Orthodox: Was Peter Jesus' Royal Steward?

[Randy_Carson]

John Chrysostom on Peter’s Universal Jurisdiction

“And should any one say, ‘Why then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?’: this is my answer: that He [Jesus] appointed this man (Peter) not teacher of that throne, but of the habitable globe.” (John Chrysostom, A.D. 387, Ib. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 6, p. 600, in Joseph Berrington, John Kirk, eds., and James Waterworth, rev. The Faith of Catholics, vol. 2 (New York: Pustet & Co., 1884), 34.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

John Chrysostom on Peter’s Universal Jurisdiction

“And should any one say, ‘Why then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?’: this is my answer: that He [Jesus] appointed this man (Peter) not teacher of that throne, but of the habitable globe.” (John Chrysostom, A.D. 387, Ib. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 6, p. 600, in Joseph Berrington, John Kirk, eds., and James Waterworth, rev. The Faith of Catholics, vol. 2 (New York: Pustet & Co., 1884), 34.)

That undercuts your argument. If Peter were not teacher of any one place like James, then he also was never the recipient of the throne of any one place, and hence never the bishop of any one place.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That undercuts your argument. If Peter were not teacher of any one place like James, then he also was never the recipient of the throne of any one place, and hence never the bishop of any one place.

I don’t see it that way. That Peter was the Bishop of Rome is undisputed, and numerous ECF’s attest to this fact.

However, Chrysostom seems to undercut the EO position that Peter did not have universal jurisdiction.

Consequently, I think the argument for the papacy is supported by this quote far more than is your assertion that Peter was really never a bishop at all.

 

[Seraphim73]

I don’t see it that way. That Peter was the Bishop of Rome is undisputed, and numerous ECF’s attest to this fact.

However, Chrysostom seems to undercut the EO position that Peter did not have universal jurisdiction.

Consequently, I think the argument for the papacy is supported by this quote far more than is your assertion that Peter was really never a bishop at all.

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.” - St John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Gospel of John

Here we have the doctor of the Church St John Chrysostom clearly teaching that it’s the Apostle John who holds the keys to the kingdom and that he is the pillar of the Churches “throughout the world.” So obviously since St John was bishop of Ephesus that means the bishop of Ephesus is the leader of the entire Church.



St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[Randy_Carson]

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.” - St John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Gospel of John

Here we have the doctor of the Church St John Chrysostom clearly teaching that it’s the Apostle John who holds the keys to the kingdom and that he is the pillar of the Churches “throughout the world.” So obviously since St John was bishop of Ephesus that means the bishop of Ephesus is the leader of the entire Church.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/images/1/17/Mark_of_Ephesus.jpg

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

Exactly.

Which is why Orthodox dependency upon the ECF’s to the virtual exclusion of all else is a recipe for failure.

Beautifully illustrated, btw.

Oh…just one question…why is it that none of the ECF’s mention John of Ephesus in their listings of the popes?

 

[Seraphim73]

Exactly.

Which is why Orthodox dependency upon the ECF’s to the virtual exclusion of all else is a recipe for failure.

Beautifully illustrated, btw.

Oh…just one question…why is it that none of the ECF’s mention John of Ephesus in their listings of the popes?

Because he was bishop of Ephesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because he was bishop of Ephesus.

Right. And consequently, John was NOT…how did you phrase it…ah…“the leader of the entire Church”, was he?

The ECF’s recognized Peter’s successors AT ROME as the head of the Church and that all other Churches must agree with her, etc.

But again, one ECF disagrees with another, one disagrees with himself later in life…this is faith built upon opinions and opinions about opinions like a house upon shifting sand.

Jesus chose to build upon Simon Peter, the rock of the Church, and has protected that Church through the charism of infallibility.

The Catholic Church listens carefully to all of her sons and then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit chooses from among all these competing voices and ideas without error.

 

[onenow1]

To all not agreeing on Peters Stewardship , for the above topic, if Peter was not the chief steward pray tell who is ? Even in heaven God has angels, messengers]so why would He neglect His Church in having a spokesman of truth for His disciples then and now ?

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless garment of the Lord, ‘woven from the top throughout,’ since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover ‘the sealed fountain’ and ‘the garden enclosed,’ I think it is my duty to consult the Chair of Peter, and to turn to the church whose faith has been praised by Paul. …My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with no one but Your Blessedness, that is with the Chair of Peter. For this I know is the Rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can rightly be eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” (Jerome, Letter 15 --addressed to Pope Damasus I, c. 375 A.D.)

 

[Seraphim73]

Right. And consequently, John was NOT…how did you phrase it…ah…“the leader of the entire Church”, was he?

The ECF’s recognized Peter’s successors AT ROME as the head of the Church and that all other Churches must agree with her, etc.

But again, one ECF disagrees with another, one disagrees with himself later in life…this is faith built upon opinions and opinions about opinions like a house upon shifting sand.

Jesus chose to build upon Simon Peter, the rock of the Church, and has protected that Church through the charism of infallibility.

The Catholic Church listens carefully to all of her sons and then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit chooses from among all these competing voices and ideas without error.

Tradition says that St John lived in Ephesus but the where is really immaterial. St John Chrysostom said those things about the Apostle and using your logic that means the Apostle John and his successors have supreme authority over the entire Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tradition says that St John lived in Ephesus but the where is really immaterial. St John Chrysostom said those things about the Apostle and using your logic that means the Apostle John and his successors have supreme authority over the entire Church.

The ECF’s recognized Peter’s successors AT ROME as the head of the Church and that all other Churches must agree with her, etc.

But again, one ECF disagrees with another, one disagrees with himself later in life…this is faith built upon opinions and opinions about opinions like a house upon shifting sand.

Jesus chose to build upon Simon Peter, the rock of the Church, and has protected that Church through the charism of infallibility.

The Catholic Church listens carefully to all of her sons and then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit chooses from among all these competing voices and ideas without error.

 

[Kosta]

Kosta-

To be fair, the “world’s many non-Christians” ARE who I have in mind.

You see, Jesus prayed that we would all be one. Why did He do this? Scripture tells us the answer:

John 17:20-23
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Our unity was supposed to be a witness to the fact the God sent Jesus into the world. The Eastern schism (and later the Protestant Reformation) have shattered that unity and diminished that witness.

Consequently, the world has less reason to believe and souls are lost as a result.

It’s time to put an end to our divisions, and my posts (if you read my OP) are trying to show you why it’s time to re-unite under the leadership of the Steward your King appointed for your benefit.

Peace.

If you’re implying that we Orthodox Christians are not Christians at all, then I really have nothing more to say.

He also said that He came to bring division in Luke 12:49-53 and in Matthew 10:21-36. Jesus brought us Himself, the truth. He’s always with us. A Church doesn’t need some leader-of-leaders to set every aspect of policy and interfere within the world’s many bishoprics. Our Church, The Church, certainly has existed for awhile without one. We have the truth, it divided many people, and we live with the consequences. All we Orthodox Christians can do is pray.

If our divisions are over one man who claims to be closer to Christ than any other person on Earth, then let the division stand. We’ve survived persecutions, I think we can survive an apologetics forum. If you actually want to attract converts from Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Oriental Orthodox Christianity, or the Assyrian Church of the East, why don’t you take a look at the treatment of Eastern Catholics in yours. I have a friend who’s studying to become a Dominican nun and is a Chaldean Catholic raised in her mother’s Ukrainian Catholic tradition who’s never seen a komboskini/chotki before in her life. Why don’t you look into fixing that and giving any potential converts something to look forward to besides Latinization and second-class status if you want to convert half of the Christian world?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you’re implying that we Orthodox Christians are not Christians at all, then I really have nothing more to say.

I’m not saying that at all! How did you come up with that idea?

He also said that He came to bring division in Luke 12:49-53 and in Matthew 10:21-36. Jesus brought us Himself, the truth. He’s always with us. A Church doesn’t need some leader-of-leaders to set every aspect of policy and interfere within the world’s many bishoprics. Our Church, The Church, certainly has existed for awhile without one. We have the truth, it divided many people, and we live with the consequences. All we Orthodox Christians can do is pray.

Again, why the negative connotations contained in the word “interfere”? Do you think Western Bishops think the Pope is interfering with their dioceses?

If our divisions are over one man who claims to be closer to Christ than any other person on Earth, then let the division stand.

Is this a claim that the pope makes?

We’ve survived persecutions, I think we can survive an apologetics forum. If you actually want to attract converts from Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Oriental Orthodox Christianity, or the Assyrian Church of the East, why don’t you take a look at the treatment of Eastern Catholics in yours. I have a friend who’s studying to become a Dominican nun and is a Chaldean Catholic raised in her mother’s Ukrainian Catholic tradition who’s never seen a komboskini/chotki before in her life. Why don’t you look into fixing that and giving any potential converts something to look forward to besides Latinization and second-class status if you want to convert half of the Christian world?

Why do you think you would have second-class status if you were re-united with Rome?

See, this is exactly the kind of thinking that I suspect characterizes much of Orthodoxy: fear.

There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to their feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church.

That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one’s steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom.

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

John Chrysostom on Peter’s Universal Jurisdiction

“And should any one say, ‘Why then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?’: this is my answer: that He [Jesus] appointed this man (Peter) not teacher of that throne, but of the habitable globe.” (John Chrysostom, A.D. 387, Ib. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 6, p. 600, in Joseph Berrington, John Kirk, eds., and James Waterworth, rev. The Faith of Catholics, vol. 2 (New York: Pustet & Co., 1884), 34.)

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.” - St John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Gospel of John

Seraphim-

Upon reflection, it occurs to me that your quote from Chrysostom proves too much. For if you examine both of these quotes closely, you will see that Chrysostom teaches that the one who holds the keys has universal jurisdiction throughout the entire world.

We can argue about who actually has the keys if you want, but the teaching of at least one Church Father seems to be that universal jurisdiction comes with the office of key holder.

And that is what my OP was all about.

:dancing:

 

[Seraphim73]

The ECF’s recognized Peter’s successors AT ROME as the head of the Church and that all other Churches must agree with her, etc.

But again, one ECF disagrees with another, one disagrees with himself later in life…this is faith built upon opinions and opinions about opinions like a house upon shifting sand.

Jesus chose to build upon Simon Peter, the rock of the Church, and has protected that Church through the charism of infallibility.

The Catholic Church listens carefully to all of her sons and then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit chooses from among all these competing voices and ideas without error.

And one pope disagrees with another. There has always been a diversity in belief.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And one pope disagrees with another. There has always been a diversity in belief.

Popes as theologians may disagree, but there has always been only one official teaching of the Catholic Church, and no pope has ever formally taught doctrine that contradicted another pope.

 

[Seraphim73]

Popes as theologians may disagree, but there has always been only one official teaching of the Catholic Church, and no pope has ever formally taught doctrine that contradicted another pope.

And there was never an “official” teaching on that the verse from Matthew referred to St Peter exclusively.

 

[Kosta]

I’m not saying that at all! How did you come up with that idea?

Again, why the negative connotations contained in the word “interfere”? Do you think Western Bishops think the Pope is interfering with their dioceses?

Is this a claim that pope makes?

Why do you think you would have second-class status if you were re-united with Rome?

See, this is exactly the kind of thinking that I suspect characterizes much of Orthodoxy.

Fear.

You said “To be fair, the “world’s many non-Christians” ARE who I have in mind.” If we’re your focus, then it sounds like you’re implying that we Orthodox Christians are not in-fact Christians. I’m glad at least that that isn’t the case of what you meant.

Yes, Popes have claimed to have power of any and all bishops. Pope Innocent III says that the Pope (in Rome) as the Vicar of Christ is the sole power that can appoint and remove bishops. That sounds like it’s an interference to me.

Have you ever heard about the Council of Florence where the Pope tried to get the Patriarch of Constantinople to bow before him and kiss his feet? How about the Latinizations that Ukrainian Orthodox-turned-Catholics were subject to during the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and even into the Second Polish Republic? Your Church does not have a good track record with treating people who are different with respect. Forgive me for fearing Papal interference in my Church; I would like my grandson someday to know what a komboskini is if someone asks instead of sneering and saying that they and their people only pray the rosary. It worries me that I know more about Ukrainian Catholicism than a future nun does.

 

[daddyd]

You have not specified which particular segment of Protestantism you are a part of, but here are a wide variety of Protestant scholars who recognize that there is a connection between Mt. 16:18-19 and Is. 22:20-22.

I’m not so much interested in the misinterpretation of a lot of so called scholars. What I am interested in is what the bible says on the subject and in particular what Peter says.

1Peter2
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petrah) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Here Peter himself says that Jesus is the rock (petrah). The word used in Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petrah) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter also refers to Isaiah 8:
13 Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

Can there be any doubt that Peter himself is telling us that it is Christ who is the rock (petrah) upon which He builds His church?