Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[ConstantineTG]

The word “office” does. Officers occupy these offices, and when an officer dies, his term ends, or he is otherwise replaced… the man changes, but the “office” remains with ALL it’s authority. Some examples of this is the Office of the President of the United States. The Office of Prime Minister of Great Britain. The Office of the General Secretary of the United Nations. All of these offices had men ascend to them after the initial holder of said office vacated it.

Lets look at Acts 1:15-20

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ’May another take his office.'

Bold, underline, and italics are mine.

Here, Peter shows his leadership, AND the transfer of an Apostolic office.

You may say that this doesn’t apply to Peter, because he’s not talking about HIS office. But this establishes precedent, and since the Church needs a leader, why choose to be leaderless? I am certain that when Peter was martyred, Linus took his place as the Vicar of Christ.

Have a good night. I shall return tomorrow.

Using the office of Judas to justify Peter passing his office to someone else is a poor example. Why? Because James, the son of Zebedee, was killed in Acts 12. But the Apostles never replaced him. The office of the Apostles are theirs alone, and is never given to anyone else unless they abdicate the faith just as Judas did. Because all 12 died faithful to Christ, they keep their offices for all eternity.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineG,

John Meyendorff is indeed a careful critic. However, maybe you should check out the following on the Papacy.

amazon.com/Studies-Early-Papacy-John-Chapman/dp/1475044909/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372126922&sr=8-1&keywords=dom+chapman

I was curious if you could explain why and how the Early Councils referred to the church of Rome as the Head and Ruler of all the churches? When there was an attempt to attribute a great authority to Constantinople, Pope Leo responded is amazement at how the bishops could possibly think that Constantinople could take the place of Rome in universal primacy.

Philip the Legate of Rome, just before the Extract on the Acts of Session 3 in the Council of Ephesus offers thanksgiving to the Synod for agreeing with the doctrine propounded by Pope Celestine because by doing so they joined with the head of the whole faith, Peter himself. Philip expresses that Peter, the head of the apostles, continues to live and judge with the authority given to him in his lawful successors in Rome. What kind of purpose does this serve other than humiliation if such a thing was novel ?

I mean even Bishop Kallistos Ware recognizes that there is a universal primacy to the function of the bishop of Rome because of the principle of Petrinias, only he believes in a more reciprocal medium for that primacy.

The Orthodox recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The problem is that Roman Catholics have a different understanding of what Primacy means than the ancient Church. The Orthodox never viewed Primacy to mean “universal, ordinary jurisdiction”, as promulgated by Vatican I. Every Patriarch has primacy in their Church, but they do not have universal jurisdiction in their own Church.

 

[joe371]

The Catholic claim is that the keys denote authority. If Peter did not have authority, then what else are the keys for?

I did not say that…I said: Even if you are right and Peter had no authority over the other apostles…Keys denote authority and only Peter was given the keys of Jesus’ church. That cannot be denied by anyone, well, except my sister. LOL. She believes that every Christian was issued a pair.

 

[joe371]

No. The Patriarch is a bishop of their own diocese. They have the authority to depose priests in their diocese but not priests in other diocese.

That is what I was asking, and you answered my question. Why should he have that authority over his diocese, and the bishop of Rome cannot over his church? We as Catholics embrace the idea…

 

[ConstantineTG]

I did not say that…I said: Even if you are right and Peter had no authority over the other apostles…Keys denote authority and only Peter was given the keys of Jesus’ church. That cannot be denied by anyone, well, except my sister. LOL. She believes that every Christian was issued a pair.

But what are the keys? If it is binding and loosing, all Apostles have that by Matthew 18. And in the very next verse (Mat 18:19), Christ explicitly tells the Apostles that God will grant anything it two of them agree on something. So clearly any authority is not possessed by one single Apostle. Two of them must agree to something first.

 

[joe371]

But what are the keys? If it is binding and loosing, all Apostles have that by Matthew 18. And in the very next verse (Mat 18:19), Christ explicitly tells the Apostles that God will grant anything it two of them agree on something. So clearly any authority is not possessed by one single Apostle. Two of them must agree to something first.

keys denote authority Isiah 22…:thumbsup:Only Peter was given the keys from God, just as the king, in the OT issued the key to his prime minister. When I am acting as the operations manager at work I am given the keys. However, I hate the authority. LOL…

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is what I was asking, and you answered my question. Why should he have that authority over his diocese, and the bishop of Rome cannot over his church? We as Catholics embrace the idea…

A diocese is a Church. The Church of the Bishop of Rome is the diocese of Rome. Each Church is a body, the same way that each person is a body. It is important that the Church be seen individually, rather than a conglomerate of one. Why? What happens in a schism? If the Church is a literal one under the Pope, then what happens in a schism? Is the body amputated? Then a body divided is not a whole body anymore.

But if Church is a body of its one, and forming the One Church through communion, the same was each and everyone of us form the one body through communion with one another, then and schism does not wound the greater body. Remember, God is one but there are three persons. This is a model of consistency that you will see throughout the Church. God is one but three. Husband and wife is two but one flesh. A diocese is one Church, one Body, though composed of many individual bodies of persons. And the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is one Church, composed of many Churches in communion with one another. In Orthodoxy, we call that “sinergia”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

keys denote authority Isiah 22…:thumbsup:Only Peter was given the keys from God, just as the king, in the OT issued the key to his prime minister. When I am acting as the operations manager at work I am given the keys. However, I hate the authority. LOL…

Why does Christ need a Pope if He sent the Holy Spirit?

 

[joe371]

A diocese is a Church. The Church of the Bishop of Rome is the diocese of Rome. Each Church is a body, the same way that each person is a body. It is important that the Church be seen individually, rather than a conglomerate of one. Why? What happens in a schism? If the Church is a literal one under the Pope, then what happens in a schism? Is the body amputated? Then a body divided is not a whole body anymore.

But if Church is a body of its one, and forming the One Church through communion, the same was each and everyone of us form the one body through communion with one another, then and schism does not wound the greater body. Remember, God is one but there are three persons. This is a model of consistency that you will see throughout the Church. God is one but three. Husband and wife is two but one flesh. A diocese is one Church, one Body, though composed of many individual bodies of persons. And the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is one Church, composed of many Churches in communion with one another. In Orthodoxy, we call that “sinergia”.

Speaking of consistency: The CC is one church with one Petrine leader and a body of Bishops that work in tandem with the Petrine leader via council. I respect admirably appreciate the Orthodox authoritative hierarchy. I almost joined the orthodox church…The keys speak volumes to me thought; not to you though and that’s cool. To each their own…

 

[joe371]

Why does Christ need a Pope if He sent the Holy Spirit?

Why does God need a Patriarch of each diocese if God sent the holy Spirit?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why does God need a Patriarch of each diocese if God sent the holy Spirit?

But a Patriarch does not claim that he is a vicar of Christ. The Patriarchal model arose to determine who is the “first among equals” in certain jurisdictions. That is all what a Patriarch is, he is the one who presides in synods. He is the leader of the synod of bishops, but not leader in the sense of “boss”, but leader in the sense that he organizes everyone. He does not tell other bishops what to do, they figure out together what they need to do and agree on it as a group.

 

[joe371]

But a Patriarch does not claim that he is a vicar of Christ. The Patriarchal model arose to determine who is the “first among equals” in certain jurisdictions. That is all what a Patriarch is, he is the one who presides in synods. He is the leader of the synod of bishops, but not leader in the sense of “boss”, but leader in the sense that he organizes everyone. He does not tell other bishops what to do, they figure out together what they need to do and agree on it as a group.

Why did the king in the OT need a prime minister when he was a way? There is your answer.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why did the king in the OT need a prime minister when he was a way? There is your answer.

But is God not everywhere at all times? And did Jesus not promise the Apostles that he will be “with you until the end of ages”? Is Jesus an absentee king?

 

[joe371]

But is God not everywhere at all times? And did Jesus not promise the Apostles that he will be “with you until the end of ages”? Is Jesus an absentee king?

Yes to the first question and no to the second question. The earthly vicar of Christ makes sense to me. My sister rejects your church and my church based on the same premise that you have presented.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Read two chapters over in Matthew. Matthew 18, it is clear that the authority to bind and loose is given to ALL the Apostles.

Matthew 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Here, Jesus is speaking to all his Apostles, not just Peter. And in the very next verse:

Matthew 18:19
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

So the power of two is better than the power of one. Proof that one bishop is not above the multitude.

Your quotes do not disagree with my point; Apostolic succession and apostolic authority was divinely given. I am glad we got to first base here. It appeared your response earlier was leaning to denying such a fact.

The two agree-ing relates to the Church unity. The two in Peter’s singular case involves Jesus himself binding and loosing from heaven what ever Peter himself binds and looses on earth. Verse eighteen reveals the full unity with Jesus and Peter present before the apostles after Jesus had already given Peter the keys singularly, that from this united presence the keys can be excercised to bind and loose on earth. You appear to be arguing that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven can be excercised universally by any and all bishops? Your apparent view is never supported by sacred scripture nor sacred Tradition.

When all the apostles in the presence of Peter and Jesus reveals a display of unity, It is here that Jesus reveals the unity of the two are united on earth who agree about anything, not the excercising of the keys that what ever they ask from this unity, “it will be done for them by my Father in heaven”.

For clarification; in this display of two agreeing does not display the binding and loosing of the keys, but “praying in agreement to ask for”, that their request will be done by the Father in heaven. But it is to Peter alone who binds and looses on earth, Jesus Himself will bind and loose in heaven.

When the apostles are united with Peter the binding and loosing can take place universally. Whatever Peter binds and looses on earth in the excercising of the keys universally, Jesus will bind and loose in heaven.

When two agree on earth (never binding or loosing is revealed here) about anything and ask for; It will be done by the Father in heaven. There is a distinct difference here from the binding and loosing of Peter singularly operating on earth with Jesus operating from heaven than the binding and loosing united in Peter’s and Jesus presence with all the apostles (united as one) that a binding and loosing on earth can take place universally.

I want to be clear here, your post’s reveal this divine authority given to Peter singularly by Jesus has nothing to do with the Church’s operating and making decisions by themselves, I agree with you here. The Catholic church never reaches for such authority which you appear to be rejecting. I reject it as well, because the Popes never reach for such local political or social authority over any Church.

The authority which no one can reject, is the authority which Jesus placed upon Peter to bind and loose on earth singularly. That is why the Popes were sought after post Constantinople by the Emperors and Councils to ratify the councils findings. The popes universal binding and loosing deals with faith and moral apostolic teachings and divine revelations which come under attack to be rejected or changed. Peter the Rock does not, cannot, and will not change what Jesus has built upon Peter to tend and feed Jesus flock on earth until Jesus returns.

Can you make it more clearer in your post’s to what type of authority your rejecting? Because the authority I reject with you is the secular political authority and the secular social authority over the Church’s. But as far as a Church trying to change any apostolic teaching, the Pope’s will be sure to intervene as Rock. When it comes to the local church having it’s own jurisdiction, these are never brought into question under the Popes authority. Only when a specific Church rejects or begins teaching another gospel, Peter in the Popes are commissioned to tend these flock. The Pope must intervene to protect the teachings and protect the flock of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

EvangelCatholic;10906038]This is where nearly all other Christians, join the Orthodox in rejecting infallibility and primacy of the Pope

Lutheran Book of Concord:

I read your Lutheran Book of Concord quote; I have to say it is very debate-able; For one, what was said in council and what was accepted from the councils reveal to different things here.

Remember just because one Church Father speaks, he never speaks for the whole Church, unless it is from a ratified council by the Popes and or when Peter has spoken or Rome has spoken.

Many of the findings from these early councils got rejected by the Popes, before they ever got ratified. That is why your Lutheran Book of Concord is very debate-able. Many of what the council members were discussing when it came to the Patriarch of Constantinople usurping apostolic authority over existing apostolic sees were rejected by the Popes. But your Lutheran Book of Concord does not address the full outcome when the Popes intervened by delegation, or by rejecting to approve a councils finding over the universal church. These councils and Emperors required the Popes approval is another subject which your Lutheran Book of Concord does not address in reality.

Can you answer me, if your Lutheran Book of Concord addresses the full outcome of these councils and when and why the Popes rejected some of their findings, and why the Emperors and the councils sought out the Popes approval?

Peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

Remember just because one Church Father speaks, he never speaks for the whole Church, unless it is from a ratified council by the Popes and or when Peter has spoken or Rome has spoken.

An excellent example of petitio principii. You have already here assumed what it is you wish to prove.

 

[joe371]

An excellent example of petitio principii. You have already here assumed what it is you wish to prove.

We all do that…you too…

 

[Steveabrous]

Why does Christ need a Pope if He sent the Holy Spirit?

You know that the holy spirit does not go to every christian and reveal true doctrine. If he did there would be no heresy, schism, and no need for councils.

Christians disagree on doctrine. Even bishops are prone to error as is evident in several heresies.

It was either you or another Orthodox on this forum that admitted that the role of the bishop of Rome was to settle disputes when I quoted Augustine saying, essentially," Rome has spoken the matter is finished."
If the bishop of Rome has the authority to settle disputes between bishops or councils does that not make him in some way infallible?

 

[Steveabrous]

But is God not everywhere at all times? And did Jesus not promise the Apostles that he will be “with you until the end of ages”? Is Jesus an absentee king?

Why does he need bishops or any authority at all? Let’s all become protestants. You are making their case.