Great point. Christ compels us to follow the Church built on St. Peter. Every single Pope after 1054 could have been a heretic, yet we still follow the faith of St. Peter. The Early Church Fathers all stressed the importance of not falling away from Rome.
Good point, if we are going on the Biblical Church than we should through away all Tradition after around 96 AD
Please don’t get started on this. You have already agreed that some Early Church Fathers state it as St. Peter, some the Confession, and others both such as St. John Chrysostom.Ah, the Roman Catholic mantra!
Here’s some news for you. The Rock is St Peter’s confession of faith.
You can’t change the meaning either.
All the Apostles hold the Keys through St. Peter for they were given to the world through St. Peter. When one leaves St. Peter they thus loose the Keys.
We have already stated that Galatians proves nothing as this was St. Peter acting fallibly because these were his actions, not his teachings.Remember when St Paul corrected St Peter?
Both are great Apostles!
But one did not rule supreme over the other.
Gal 2:11-15
**But when Cephas was come to Antioch, *I ***withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners.
If any pope after 1054 could become a heretic, the faith of St. Peter would continue in other local churches and their bishops, thus confirming the Orthodox belief that Matt. 16:18 doesn’t apply to the Church of Rome and her Bishop in an exclusive fashion, but apply to the Church, catholic.
The Fathers don’t see the Biblical Church as being opposed to the modern Church. In fact, they continually emphasize the Tradition of the former as being passed down to the latter. The heretics were the ones who developed their own “Tradition” that lacked a historical pedigree. This lack of continuation was what actually revealed their teachings to be false.
Do you believe that the “this rock” of Matt. 16:18 refers to the person of St. Peter or his Confession of Faith?
Very good to see you admit that all the apostles fully held the keys. I’ll add that union with St. Peter is essential because Peter is the principle of unity for the apostolic choir. In effect, by being in union with Peter, the necessary union between all the equal apostles is maintained. This is also reflected in the episcopal order, where local, regional and universal primacies are emphasized as being necessary to avoid schism, for it is through union with these primatial sees that the necessary union of fully equals bishops is maintained and nurtured. This reveals that the Petrine Ministry, both among the apostles and the bishops, is about serving the unity of the bishops, so they perserve and reflect the requirement of canonical unity, and is not about intrinsic power over the apostles/bishops.
Breaking communion with any true local church is a schismatic act. Rome, as a prestigious apostolic church and the chief principle of unity in the Church, has a special symbolism in this, as she is a symbol of what every authentic local Church aspires to. However, it should be noted that the Bishop of Rome must adhere to the spotless faith of Rome. The long tradition of papal fallibility shows that while Rome is unalterably orthodox, the Bishop of Rome isn’t given this guarantee. Therefore, the possibility always exists that the Pope may fall into heresy and lose the Papacy, thus enabling one to maintain communion with the Holy Orthodox Church of the Old Rome, even while calling erring Popes back to this fidelity.
Excuse me? St John Chrysostom spent most of his life as a christian out of communion with Rome and didn’t lose any sleep over it. I’m sure we could find many other Early Church Fathers who did not “stress the importance of not falling away from Rome” if we spent some time looking. It is easy to make such claims but impossible to prove, especially when some ECF’s plainly didn’t do as you claim.
And when the Pope leaves St. Peter?
“Always preach the Gospel. When necessary, use words.”
Good point, however this would also apply to the Catholic Church as long as the priests continued to teach the faith. I become more and more Orthodox with each post. However I don’t think that you will ever get me, because I believe that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of the Church, and regardless of how corrupt he may be I am compelled to follow him.
Yes, I understand that, however the Problem is that I have yet to find a refutation of Papal Infallibility given the circumstances in Vatican I.
I believe that it refers to both, this is the same view as the Catholic Church I might add.
Than may I ask. How do you believe that the Orthodox Church continues to hold the keys since it is not in union with St. Peter.
I don’t understand. Still then the Orthodox Church is in schism from Rome.
However I don’t see how that would happen. Since the Pope is the successor to St. Peter, how could he leave St. Peter.And when the Pope leaves St. Peter?