Orthodox and Anglicans-Compare & Contrast Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority

[Anna_Scott]

Orthodox and Anglican forum members are invited to Compare & Contrast Orthodox and Anglican views regarding the Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority.

Matthew 16 (ESV): 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The inspiration for this thread is a book entitled, “The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church,” John Meyendorff, Editor. This is a fascinating book written from the Orthodox viewpoint; and is my introduction to the Orthodox view of the subject.

I know there are a number of us, in the Anglican Communion, who are considering the Orthodox faith (along with Catholicism-though Catholicism is not the topic of this thread.)

I welcome comments from Orthodox forum members, and those in the Anglican Communion, to compare & contrast views of the Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority, etc.

Thanks to All,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

When faced with that particular verse, first off I like to extend the verse to Matthew 23. When Peter declared the truth Christ proclaimed him the Rock, but when he erred, Christ just as quickly proclaimed him Satan (Hebrew for adversary). I think taking this into account it is not the person of Peter who was “the rock” but the faith that he proclaimed. With that said he certainly held a special place among the Apostles, though he did not exercise authority over them as is often claimed by Catholics.

Apostolic Succession makes a Bishop successor to all the Apostles, and not just the successor who held his see before him - who most often had nothing to do with his ordination, since apostolic succession is passed through the laying on of hands, and not by sitting in a specific diocese.

The Authority which Rome held came therefore not from Peter, though certainly they held the office of the See of St. Peter, but rather from her long history of orthodoxy - interupted only briefly by Honorius. . . . .

The contrast between being called the “Rock” and “Satan” is a very interesting point.

I was actually very surprised to find Peter’s “confession” emphasized in the book. I was not aware of the Orthodox view. The book talks not only about Peter’s confession to Christ; but also about Peter being the first to make the great public confession of the work of Christ, and the mystery of His being glorified after His Passion and Resurrection. (Acts 2:23-4; Acts 2:32-3; Acts 2:36)

“The Primacy of Peter” certainly gives credit to Peter in his role as Protos, or First among the Twelve in the heart of their Church, taking the initiative to elect an Apostle to replace Judas, among other things.

Also, Paul received his authority directly from Christ, and not through Peter or the Apostles.

The book ties Peter’s role to “fixed historical conditions of a unique kind”:
“At Jerusalem, then, Peter’s primacy, which we began by considering, was a primacy within the Twelve, tied to the presence of the Twelve and the birth of the Pentecostal Church. Peter’s primacy, thus taken, is tied to a particular role and to fixed historical conditions of a unique kind: this view finds wide support in the New Testament writings, as the beginning of our essay shows. But as historical conditions changed, and Peter left Jerusalem, he no longer figured as one of the Twelve: he became a roving apostle. The Twelve no longer formed a collegium at Jerusalem, so the city lost its position as hierarchical center. Given these new historical conditions, is it still possible to speak of the primacy of Peter? The New Testament texts in no way show that it is.” (page 33)

In the Orthodox view, is authority transmitted through the laying on of hands only in unbroken Apostolic Succession? I’m thinking about the many forum discussions about “valid orders.”

Other interesting quotes from the book about the leadership of James:
“After Peter leaves (Acts 12:17), James is the one always mentioned as head of the Church of Jerusalem.” (Page 27)

“But the role that James played at Jerusalem, after Peter had gone, was surely very comparable to the role bishops were to play later on: a lifelong and continuous place as leader of a local church, with a group of presbyters in support. James may not have been called Bishop, but he was in fact the first monarchical bishop of a local church.” (“The Primacy of Peter” taken from Chapter 1, Peter’s Place in the Primitive Church, Nicholas Koulomzine, Page 28)

Any comments on these quotes?

Thanks so much!
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

An interesting discussion I was part of recently. Did the Apostles themselves err in electing a new Apostle, since Christ himself later appointed Paul Apostle (in many early texts he is called “The Apostle”, and never named), while you never hear much about Matthias (I have no doubt he was fullfilling a role in the Church, but he doesn’t seem prominent).

The interesting thing here though is that though Paul received authority directly from Christ, his first instruction was to go to Peter to learn the faith. This of course certainly confirms Peter as a leader in the early Church, it also seems to imply the need for continuity.

An interesting thought, it does seem that the role of the apostles was to move around rather than to stay in one place. James is the only one tradition holds stayed in one place, the rest moved about as they were needed, it was the 70 who for the most part tradition holds were placed as the bishops in the cities. . . .

The Orthodox don’t normally have a concept of valid vs. invalid, when it appears it is usually under duress. More important than having valid ordination is having the Orthodox Faith. As an example I give the Evangelical Orthodox, they had Bishops but there was no possible argument that could be made for the validity of their orders. When the Antiochans decided they were practicing the Orthodox Faith the issue of valid orders was quickly solved, as they were absorbed into the church the priests were validly ordained priests, and a few of the bishops retained and consecrated validly (I believe all the Bishops who qualified under Church discipline actually).

In cases where it is less clear cut, such as the Anglicans, where there is a valid argument then I don’t think it is so clear cut, but if they practiced the same faith as us an uncertainty could be solved.

. . . .I would say not at all. Consecration requires a minimum of three bishops (the reason for this was so that someone couldn’t just consecrate a bunch of bishops on their own, I’m not sure if Rome still follows this), assuming that believing heresy invalidates Apostolic Succession, you’d still have the two who are still able to pass it on.

James appears to have been, and is held by tradition, to have been the head of the Church in Jerusalem, within Orthodox thought he didn’t answer to anyone in that see (partially because he was an apostle, a modern Patriarch of Jerusalem answers to his Holy Synod of Bishops).

. . . .The Other Bishops answered to Apostles when they passed through, but James had no such person to answer to. I would disagree with the wording though, in that time presbyter and bishop (episcopos) were synonymous. Each led a single church, although he may have had assistants of similar title, I don’t know.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Nine_Two,

This is an interesting issue, because there appears to be two different traditions regarding Paul’s contact/relationship with Peter and the disciples, at least in the New Testament record.

Acts Chapter 9 says Saul “attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple,” etc.

Acts 9: 26 **And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. **27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. 29And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists. But they were seeking to kill him. 30And when the brothers learned this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. 31So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.

However, in Galatians Chapter 1, Paul emphasizes the fact that he is “an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (verse 1).

In verse 16, Paul said he did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did he go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, but went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Paul said that after three years, he went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days (verse 18).

**Galatians 1: **
Greeting
1 Paul, an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers who are with me,

To the churches of Galatia:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

10For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

**18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. **19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

Any thoughts on this apparent discrepancy from the Orthodox standpoint?

Anna

I have no idea what the Church itself says on those verses, Anna, but I don’t see them as contradicting each other. Acts gives no time frame between his conversion and his going to Jerusalem, it speaks of his having to escape and then jumps to his arrival in Jerusalem.

Lets be honest, if you were trying to kill people for what they believed and then discovered they were right you probably wouldn’t be in the greatest hurry to consult with them either.

But as I said, I have no idea what the Church teaches on those two, this is merely my opinion.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .A second note is that Orthodox do recognize St. Augustine. He’s just not considered as important by us, he was one voice of many in the East, in the West he was a lone voice.
. . . .On an unrelated note, I was reading St. Clement of Alexadria’s Exortation to the Greeks last night and came across this:

“[God] may throw open wide for us the gates of heaven. For the gates of the Word are the gates of reason, opened by the key of faith. ‘No man knoweth God, save the Son, and him to whom the Son revealeth Him.’”

The faith expressed by St. Peter is the key to the gates of heaven.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Matt 16 is written in the future tense. Matt 18:18 is in the present tense and is addressed to all of the disciples. Jesus gave them all equal authority, and that’s how the universal church operated for many hundreds of years. The Great Commission fits with this.

Peter’s task from Jesus was to “feed my sheep.” It was not to “govern my sheep” or “lord over my sheep” or “act as ruler over my sheep” or any such thing. It was to FEED MY SHEEP. And that is how the universal church operated for many hundreds of years, with the Bishop of Rome as an elder brother who gave advice now and then to his siblings.

The “rock” could be Peter individually, or his confession. I’m ambivalent. If taken as Peter it is recognition of his role as shepherd to the shepherds, but this in the context of all of them being given equal authority from Jesus.

I’m aware of Jesus giving equal authority to bind and loose in Matt 18. However, I hadn’t considered the future tense and present tense difference between Matt 16 and Matt 18. Would you elaborate a bit more on the significance of present tense vs. future tense?

Matthew 16: 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock **I will **build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

**Matthew 18: **18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

Very interesting point. Christ’s command was to “feed” and “tend” His sheep. I think the word “tend” has caused some debate re what that means, exactly. Comments?

**John 21: **15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Any comments on the following quote? This is very similar to what my Rector has taught as part of the Anglican tradition–though he does have strong Eastern Orthodox leanings.

"The Primacy of Peter," Chapter 2, Peter’s Primacy In The New Testament And The Early Tradition, Veselin Kesich, page 57:
"For Karl Rahner, the post-resurrection experiences of Christ’s disciples are "strictly sui generis, and they belong to the very origin of the Church. No one can succeed to the unique status promised to the twelve (Lk 22:30). The apostles cannot hand over their places in a kingdom appointed to them, nor can Peter transfer his role as the rock of the first Church in Christ.

Only the church as a whole succeeds to these apostolic privileges. The apostles’ successor is the apostolic church, which possesses the fullness of apostolic tradition and with which Christ identifies himself. (Acts 9:4). Every bishop in the apostolic church who occupies the place which Peter occupied at the eucharistic gathering, and who performs the pastoral duties which Peter performed, is the successor to the apostle.

But no bishop can succeed to Peter’s unique place as a member of the twelve, as the first witness of the resurrection, and as the first head of the first assembly in Christ. Both the New Testament and the early history of the church are in full agreement on this point."

Looking forward to further comments.
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Chapter and verse numbers were added in the era of the Reformation. Verses 19 and 20 of chapter 6 are part of verse 18 – they’re part of a continuous statement from Jesus. To separate verse 18 from 19 and 20 is to do injustice to the text. You’re cutting off Jesus mid-stream, and you’re not reading it the way Matthew wrote it. Plainly in that passage Jesus was talking about something that he would do later.

We should remember the closing verse of chapter 16: Jesus says that his disciples will see his glory before they die. When was that fulfilled? “Six days later” in chapter 17. Was it only Peter? No, it was Peter with two other disciples. And then more time passes, and then in chapter 18 we get back to what Jesus was talking about in chapter 16.

It makes sense that the transfiguration would occur before the passing of the keys, does it not? It makes sense that Jesus would have prepped his disciples with that talk about being the Christ before he did that thing on the mountain, and it makes sense that he would have done both before passing on his keys of authority. And to say that the other 11 apostles were not given keys to the kingdom is wholly inconsistent with their three years of discipleship with Jesus. James and John were on the mountaintop too. It wasn’t just Peter. To discard them, and say that they received no keys of authority themselves in chapter 18, is crazy.

scottm,

It does make sense that the Transfiguration would occur, before the passing of the keys. It finally dawned on me that you must be talking about Pentecost/Holy Spirit coming down, as the day the Church was formed, and the Keys were bestowed. Is that what you meant?

Anna

No, I wasn’t thinking Pentecost at the time, but that’s an excellent point. Good call.

I stewed over the “primacy” issue for probably a year before I figured it out. The foreign words confused me. Sui what? Autocepha-heffalump? Huh? Nobody at McDonalds knows that that means. What the issue really is, is whether the President of Canada [or any other country – pick a country] can walk into New York and start ordering people around like the state governor would. Fire some secretary somewhere and replace him or her with someone else. That sort of thing. Veto a legislative bill. Sign a legislative bill.

And we Americans, even if we’re not from New York, say, “Hell no!”
And my hypothetical President of Canada says, “But I’m the President. Therefore, I can.”
And we Americans say, “You’re not the President of the USA. You’re not even from New York. You cannot do that.”

And my hypothetical Canadian says, “I’m the President of Canada. My country has precedence over your state. Therefore, I can.”

And around and around we go. The key concept is “jurisdiction.” Americans understand that the US government has “jurisdiction” over New York. We understand that there are layers of laws and layers of government in this country: city, then county, then state, then federal, each one having control over the layers below it. But we also understand that Canada and France and Mexico and Italy and so on, have no inherent jurisdiction in New York at all. None. Foreign countries have no voice and no power over here except to the extent of a treaty, and a treaty can be broken at any time.

Let’s bring this back to the Church question. The See of Rome is one “country,” so to speak. The See of Antioch is another, and Constantinople is another, and so on. There were originally five Sees; the Orthodox communion now recognizes 15 I think. **The “primacy” issue is whether the See of Rome can step into another See – pick one – and start hiring and firing priests and bishops there. It’s exactly analogous to my Canadian President walking into New York and taking over the role of State Governor. **

Back to the Bible quotes: for the reasons I already gave this type of jurisdiction does not come out of Matt 16. And as I said, it is wholly inconsistent with Matt 18, for it negates the authority of the other eleven apostles. It is also inconsistent with Pentecost, where everyone equally received power from the Holy Spirit. It is inconsistent with the stories in Acts and the extra-biblical histories of the first century, where all of the apostles were running around hither and yon preaching and starting churches independently of one another.

It is also inconsistent with the totality of ECF quotes on the matter and the operation of the Church for the first several hundred years. The Matthew 16 verse was not to them proof that the President of Canada could rule New York State. Everything I’ve read anywhere, taken as a whole, points to that conclusion, and points to Matt 16 proof-texting on this jurisdiction question being something that arose only at the time of the East/West schism. The original arrangement amongst the bishops was collegial. Each patriarch ruled his own territory and only his own. The ecumencial councils actually divided up the globe into distinct regions so that nobody would step on another person’s toes!

scottm,

I really appreciate all you have written here. I agree that the"totality of ECF quotes on the matter and the operation of the Church for the first several hundred years" must be considered. I’m in the study mode, trying to sort through all this. I must admit, it is a rather daunting task–so much history to cover.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .For the EO’s, primacy has always meant being a servant leader. The Patriarch of Rome is “head” of the church in the sense of being the guy who pulls everyone together. He is pastor to the patriarchs. He is the Church’s designated spokesman to the world. It’s his job to serve as chairman of ecumenical councils. Each patriarch would have sole authority over his own jurisdiction, but Rome would be the first choice for a mediator if/when a dispute arises between patriarchs. Any patriarch can and would ask advice of other patriarch’s, but Rome’s advice would carry more weight because of its role as “pastor to the pastors.”

That’s my understanding anyway, based upon my own research. Taken in its totality this EO conception of the Pope is fully consistent with all of the Early Church Father quotes selected by Roman Catholics.

. . . .My parish is under the care of the Melkites (though we’re of a separate Russian tradition), who are under the Patriarch of Antioch. The Melkite Archbishop for the USA passes us to the care of the Archbishop of Los Angeles because there is no local Melkite bishop. Thus, we have above us both Latin and Byzantine bishops. It’s a little confusing, but the important part is the official statement of faith of the Melkites.

The official statement of faith is, and I quote:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.

That was submitted to the Vatican in 1995, if I remember right, and publicly published in 1996. The Vatican has not rejected it. As part of my membership catechism I was given a copy of the official Melkite handbook direct from the Archbishop in Massachusetts. That there statement of faith is in the book.

As I said, my parish is not itself Melkite. It’s Russian. But we believe the same as the Melkites. Every Sunday in divine liturgy we call ourselves “Orthodox Christians,” and we pray for “Orthodox Christians.” We also pray for Pope Benedict three times.

In short, I’m just “Christian” – part West, part East. But more East than West. It’s sort of like how Augustine and Chrysostom lived. They could appreciate differences in liturgical flavor and whatnot without breaking unity.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .St. Augustine is a saint in our Church too. And he is known to have retracted his earlier view of Mathew 16 and later believed that the rock was Christ and since Peter confessed it, Peter was called “Rocky”. St. Augustine himself said, “Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession.”. . . .

searn77,
I Appreciate the comments on St. Augustine.

Would you comment on the Orthodox view of authority (i.e. laying on of hands, Apostolic Succession–Orthodox Ecclesiology):

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The idea of the Rock being the CONFESSION Peter made and not being Peter himself is definitely well-attested in the early church. Augustine stands out as one of the main proponents of the idea of the confession being the Rock:

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ– St. Augustine, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

Peter had already said to him, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ He had already heard, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her’ (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where’s the rock? Where’s the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That’s why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn’t lived–St. Augustine, John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, pp. 95-96.

 

[Anna_Scott]

This quote from Ambrose just paints such a powerful picture of an Orthodox style of Church polity and Orthodox understanding of Peter that it’s just amazing:

**He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard: ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank…**This, then, is Peter who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. Christ agreed with him; the Father revealed it to him. For he who speaks of the true generation of the Father, received it from the Father, did not receive it from the flesh. Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies. The day will fail me sooner than the names of heretics and the different sects, yet against all is this general faith-that Christ is the Son of God, and eternal from the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary–St. Ambrose, 52The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 4.32-5.35, pp. 230-1.

 

[Anna_Scott]

’I am the living bread;’ and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)…Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you…He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him.–St. Ambrose, Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4, Cited by Karlfreid Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16:13-18 im lateinischen Mittelater, Dissertation, Tubingen, 1963.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The 27th canon of the Council of Chalcedon always fascinates me. It not only puts Constantinople on a par with Rome, but it lays out the reasoning why Rome was always given a primacy. It was NOT because of Matthew 16:18 or keys or Peter, it was politically the fact that Rome was the capital city, the heart of the Empire, THE city of cities for its heydey, the New York or London of Antiquity. And when Constantinople became the “new Rome” it took on a sort of co-primacy and ascendancy. It’s fascinating. Here’s the canon and keep in mind this is from an ecumenical council, not some private Orthodox bishop:

***Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome***, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.

And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve imported some great quotes. Hope for more thoughts and comments from Orthodox and Anglican forum members.

Thanks so much,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .My thoughts are this:

1. The verses speaking about the keys and the Rock could be understood in many different ways, and alone cannot prove anything. . . .
2. If we look at quotes from the EFCs, or even the not-so-EFCs, we can still come to no conclusion. We can end up with crossed eyes and facial tics, but no assurances.
3. If we look at how the Church was actually run, I think it leans towards the Orthodox position. Yes, there are examples of the papacy playing a very significant, and even authoritative role. But there are cases where that is not what is happening. Given the nature of the question, if the Church legitimately operates even sometimes according to the Orthodox model, it tends to support that model, To show the Roman model is correct it must be supported in every instance which doesn’t involve actual heresy and schism. . . . .

Bluegoat,

I appreciate your comments.

My Rector leans heavily in the direction of Eastern Orthodox, when it comes to issues of authority (and other issues) and has taught some great history classes.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would really like to have some discussion about “Eucharistic Ecclesiology”.

Any comments?

Anna

 

[Madaglan]

I would really like to have some discussion about “Eucharistic Ecclesiology”.

Any comments?

Anna

St. Ignatius of Antioch in the second century wrote that where Christ is [in the mysteries] there is the Church. Although the Church is found throughout the world, it is mystically and fully present in the local church where the Eucharist is celebrated. St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, addresses his epistle to “the church of God in Corinth.” He means by this, not one of many churches that together make up the Church, but the one true Church mystically made present amongst the Corinthian Christians.

There is a tendency today (in Catholicism, perhaps Orthodoxy too) to see the parish and diocese as “part” of the Church, which is meant the universal Church.

A few years back, Cardinal Kasper and Pope Benedict had a debate over the nature of the Church and the precedence of the universal or local Church. In a nutshell, Pope Benedict emphasized the priority of the universal Church, while Cardinal Kasper focused on the Church as the local Church. I’ve only read descriptions of the debate, but from it sounds, Cardinal Kasper takes his stand at least in part on a Eucharistic Ecclesiology.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Orthodox and Anglican forum members are invited to Compare & Contrast Orthodox and Anglican views regarding the Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority.

Matthew 16 (ESV): 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The inspiration for this thread is a book entitled, "The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor. This is a fascinating book written from the Orthodox viewpoint; and is my introduction to the Orthodox view of the subject.

I know there are a number of us, in the Anglican Communion, who are considering the Orthodox faith (along with Catholicism-though Catholicism is not the topic of this thread.)

I welcome comments from Orthodox forum members, and those in the Anglican Communion, to compare & contrast views of the Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority, etc.

Thanks to All,
Anna

Hi Anna!

Quite frankly I believe the early Church’s view of papal primacy was somewhere in between modern Catholic and Orthodox views. It is obvious that at times the pope was obeyed and his proclamations considered authoritative. It is also absolutely clear that most of the time the pope’s judgment and opinions were highly prized and respected. Then you have occasions where the pope’s judgment didn’t seem as important such as when he passed a sentence on Nestorius and then the bishops at Ephesus seated him as a bishop anyway and heard his case anew, or when Chalcedon was called against the wishes of Pope Leo (who wanted the council held in the West), or when the Second Council was chaired by a bishop, St Meletius, who was not in communion with Rome. Then you have incidences of the pope himself being strongly rebuked such as Cyprian’s rebuke of Victor or the anathematization of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Council.

It seems to me that the Orthodox view of papal authority is that it is much more charismatic in nature instead of the highly juridical approach the Roman Catholic Church has adopted. Not unlike great Russian starets such as St Seraphim, who wielded more spiritual authority during his lifetime than the Metropolitan of Moscow himself. That kind of authority doesn’t need to be defined in doctrines and canons. St Seraphim didn’t announce to the world that that he was a great spiritual father; people came to him of their own volition because the Holy Spirit had revealed it to them. When the pope did speak in the power of the Holy Spirit the people of God recognized it and followed him. When he didn’t not necessarily so.

For example: all of us, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestants alike recognized when Pope John Paul II spoke with genuine authority in the power the Holy Spirit. We didn’t need Vatican I and II to tell us so. That is the only way genuine papal authority can be expressed in a united Church, an authority of spiritual fatherhood in the Holy Spirit, not a juridical, institutional authority defined in legalistic terms.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

I would really like to have some discussion about “Eucharistic Ecclesiology”.

Any comments?

Anna

Fr Alexander Schmemann’s For the Life of the World is the best book I’ve ever read on the subject. It is one of those books that can genuinely change your life. If you haven’t read it I highly recommend it.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Madaglan]

Hi Anna!

Quite frankly I believe the early Church’s view of papal primacy was somewhere in between modern Catholic and Orthodox views. It is obvious that at times the pope was obeyed and his proclamations considered authoritative. It is also absolutely clear that most of the time the pope’s judgment and opinions were highly prized and respected. Then you have occasions where the pope’s judgment didn’t seem as important such as when he passed a sentence on Nestorius and then the bishops at Ephesus seated him as a bishop anyway and heard his case anew, or when Chalcedon was called against the wishes of Pope Leo (who wanted the council held in the West), or when the Second Council was chaired by a bishop, St Meletius, who was not in communion with Rome. Then you have incidences of the pope himself being strongly rebuked such as Cyprian’s rebuke of Victor or the anathematization of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Council.

It seems to me that the Orthodox view of papal authority is that it is much more charismatic in nature instead of the highly juridical approach the Roman Catholic Church has adopted. Not unlike great Russian starets such as St Seraphim, who wielded more spiritual authority during his lifetime than the Metropolitan of Moscow himself. That kind of authority doesn’t need to be defined in doctrines and canons. St Seraphim didn’t announce to the world that that he was a great spiritual father; people came to him of their own volition because the Holy Spirit had revealed it to them. When the pope did speak in the power of the Holy Spirit the people of God recognized it and followed him. When he didn’t not necessarily so.

For example: all of us, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestants alike recognized when Pope John Paul II spoke with genuine authority in the power the Holy Spirit. We didn’t need Vatican I and II to tell us so. That is the only way genuine papal authority can be expressed in a united Church, an authority of spiritual fatherhood in the Holy Spirit, not a juridical, institutional authority defined in legalistic terms.

Yours in Christ
Joe

My readings of the early Church has led me to understand that early in Church history, it was the Church of Rome rather than a singular Pope of Rome that had moral authority. Eamon Duffy, a Catholic historian, notes that there was no monarchial episcopal structure in Rome until the second century. Duffy notes, however, that Rome exerted a strong influence on the churches, and that even when there was no Pope (as during a vacant see) letters were still written by the Roman Church to other Churches and were followed.

I agree with your statement on the Orthodox as having a more charismatic view of papal authority. Oliver Clement, in his book You Are Peter, identifies this as the Pauline charism of the Church, of which the West has lost contact.