishop.

References?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

No, the OP asked for clarification of a deviated belief.

He’s got it.

I can’t see the point of splitting the hair to four over your twisted belief about Petrine primacy/supremacy/whatever, since we have dozens times more Petrine successors than RC’s.

What’s the point of debating one half of your misunderstanding if you keep the other one?

It’s not a matter of splitting hairs, it is a matter of the current Orthodox faith, which I love and appreciate, believing something different than their patriarchs believed before 700 AD.

Some key quotes:

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy. (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council]
, Mansi, 893)

 

[slavko]

It’s not a matter of splitting hairs, it is a matter of the current Orthodox faith, which I love and appreciate, believing something different than their patriarchs believed before 700 AD.

Well, since the subject matter of the thread has been switched from what the Ecumenical Councils teach to what our Patriarchs believed, I need to confirm that we do not believe what some of them believed.

Exempli gratia, heretic Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinopolis and heretic Honorius, Pope of Rome. Each being condemned by Ecumenical Councils.

Some key quotes:

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
…
St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)
…

What’s the point of making comments over a quote where someone else inserted explanations in the parentheses?

Do you know how many Apostolic Sees there are in the East? Unlike in the West, where Rome has been the only one?

Do you know how many honorary titles have been bestowed to various Church hierarchy? For instance, do you know who bears the title The thirteenth Apostle and The Judge of the Universe? Do you think addressing the man holding that office with his official title really mean that we believe he will judge the universe?

If you had known about these details, you would have seen how shallow are the quotes you brought up to back up your claim.

 

[slavko]

Also:

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)

…

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)

…

Why none of them referred to Matthew 16:18?

Why none of them omitted Matthew 16:16?

 

[slavko]

There has been no deviation in the Catholic Church’s teachings

That was misdirected to me.

You should direct it to the OP.

He asked for the Orthodox response to the deviated teaching.

He has got the Orthodox response to the deviated teaching.

If you don’t like answer, don’t ask the question.