Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[EIF5A]

But does the bible itself tell us not all is revealed trhough scripture but to go to the Church it is the Church that teaches and leads us to the truth?

Then would not the Church be proof? Is is proved from the time of Peter that he leadership is passed on.

It is Jesus who began the passing on when he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

It is history from the O.T. that the keys were passed on,. Keys meant leadership. Do you ot see that?

Where does Scripture say to go to the Church for the truth?

How much can we draw comparison from the earthly authority to spiritual authority?

Just because a parallel can be drawn, shall we conclude that it is a necessary reason for something being true?

 

[LionHeart777]

Where does Scripture say to go to the Church for the truth?

Mt. 18:18-19, Mt. 18:17, Acts 15, and"…the pillar and ground of the truth.

Those are a few.

How much can we draw comparison from the earthly authority to spiritual authority?

Scripture is explicit that what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven (Mt. 18:18-19, Mt. 18:17-18) and that, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (Jn. 20:23)

Just because a parallel can be drawn, shall we conclude that it is a necessary reason for something being true?

It is explicit in Scripture in Tradition (and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.)

 

[rinnie]

Where does Scripture say to go to the Church for the truth?

How much can we draw comparison from the earthly authority to spiritual authority?

Just because a parallel can be drawn, shall we conclude that it is a necessary reason for something being true?

Simply put in 1 Tim 3:15 is pretty clear in stating the Church is the Pilar of all truth. Not that all truth is in the bible or scripture but that questions happens to be there.

We better be able to compare earthly authority to spiritual authority or the CC is in big trouble.

I mean Christ gave the Priests the authority to forgive sin, What just the Apostles, the authority died with the Apostles?

Jesus surely was quite clear when he stated to Peter what he bounds on earth is bound in heaven. What Peter was the only one who could bound on earth? So the Pope has no authority?

Who took it from him and when? Why did Peter say it was clear God made his choice between us it is I who would teach the good news to the gentles. What choice? Why did the Apostles not deny that and say no we are all equal God did not choose YOU Peter?

And yes the Apostles knew Jewish law and knew what the keys to the kingdom meant. Why do you think Jesus said that Peter had the keys to the kingdom? And if the Apostles did not know by Jewish scripture what the keys to the kingdom meant why did they not question Christ then?

 

[rinnie]

First, all the Apostles were promised thrones. It wasn’t only Peter who had a throne.

Second, while there is no doubt that Peter has a leadership role with the Apostles, there is no clear scriptural basis regarding the Roman Catholic Claim about Papal authority. Even if we are to assume that all the other Apostles needed to take orders from Peter, again there is nothing in Scripture that says Peter passed on such an authority to anyone else.

Where does Tradition have to be written in scripture. Was it not St Paul who told Timothy to stick to Tradition given to you EITHER written or word of mouth.

Word of Mouth would be Tradition handed down. History can prove every single Pope after Peter. How can it be denied?

Jesus said hades will not prevail. Which hades means 2 things death and sin. Jesus himself said hades would not prevail over the Church. Which means death. Death of the Apostles and their authority. The keys to the kingdom did not die with St Peter. They have continued to be passed down. History proves this.

 

[Nicea325]

Ah, this post-Constantinople nonsense. You cannot reject “Post-Constantinople” without rejecting the very ecumenical councils (three of which were held in Constantinople).

Right, because it’s not as if the Second Council of Constantinople happened in the first millennium or anything.

Nonsense according to who? You? Location is the not the issue- at- hand.And you cannot reject, deny or everything written before Constantinople even existed as a See as mere “proof-texting.” If you consider ancient sources as mere “proof-texting” instruments, then tell me, what should one utilize as legit sources? Pure hear-say? Again, I find very little support for the model Orthodoxs today claim existed the first 1,000 years.

 

[Nicea325]

Where does Tradition have to be written in scripture. Was it not St Paul who told Timothy to stick to Tradition given to you EITHER written or word of mouth.

Word of Mouth would be Tradition handed down. History can prove every single Pope after Peter. How can it be denied?

Jesus said hades will not prevail. Which hades means 2 things death and sin. Jesus himself said hades would not prevail over the Church. Which means death. Death of the Apostles and their authority. The keys to the kingdom did not die with St Peter. They have continued to be passed down. History proves this.

Easily. By turning the blind eye.

 

[rinnie]

Easily. By turning the blind eye.

Thats pretty much the way I can only see it.

Sometimes I beleive if people want the truth all they have to do is use common sense. After all God did indeed give it to most of us.

Here is how I see it. Jesus said to Peter to You I give the keys to the kingdom. You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.

Now common sense. Did Peter indeed gp tp Rome and build the Roman Catholic Church where the Pope is, and where Peter is layed to rest.

So it somes down to this either Peter did indeed start the One True Church in Rome where the Pope is today or Peter is a Judas and betrayed Jesus also.

You truly can’t have it 2 ways.

So it as I see it God knew we were all mostly pretty adverage as far as our minds go. Some have super minds, most are adverage.

Now was Peter an Apostle of Christ and was he in the Roman Catholic Church? If the answer is yes the next question has to follow.

Did Peter betray Jesus and start a Church of his own, and betray Jesus? If you say no. Then you must agree that the RCC is indeed led by the One True Holy Spirit and the gates of hades will not prevail.

Or Peter was a Judas, Its quite simple.

Peter is my proof that I belong to the Church that Jesus asked him to start, and the Church he held the keys to bind and loose.

Who here can say in their own hearts they believe Peter betrayed God? If you don’t believe that then you must agree the RCC was indeed started by Peter and is led by the Holy Spirit today as it was the day of Pentecost.

I am so confused why this is not simple for all.

 

[EIF5A]

Did the Eastern Church reject the jurisdiction of Rome out of principle (collegial vs. monarchial) or because at that historic time, she did not agree with the practices of the Roman Catholic Church and that being under the jurisdiction would run counter to their faith and conscience?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

That is a peculiarity of the new world. Had Orthodoxy not suffered such an organizational blow from the simultaneous assault of the Turks upon ethnic Greeks in the early to mid 20th century, and the communist revolution in Russia, it is quite possible that there would only be one Orthodox jurisdiction in each land, as the canons dictate there should be. At any rate, it does not matter, because the Russians, the Greeks, the Serbians, the Georgians, etc. are in doctrinal agreement

There is also disagreement among the Roman Catholics (or am I to believe that Karl Rahner and Garrigou-Lagrange agreed theologically). That proves nothing.

It should stand to reason that the East, being more intellectually developed than the West had more doctrinal disputes in the first millennium. The process reversed during the second millennium, with most doctrinal disputes coming out of the better intellectually-equipped West. I don’t see how that proves anything.

Any church headed by an Orthodox bishop. The Church Catholic is fully present anywhere where an Orthodox hierarch presides. The West has, unfortunately, lost this understanding of Catholicity, which is why it can only conceive of “particular churches” without being able to recognize fully the Catholicity of each particular church.

This is untrue, because the Church Catholic is not contained in any single place despite being manifest in many places simultaneously.

Binding and Loosing is not only limited to forgiving and retaining sins, although this is primary. It also implies the authority to define doctrine and make rules. For how can one possess the power to forgive sins if he is “defining” sins according to his own standards? The one who has this power must also be within a structure where the truth is a visible and constant transmission. Otherwise, what prevents a Charismatic pentecostal preacher from claiming his has power to forgive sins, and according to him, you have to repent from catholic theology (baptism, eucharist) in order to be forgiven. Therefore, the one who binds or loose must be within a structure where the infallible truth is visible to both the one who binds and the one who sins. Otherwise, we are back into a relative subjective bickering match that exists in the protestant church.

If the Church truly has power to bind and loose, then it better well has some means of maintaining a visible source of truth and unity. And I just cannot see how the Orthodox can even do this.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Binding and Loosing is not only limited to forgiving and retaining sins, although this is primary. It also implies the authority to define doctrine and make rules.

That follows from the power to bind, which as I already said, is the power of the sword, to cut people off from the Church and to discipline them.

For how can one possess the power to forgive sins if he is “defining” sins according to his own standards?

That is Donatism plain and simple. The sacrament performed is not affected by the minister’s own worthiness or even his own doctrinal orthodoxy (plenty of priests who hold unorthodox opinions are still said to give valid sacraments in both Eastern and Western theology).

The one who has this power must also be within a structure where the truth is a visible and constant transmission.

That structure is the Church.

Otherwise, what prevents a Charismatic pentecostal preacher from claiming his has power to forgive sins, and according to him, you have to repent from catholic theology (baptism, eucharist) in order to be forgiven.

He has not Apostolic Succession. Hence he lacks authority.

Therefore, the one who binds or loose must be within a structure where the infallible truth is visible to both the one who binds and the one who sins.

The one who binds and looses our sins is God, and to Him, the truth is known in its fullness. His ministers on earth, with whom He has shared His authority, see the truth in glimpses from His revelation to them, but they do not see the truth completely (such is impossible for us to do, as our inability to escape discursive thought prevents us from accessing the truth completely at any given time, even if it were possible for us to exhaust the content of the truth), and hence they are still liable to error.

Otherwise, we are back into a relative subjective bickering match that exists in the protestant church.

I am sorry that uncertainty is so disturbing to you, but there is no way to escape the systemic doubt you operate under. Not even accepting the papacy will manage to quell all of your doubts, though it might manage to make them seem more distant.

If the Church truly has power to bind and loose, then it better well has some means of maintaining a visible source of truth and unity.

Nothing in life is that certain. See the Great (Western) Schism for example.

And I just cannot see how the Orthodox can even do this.

We have done fine for the past 1900+ years.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi God Seeker. Not meaning to be a backseat driver, but have you considered putting “Anglo-Papal” in your profile? It might give people a better idea where you’re coming from and thus make them more receptive to your posts.

 

[truthseeker32]

I recommend that everyone listen to these recordings from the 2011 Orientale Lumen conference, a gathering of Catholic and Orthodox individuals where they discuss the path and obstacles to union. The first two Catholic speakers represent the general consensus among historians that there is no historical basis for the Roman claim to Papal Supremacy (something pop-apologists have yet to pick up on).

ancientfaith.com/specials/orientale_lumen_xv_conference

 

[Nicea325]

Thats pretty much the way I can only see it.

Sometimes I beleive if people want the truth all they have to do is use common sense. After all God did indeed give it to most of us.

Here is how I see it. Jesus said to Peter to You I give the keys to the kingdom. You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.

Now common sense. Did Peter indeed gp tp Rome and build the Roman Catholic Church where the Pope is, and where Peter is layed to rest.

So it somes down to this either Peter did indeed start the One True Church in Rome where the Pope is today or Peter is a Judas and betrayed Jesus also.

You truly can’t have it 2 ways.

So it as I see it God knew we were all mostly pretty adverage as far as our minds go. Some have super minds, most are adverage.

Now was Peter an Apostle of Christ and was he in the Roman Catholic Church? If the answer is yes the next question has to follow.

Did Peter betray Jesus and start a Church of his own, and betray Jesus? If you say no. Then you must agree that the RCC is indeed led by the One True Holy Spirit and the gates of hades will not prevail.

Or Peter was a Judas, Its quite simple.

Peter is my proof that I belong to the Church that Jesus asked him to start, and the Church he held the keys to bind and loose.

Who here can say in their own hearts they believe Peter betrayed God? If you don’t believe that then you must agree the RCC was indeed started by Peter and is led by the Holy Spirit today as it was the day of Pentecost.

I am so confused why this is not simple for all.

Because God also gave us free-will. Frankly I have come to the point, where I stop discussing the issue.

 

[Schism_hater]

If The Roman Catholics then go even one step further in negating the Protestant understanding of a fallible Church, and draw the conclusion that under certain circumstances, the Church Catholic is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals. (As an interesting aside, I have noticed that both approaches lead to their own forms of doctrinal minimalism)
.

Your aside is dead-on. If Catholics would take an honest look at the problems that developed post-Vatican II, they could see that they are in many respects they were the result of the atrophy in scriptural and patristic awareness that had been setting in for centuries in the post-Tridentine church, such awareness being pushed out by a fixation on Roman authority. A lot of Catholics, including clergy, really thought that Catholicism consisted in the assent to a minimal set of post-schism doctrines, particularly papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, and practically everything else was up for grabs. I know, I was there.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

I recommend that everyone listen to these recordings from the 2011 Orientale Lumen conference, a gathering of Catholic and Orthodox individuals where they discuss the path and obstacles to union. The first two Catholic speakers represent the general consensus among historians that there is no historical basis for the Roman claim to Papal Supremacy (something pop-apologists have yet to pick up on).

ancientfaith.com/specials/orientale_lumen_xv_conference

Having listened to the presentations of Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, S.J., Msgr. Michael K. Magee, and Dr. Adam A. J. Deville, not certain how the correct understanding of “papal supremacy” - vis-à-vis the Magisterium - is necessarily being denied by any of these speakers? Perhaps the various polemical misrepresentations of this concept are what at issue?

 

[rinnie]

Where does Scripture say to go to the Church for the truth?

How much can we draw comparison from the earthly authority to spiritual authority?

Just because a parallel can be drawn, shall we conclude that it is a necessary reason for something being true?

In the bible. It tells you quite clear the Church is the pilar of ALL TRUTH.

We can draw the comparison from the words of Christ. All power of heaven and earth has been given to me from my Father in heaven. What my Father has given me I now give to you. Go and spread the good news.

Baptise for the forgiveness of sins. Forgive sins in my name. What you bind is bound and what you loose is loose.

We draw the earthly authority the same as we drew it from Christ. Christ was God made man. Christ said whoever hears you HEARS ME. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles or today we call them Bishops the same way the Holy Spirit worked through the Apostles of yesterday.

Do you feel the Holy Spirit lost his power to work through the Pope today, the same Holy Spirit who worked through Peter?? If so then what do you make of the words of Christ? I will NOT leave you orphans.

If the Pope and Bishops do not have this same power to work which is earthly authority to spiritual authority we are all orphans and our Lord did not keep his promise.

But we have a Lord that keeps his promises.

As long as there is a Pope and Bishops we are not Orphans. We have our Fathers here on earth to protect us and teach us the word of God. And who God works through to help us with our salvation through his visible living Church.

 

[rinnie]

Baptism is mentioned in Scripture, and it is easy to make a conjecture between several passages which will prove the truth in infant baptism. However, Peter having a successor, not at all in Scripture. Even Matthew 16 makes no mention of any passing of the keys to anyone else. So your conclusion here is wrong.

Really then the gates of hades prevailed right? We are left orphans right? So Jesus lied to us??

 

[MoreCoffee]

Your aside is dead-on. If Catholics would take an honest look at the problems that developed post-Vatican II, they could see that they are in many respects they were the result of the atrophy in scriptural and patristic awareness that had been setting in for centuries in the post-Tridentine church, such awareness being pushed out by a fixation on Roman authority. A lot of Catholics, including clergy, really thought that Catholicism consisted in the assent to a minimal set of post-schism doctrines, particularly papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, and practically everything else was up for grabs. I know, I was there.

Sorry to be blunt in this short reply but what is claimed in the above quote is false, a kind of fiction that might entertain some minds but that is not true to history nor to the current state of religion in the world.

Catholic faith is far from the kind of minimalism one finds in discussions about ‘the essentials’ on many a Protestant forum and even further from the statements of doctrine common on denominational web sites. Even the Catechisms of Catholic theologians and the Catechism of the Catholic Church - which are teaching documents and hence are always summaries of the faith rather that fulsome treatments of the doctrines and moral teaching of the Church - are hundreds of pages long rather than 20 or 30 paragraphs (as is typical of statements of faith found on denominational web sites).

I do not pretend to know what motivated the statements in the quote above but those statements are absurd.

 

[Peter_J]

Having listened to the presentations of Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, S.J., Msgr. Michael K. Magee, and Dr. Adam A. J. Deville, not certain how the correct understanding of “papal supremacy” - vis-à-vis the Magisterium - is necessarily being denied by any of these speakers? Perhaps the various polemical misrepresentations of this concept are what at issue?

Just to throw in my :twocents:, I’m a big fan of the Orientale Lumen conferences, but I wouldn’t take them as proof of anything.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11140531:

Having listened to the presentations of Archimandrite Robert F. Taft, S.J., Msgr. Michael K. Magee, and Dr. Adam A. J. Deville, not certain how the correct

understanding of “papal supremacy” - vis-à-vis the Magisterium - is necessarily being denied by any of these speakers? Perhaps the various polemical misrepresentations of this concept are what at issue?
Just to throw in my :twocents:, I’m a big fan of the Orientale Lumen conferences, but I wouldn’t take them as proof of anything.

Never implied otherwise; although, such conferences do offer a valuable occasion to initially gauge the theological currents presently prevailing in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.