Orthodoxy, Papacy

[shaky]

Wiser ones than I have already posted. But personally, I find it hard to believe that God has permitted a situation to arise that requires a phD in history in order to unravel the truth.

As I understand it, the EO consider the bishop of Rome to posess no greater authority than that held by any other patriarch, except perhaps a sort of “Speaker of the House” form of first among equals.

To anyone struggling with the issue, I recommend simply reading the Gospels and Acts and taking notes every time Peter appears. Does Jesus really seem to be treating Peter the same as the others or in a way that connotates a mere ceremonial headship, or does Jesus appear to be placing Peter in a unique role of greater responsibility than the other 11?

The answer sure seemed clear to me.

Hi Manualman

I can understand peter being Primary bishop and Apostle: But what i can’t understand that peter was supposed to be supreme Bishop and Apostle:

Why was it when peter was teaching that everybody was to be circumcised Paul pulled him up and Rebuked over this.

This does not show that Peter had supremacy over Paul at all. If he did he would have stuck to his Teaching an asserted his Authority over Paul.

 

[prodromos]

It’s clear to me, too, manualman. The wonder of it is, there are quite a few very intelligent, sincere Orthodox believers here who skate right past it without a second glance.

Its clear to us too, but we don’t take the arrogant view that those who have chosen to be Catholic must have missed the obvious.

John

 

[steve_b]

Hi Manualman

I can understand peter being Primary bishop and Apostle: But what i can’t understand that peter was supposed to be supreme Bishop and Apostle:

Hasn’t anyone gone over this with you before?
s:

Why was it when peter was teaching that everybody was to be circumcised Paul pulled him up and Rebuked over this.

• The teaching was that baptism replaced circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of the OT law. Baptism a sign of NT life death and resurrection in Christ. Therefore, circumcision doesn’t mean anything. Baptism is what is important.
• Jerome had a discussion with Augustine re: Paul’s rebuke of Peter, Gal 2

St Jerome responded to this charge of Paul rebuking Peter by observing that,

1. • Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him. Now look at what Paul did
   • In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
   • Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
   Catch that? **Paul ****rebukes **Peter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself…
   
   St Jerome points out.
   
   “O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter
   for hypocrasybecause he withdrew himself from the
   Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from
   James, why are you, not withstanding your own
   doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a
   Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”
   
   Jerome continues, “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you
   according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]
   
   I tried to highlight and compress ( albeit a poor job on my part) what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly on paragraphs 4-18 of his letter. Here is Jerome’s full letter. Please read it. Forget my inept job at trying to summarize. For full context http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm
   s:
   

   This does not show that Peter had supremacy over Paul at all. If he did he would have stuck to his Teaching an asserted his Authority over Paul.

   Paul actually learned from Peter on this, and incorporated Peter’s style in his own teaching.(1 Cor 9:20)

 

[patricius79]

Could you provide the quote? I am afraid I am having difficulty finding it.

John

cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_chry.htm

I know it is cited properly in this article. Sorry that’s the best I can do.

 

[patricius79]

Does anyone know what Ambrose’s views were as to the Papacy and Peter? I know that Orthodox cite his statement that Peter’s primacy was not one of rank.

I know that Augustine and Maximus the Confessor both say the rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail is the Roman Church, and Maximus adds that from the beginning all the Churches have held it alone to be their base.

 

[prodromos]

cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_chry.htm

I know it is cited properly in this article. Sorry that’s the best I can do.

By stating that Peter could have elected someone on his own, it does not automatically follow that none of the other apostles could have done the same. This is the same error that Catholics often fall into when they interpret Matthew 16:13-18, even to the point of saying that all the others answered wrong and only Peter answered right. I could have pointed you to a thread on this forum where a Catholic priest who posts here made exactly that claim, but it appears that the post or thread has since been removed.

John

 

[patricius79]

well, Chrysostom only said that Peter had the same power to ordain an Apostle as they all collectively.

 

[patricius79]

I wrote this letter in response to someone who told me that Augustine denied that the Church is built on Peter.

the whole “rock” issue is interesting.

the Orthodox Church in America says on their site that the rock in Mt 16:18 is not referring to Peter, while acknowledgeing that Peter’s name means “Rock”
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=28&SID=3

But the fathers generally held that it was, includint Basil, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ephraim, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, etc
cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

while also holding to other compatible interpretations, such as Christ being the Rock, and Peter’s confession being the Rock, etc. and to my knowledge, none say that it wasn’t.

(the Church has always held to the mystical sense of scripture, which allows for multiple harmonious yet different interpretation)

As was pointed out above, Augustine said that Peter was built on Christ, and not Christ on Peter. But everyone acknowledges that. And even in his Retractions at the end, Augustine does not deny the “Peter is the rock” idea, but leaves it open to his readers. (he also confirms that he had written that Peter was the rock on which the Church was built)

For Augustine had written

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251
cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

Augustine also held that Rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail is the Petrine Succession of the Roman Church.
cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

As the link above shows, he also said that “Peter bore the person of the Church”

So how could the fathers have been so wrong to the point where so many of them testify to Peter being the rock–Chrysostom, e.g.–and none saying that he wasn’t?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And I can just as quickly produce for you twenty quotes from Augustine he gave later in his life showing that the “Rock” was the confession Peter made, not the man Peter himself. Proof-texting the Fathers is a two-way street between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

I wrote this letter in response to someone who told me that Augustine denied that the Church is built on Peter.

the whole “rock” issue is interesting.

the Orthodox Church in America says on their site that the rock in Mt 16:18 is not referring to Peter, while acknowledgeing that Peter’s name means “Rock”
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=28&SID=3

But the fathers generally held that it was, includint Basil, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ephraim, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, etc
cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

while also holding to other compatible interpretations, such as Christ being the Rock, and Peter’s confession being the Rock, etc. and to my knowledge, none say that it wasn’t.

(the Church has always held to the mystical sense of scripture, which allows for multiple harmonious yet different interpretation)

As was pointed out above, Augustine said that Peter was built on Christ, and not Christ on Peter. But everyone acknowledges that. And even in his Retractions at the end, Augustine does not deny the “Peter is the rock” idea, but leaves it open to his readers. (he also confirms that he had written that Peter was the rock on which the Church was built)

For Augustine had written

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251
cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

Augustine also held that Rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail is the Petrine Succession of the Roman Church.
cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

As the link above shows, he also said that “Peter bore the person of the Church”

So how could the fathers have been so wrong to the point where so many of them testify to Peter being the rock–Chrysostom, e.g.–and none saying that he wasn’t?

 

[Harpazo]

And I can just as quickly produce for you twenty quotes from Augustine he gave later in his life showing that the “Rock” was the confession Peter made, not the man Peter himself. Proof-texting the Fathers is a two-way street between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Exactly. I despise it when anyone does it. When I see people engage in it, I wonder if they think that all it takes is an intellectual assent to the Christian Faith and that’s it.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[shaky]

Hasn’t anyone gone over this with you before?

Paul actually learned from Peter on this, and incorporated Peter’s style in his own teaching.(1 Cor 9:20)

 

[mardukm]

And I can just as quickly produce for you twenty quotes from Augustine he gave later in his life showing that the “Rock” was the confession Peter made, not the man Peter himself. Proof-texting the Fathers is a two-way street between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

The problem here is that while St. Augustine may have said Peter’s confession is the Rock later in his life, he never once denied that Peter himself is (also) the Rock. In fact, in his Retractations, he specifically stated that all interpretations (Jesus, Peter, Peter’s Confession) were valid.

It is just as wrong for non-Catholics to prooftext St. Augustine to promote the lie that he denied St. Peter is the rock later in his life, as it is wrong for Catholics to prooftext St. Augustine to try to falsely prove that St. Augustine taught that only St. Peter is the Rock.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve

I understand Peter being Primary Bishop and Patriarch over the Roman catholic church in
Rome.

• Peter is head of the entire Church. Not just a part of it.
• The Church is called the Catholic Church. “Roman” as a qualifier identifies a rite within Catholicism. Even though the “Roman or Latin rite” makes up 98%+ of the Catholic Church, all the rites are equal.

s:

But what i am trying to understand in the beginning there were 5 Patriarchs that was in Antioch,Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria.

The patriarchal system came in the 4th century started by the East.
s:

Paul was the head bishop in Antioch.

Where did you get that?
s:

Peter was the head bishop in Rome, James was the head bishop in Jerusalem.

Peter as head apostle, was also head of the entire Church.
s:

You also had the council of Jerusalem that you see in Acts 15. This council settled all doctrinal disputes one being Circumcision.

Peter settled that dispute.
s:

Everything was fine for about 1000 years. Then later The head bishop of the Roman Church decided with other bishops or the Roman Church to be Supreme bishop and Pope

Who gave you that information?
s:

Over the other 4 Eastern churches causing Rome to split with the other 4 churches
In 1054.

Who gave you that information?
s:

If everything was fine for 1000 years why change things. Why try and force the other 4 head bishops of the Eastern churches to be under the head bishop of the Roman church.

Who taught you this?
s:

In the days of the Apostles this would have not took place and there is no evidence in the bible that peter Acted in Authority over Paul or James. They all argued and settled things through.

Paul sought Peter’s approval to see if his teaching was correct, and add to that what I posted earlier to you regarding your misunderstanding of Paul’s rebulke of Peter. As for the problem at the council of Jerusalem, the Judaizers causing the trouble, were from James group. Peter stood up at the council, gave his teaching, and James implemented Peter’s direction.
s:

Popes John 22 in 1327, Clements 6th 1331. Pius 10th 1907, Benedict 15 1920
Had condemened and Anathemtized, any one who dared deny that the Apostle Paul durring his entire life was totaly subordinate to the ecclesiate monarchal Authority of the first Pope and king of the church, namely the Apostle Peter.

Do you have specific references, i.e. quotes properly referenced?
s:

Peter happened to be was first Apostle called by Jesus. So Jesus Gave him the keys There are plenty of scriptures to say the Jesus is the Rock and foundation of the church and Peter is the first Rock and stone on top of this foundation building this church and all others are stones building the rest of the church.

Jesus gave Peter rule over the entire Church
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Isn’t that what I said?

The problem here is that while St. Augustine may have said Peter’s confession is the Rock later in his life, he never once denied that Peter himself is (also) the Rock. In fact, in his Retractations, he specifically stated that all interpretations (Jesus, Peter, Peter’s Confession) were valid.

It is just as wrong for non-Catholics to prooftext St. Augustine to promote the lie that he denied St. Peter is the rock later in his life, as it is wrong for Catholics to prooftext St. Augustine to try to falsely prove that St. Augustine taught that only St. Peter is the Rock.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Isn’t that what I said?

Sorry. When you wrote “not the man Peter himself,” I assumed you meant that he was denying that Peter is also the Rock. But I can see that your statement does not necessitate such a denial.

Blessings.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Don’t sweat it, mard.

Sorry. When you wrote “not the man Peter himself,” I assumed you meant that he was denying that Peter is also the Rock. But I can see that your statement does not necessitate such a denial.

Blessings.

 

[JohnVIII]

…If everything was fine for 1000 years why change things. Why try and force the other 4 head bishops of the Eastern churches to be under the head bishop of the Roman church…

Everything was not fine for 1000 years. Even before the East-West split, Constantinople was out of communion with Rome for about 50% of the time since the time of the Apostles. And this not because of Rome, but because Constantinople kept falling into heresy over and over again. Rome never had such a heretic at as Nestorius, for example, who was the bishop of Constantinople, and of course the heresy-arch of Nestorianism.

If they had e-mail and Catholic Answers Forum since the time of the Apostle then maybe we would not have had all these problems in our past! The East had to function on its own most of the time because communication was was a luxury back then. It can be debated whether or not most Christians in the early days accepted the primacy of Rome as a full knowledge of everything everywhere was not a given. But I think it is rather conclusive that the primacy of Rome was indeed taught from the earliest of times. Just take the time to read what St. Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” had to say about Rome in c. 175-185 CE

 

[Nine_Two]

Just take the time to read what St. Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” had to say about Rome in c. 175-185 CE

I refer you to the recent posts by Gurney, and Mardukm.

 

[shaky]

• Peter is head of the entire Church. Not just a part of it.
• The Church is called the Catholic Church. “Roman” as a qualifier identifies a rite within Catholicism. Even though the “Roman or Latin rite” makes up 98%+ of the Catholic Church, all the rites are equal.

The patriarchal system came in the 4th century started by the East.

Where did you get that?

Peter as head apostle, was also head of the entire Church.

Peter settled that dispute.

Who gave you that information?

Who gave you that information?

Who taught you this?

Paul sought Peter’s approval to see if his teaching was correct, and add to that what I posted earlier to you regarding your misunderstanding of Paul’s rebulke of Peter. As for the problem at the council of Jerusalem, the Judaizers causing the trouble, were from James group. Peter stood up at the council, gave his teaching, and James implemented Peter’s direction.

Do you have specific references, i.e. quotes properly referenced?

Jesus gave Peter rule over the entire Church
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102

Hi steve.

The specific references you will find is on this website: Google {Why i abandoned papism}

Where i got this Information: youtube.com/watchv=tirUy13Q_L8

                                      [youtube.com/watchv=h41JmCCH7AQ](http://www.youtube.com/watchv=h41JmCCH7AQ)

                                      [youtube.com/watchv=XAJdUWDzY](http://www.youtube.com/watchv=XAJdUWDzY)

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Hi steve.

The specific references you will find is on this website: Google {Why i abandoned papism}

Where i got this Information: youtube.com/watchv=tirUy13Q_L8

                                      [youtube.com/watchv=h41JmCCH7AQ](http://www.youtube.com/watchv=h41JmCCH7AQ)

                                      [youtube.com/watchv=XAJdUWDzY](http://www.youtube.com/watchv=XAJdUWDzY)

That stuff is a little shaky, shaky. Try some reliable sources. The ‘information’ you stated is, or implies, clear error and came to you from someone who doesn’t know the history of the Church.