Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[joe371]

It doesn’t make sense to me because if Jesus is with us, and the Holy Spirit here to lead and guide each and everyone of us, then why is there a vicar? The King is present.

Jesus established His church on Peter. You are cephas and on this cephas…Even my little niece, and her teacher, understood, linguistically speaking, why the second rock refers to the first rock, and not Simon’s confession or Jesus. Everyone knows that Jesus (God) is the ultimate Rock. I of course have no problem with Peter’s confession, just as long as you do not exclude the obvious. That is clearly stated in scripture. Not sure why Orthodox Christians adhere to protestant beliefs when it comes to that topic.

Jesus is present spiritually, but not literally. Jesus left us with a visible vicar since He is no longer here, visibly. I for one appreciate a visible leader, as do you e.g. your bishop. If I do not need the bishop of Rome then you do not need a bishop of your diocese. Just take it right to your King, Jesus, just as my sister does. :shrug:For me the Petrine office is critical in terms of hell not prevailing, and the preservation of truth…

Were the keys, as per scripture or any other writings, ever given to someone else? If you can show me evidence then I will concede.

 

[joe371]

Read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. The bishops primary role is the celebration of the liturgy.

Infallibility is a peculiarly western idea. The Orthodox don’t speak of the councils being infallible.

They concede that their teachings might be false i.e. not infallible? I was told differently by an Orthodox friend of mine…

 

[Nine_Two]

Silence? If you consider historical writings making clear acknowledgment of Rome as silence, then it is pointless. Ah no! Why should the burden of proof lie on me, when I am not the one arguing against it? Again, I read a lot more support for the Primacy of Rome, then the notorious “first among equals” argument posed by EO. On the contrary, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate the ECF interpreted it as current EO do. You cannot oppose it and then turn the tables around asking the adovates to prove it. We use our sources supporting the ECF supporting the Primacy of Rome. I have yet to meet one EO who can present anything remotely representing the Post-Constantinople view of Rome’s primacy. Where are the writings from the ECF’s supporting your argument?

But we Orthodox accept the existence of the Primacy of Rome. That isn’t something that is being debated (Not with us anyway, the Protestants certainly would debate it). What is being debated is the interpretation of it, and you’re saying that since the Church Fathers didn’t explicitly condemn your interpretation, it must be right.
I see the same one liner quotes thrown around all the time but nothing that explicitly shows the Catholic interpretation of a supreme bishop able to interfere in the sees of other bishops and who is considered infallible (even if under very specific conditions).

Rather than arguing from silence, show us that the ECF’s taught these things.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Jesus established His church on Peter. You are cephas and on this cephas…Even my little niece, and her teacher, understood, linguistically speaking, why the second rock refers to the first rock, and not Simon’s confession or Jesus. Everyone knows that Jesus (God) is the ultimate Rock. I of course have no problem with Peter’s confession, just as long as you do not exclude the obvious. That is clearly stated in scripture. Not sure why Orthodox Christians adhere to protestant beliefs when it comes to that topic.

But again, how you get from “you are a rock…” to Pastor Aeternus is a big stretch because there is a Grand Canyon-sized gap in-between and a lot of conclusions are made without basis. Again, there is no proof whatsoever that the Bishop of Rome ever received any sort of authority from Peter, nor if Peter himself even has any sort of authority that the Bishop of Rome today exercises.

Jesus is present spiritually, but not literally.

Okay then, so I’m glad I’m not Catholic anymore, if this is what Catholics believe. So you believe that Christ is not present literally, but you create dogmas out of Marian apparitions?

Jesus left us with a visible vicar since He is no longer here, visibly. I for one appreciate a visible leader, as do you e.g. your bishop. If I do not need the bishop of Rome then you do not need a bishop of your diocese. Just take it right to your King, Jesus, just as my sister does. :shrug:For me the Petrine office is critical in terms of hell not prevailing, and the preservation of truth…

The problem with this conclusion is that you are assuming the current role of the Pope is necessary to the Church. Because the role of my bishop and the Pope is completely different, not having the Pope does not mean I don’t need my bishop. I need my bishop, he is not the Pope, and the Church does not need someone in the role of the Pope of Rome today.

Were the keys, as per scripture or any other writings, ever given to someone else? If you can show me evidence then I will concede.

You’re getting ahead of yourself here because you are assuming that your understanding of what the keys symbolizes is the truth. We do not agree. And again, even if your interpretation of they keys are correct, they are given to Peter. There is zero evidence that Peter gave it to anyone else. You are just making a baseless conclusion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They concede that their teachings might be false i.e. not infallible? I was told differently by an Orthodox friend of mine…

No, the concept of infallibility is a purely Western idea hatched in the Second Millennium. Could councils be wrong. Yes. There have been many councils in the past that were taught to be teaching truth for the first few years after its conclusion, only to be overturned later on by another council. It’s easy to overlook that today looking back into the past saying, “well, it wasn’t a true council and they overturned it rightfully.” But that was not a case for the people living back then in the present time of that council’s conclusion. They believed those councils to have taught truth, only to be proven otherwise later on. Experience has disproven any concept of infallibility for us a long, long time ago.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yeah really, we know this because if he did everyone would agree on doctrine and we don’t. Thats why Jesus put people in charge of the church and 1 in particular to settle disputes.
Just because you receive the holy spirit doesn’t mean he is going to lead you to doctinal truth

So why does the Pope get to be lead to doctrinal truth all the time? Is the Holy Spirit upon him different from the one upon the rest of us?

But the matters he is arbiting are matters of Doctrine. And he has the final say.

Not in our Church. And no, in the First Millennium, the Pope has never unilaterally defined doctrine. I don’t think the RC even has an example of that.

 

[joe371]

ConstantineTG;10910805]But again, how you get from “you are a rock…” to Pastor Aeternus is a big stretch because there is a Grand Canyon-sized gap in-between and a lot of conclusions are made without basis. Again, there is no proof whatsoever that the Bishop of Rome ever received any sort of authority from Peter, nor if Peter himself even has any sort of authority that the Bishop of Rome today exercises.

My little niece had no problem understanding the straight-forward understanding, and she is being raised as a Lutheran…"You are rock and on this rock…very simple…

Okay then, so I’m glad I’m not Catholic anymore, if this is what Catholics believe. So you believe that Christ is not present literally, but you create dogmas out of Marian apparitions?

I did not know that you or your church, could literally talk to Jesus in the same way I am talking to you…LOL…You know what I meant… I would never say that about the Orthodox church. I love the Orthodox church and believe one day that the two will reunite…

The problem with this conclusion is that you are assuming the current role of the Pope is necessary to the Church. Because the role of my bishop and the Pope is completely different, not having the Pope does not mean I don’t need my bishop. I need my bishop, he is not the Pope, and the Church does not need someone in the role of the Pope of Rome today.

Pope is simply an affectionate term meaning Papa. Orthodoxy used the term pope before the CC did. The pope is a bishop. If you need your bishop then I need my bishop…You put so much emphasis on mere words e.g. pope, spouse etc…

You’re getting ahead of yourself here because you are assuming that your understanding of what the keys symbolizes is the truth. We do not agree. And again, even if your interpretation of they keys are correct, they are given to Peter. There is zero evidence that Peter gave it to anyone else. You are just making a baseless conclusion.

Keys do not denote authority to you?There is lot’s of historical evidence but if I quote them you will simply tell me that those are catholic quotes and therefore false.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It doesn’t make sense to me because if Jesus is with us, and the Holy Spirit here to lead and guide each and everyone of us, then why is there a vicar? The King is present.

"Some are made apostles, some prophets, some priests, teachers and preachers, not all are apostles.

There is a distinct office which scripture points to to those who are sent from those who recieve the Gospels from the feet who brings the gospels.

The Holy Spirit reveals to each of us according to each one’s faith, just as each one is never tested beyond the faith of each one. God knows what He is doing, when God revealed who Jesus is to Peter from heaven…

Peace be with you

 

[joe371]

ConstantineTG;10910835]So why does the Pope get to be lead to doctrinal truth all the time? Is the Holy Spirit upon him different from the one upon the rest of us?

My sister asked me to ask you that same question, regarding your church leaders? Is the Holy Spirit upon them different from the one upon the rest of us? if not then why do you need their guidance?

Not in our Church. And no, in the First Millennium, the Pope has never unilaterally defined doctrine. I don’t think the RC even has an example of that.

The pope never unilaterally defines doctrine. it is always done via the collaboration of the Bishop of Rome and the ecumenical councils. The Pope didn’t unilaterally define the IC or the AOM…

 

[Schism_hater]

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…

See what you just did? You made the universal church into one huge diocese presided over by one bishop, the Bishop of Rome. So, in effect, all other bishops are superfluous. Thye are just administrators of the one Super Bishop.

 

[jimmy]

I have read Ignatius. His writings are well before any Eucumincal councils, So it is no surprise he wouldn’t talk about them. Also I don’t get the idea that the eucharist alone is were the bishop has authority. He says repeatedly in the letter to the Smurneans that the bishop has authority over their churches period, not just the eucharist.

Did the Church change after Ignatius? If not then the Eucharist is still the bishops primary role. P. Benedict goes over this in his book Called To Communion. Of course he denies the eastern ecclesiology, but it gives a good basis for the Eucharistic liturgy as the life of the Church, and as its principle act. Interestingly it was that book that pushed me over the edge toward the eastern ecclesiology.

Really, You guys don’t act like it when it comes to the Nicean creed (he said at the risk of opening a can of worms). You also like to point out that a the second council of Constantinople condemned a Pope(Even though the sitting Pope didn’t agree).
You guys sure act like they are infallible when you think they support your position.

First, I am not Orthodox. I am explaining the position, and admittedly I am sympathetic to it.

Second stating the truth is different than claiming infallibility. Just because the Orthodox believe that The first seven councils taught the truth, even without error, doesn’t amount to infallibility. Infallibility is a positive charism that the west invokes. They call an ecumenical council, which is considered to be inherently infallible. The pope defines dogma infallibly when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

Pointing out that the Bishop of Rome settled disputes is only casting doubts?
Yet when we read the early church fathers they clearly say that all churches must agree with Rome.
But that’s just Them being nice. With all the smoke blown up his rear it’s no wonder he started thinking he was in charge.

Arguing that the truth is unknowable without the pope encourages a systematic doubt. That is a characteristic of many of the arguments around here for papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Maybe I falsy characterized your argument though.

 

[joe371]

See what you just did? You made the universal church into one huge diocese presided over by one bishop, the Bishop of Rome. So, in effect, all other bishops are superfluous. Thye are just administrators of the one Super Bishop.

I just did that…I didn’t realize how powerful I was…LOL…Totally misrepresented what I said…“all other bishops are superfluous” - so silly…

 

[joe371]

See what you just did? You made the universal church into one huge diocese presided over by one bishop, the Bishop of Rome. So, in effect, all other bishops are superfluous. Thye are just administrators of the one Super Bishop.

By the way, I admire, love and totally appreciate the Orthodox church. Almost became Orthodox long ago…

 

[jimmy]

They concede that their teachings might be false i.e. not infallible? I was told differently by an Orthodox friend of mine…

That is a false opposition. Not infallible doesn’t equal false. It equals not infallible. Someone can teach truth, yet not be infallible. I don’t think Einstein ever claimed infallibility, yet I don’t think there is anyone who doubts the truth of the theory of relativity.

 

[joe371]

That is a false opposition. Not infallible doesn’t equal false. It equals not infallible. Someone can teach truth, yet not be infallible. I don’t think Einstein ever claimed infallibility, yet I don’t think there is anyone who doubts the truth of the theory of relativity.

I don’t think anyone is infallible, except God. When it comes to doctrinal truth does the Orthodox church claim to teach inerrantly via the guidance of the HS?

 

[jimmy]

I don’t think anyone is infallible, except God. When it comes to doctrinal truth does the Orthodox church claim to teach inerrantly via the guidance of the HS?

The Orthodox claim that they teach the true faith without error, by guidance of the HS.

 

[joe371]

The Orthodox claim that they teach the true faith without error, by guidance of the HS.

That is what I thought. To teach without error cannot mean, to teach infallibly?

 

[jimmy]

That is what I thought. To teach without error cannot mean, to teach infallibly?

Inerrancy means without error, and is generally applied to scripture. Infallibility is a charism that speaks of the Church. It is a gaurantee that any declaration of the pope spoken ex cathedra regarding faith and morals is without error. It is a gaurantee. The Orthodox make no guarantees on any statements. What they have is faith that they have maintained the true faith.

This reminds me of the gaurantee scene from Tommy Boy. Hahaha

 

[chimo]

Hello everyone,

Lately I have been giving great attention to the issue which separates Orthodox christians from Roman Catholic, and this attention has caused great concern for the claims which the Roman Popes are making from the point of schism onward. What justification does the Pope have for universal jurisdiction over the whole church? The Orthodox understand that Peter has a primacy of honor, as first among equals, but it remains that he is an equal. It seems as though the teaching that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the whole church comes later on in the history of the Church, but maybe there is clear justification. Anyone?

You must first understand the two natures we have in our respective Churches. The West enjoys a more structured principal that has the Pope from the top of this principal. Very simply why the West enjoys this structure for it was the only structure that Rome had. The Church in the West was basically one Church. The Orthodox however followed a different principal that involves a more conciliar look to her with her bishops enjoying a more colligative relationship. The reason for this happening in the East was very simply that the East is not one Church but a collection of Churches put together. So the East had many top bishops and so they grew to enjoy a more colligative nature to their own relationships that existed between each Eastern Church.

The West did not have this type of set up so that the Pope became in the West as the only authority. This authority however was only expressed in the West. Why the East had many more Churches is simply they have more Apostolic founders. The West had only one Apostolic founder that was handed down by Peter. The Eastern Church’s bishops however have many more Apostles as their source of continuing their Apostolic succession. However this be in the East the West had only one Apostolic founder. All of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are appointed by and given its existence through the Pope. Actually this is way how each Eastern Church operates. Each Eastern Church is very similar to the structure of Rome’s. Each Eastern Church can also lay claim to different Apostolic founders. But the fact is there was many Churches that had sprung up in the East that gave to it a more conciliar nature.

If the Popes of the past had made claims to universal jurisdiction these claims are slowing becoming less importance. The reason is we are becoming to recognize what gifts we have inherited from our past. The West enjoys the primacy of the Pope and it is this primacy which needs to be defined for the rest of the Church. The Orthodox cannot accept the jurisdiction of the Popes because it does not agree to what they already enjoy. And the East though must come to terms in defining what is the Pope’s role for the universal Church because he is the successor of the Apostle Peter. There has to be an agreement which both parties will enjoy. Perhaps this definition will be more pronounced in the future.

The Orthodox must continue on what they enjoy as the Catholic Church must continue on what they enjoy. It is to this type of set up which hopefully the whole Church will agree on so that the Primacy of Peter will be respected and the conciliar nature of the Orthodox Churches to continue on. The Orthodox will like to see the Pope’s role or authority as more as Pastoral. In this sense the Pope will still govern his own Church (The Church of Rome) but he will act pastorally towards the Orthodox.

 

[joe371]

Inerrancy means without error, and is generally applied to scripture. Infallibility is a charism that speaks of the Church. It is a gaurantee that any declaration of the pope spoken ex cathedra regarding faith and morals is without error. It is a gaurantee. The Orthodox make no guarantees on any statements. What they have is faith that they have maintained the true faith.

This reminds me of the gaurantee scene from Tommy Boy. Hahaha

I understand…Tommy Boy vid…so funny…

youtube.com/watch?v=cf4C9ssuPjE