Papal Supremacy

[Nine_Two]

That makes sense, but I think it’s a pretty moot point anyhow: it’s unrealistic to think that any of the Orthodox Churches is going to “go Catholic”. (And, conversely, it’s unrealistic to think that any of the 23 Catholic Churches is going to “go Orthodox”.)

Agreed. It has to be an all or none proposition.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by steve b
If one Church at a time is okay with unity, you mean the rest of the Churches can overrule an individual Church decision for unity?

P.S. As I said before (and as Nine_Two agreed) practically speaking I don’t think we have about this. But as a matter of principle, this was answered pretty definitely in 1997, though not in so many words: the statement from the Antiochian Orthodox Church made it clear that they would not enter into full communion with the Melkite Catholic Church if the latter remained in full communion with Rome. By extension, an Orthodox Church could not enter into communion with Rome and still be in full communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church (or, presumably, any of the other Orthodox Churches).

 

[Art321]

Agreed. It has to be an all or none proposition.

In the case of recent talks for union, I have only heard of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church.

Where are the other Orthodox Churchs in all of this?

 

[Nine_Two]

In the case of recent talks for union, I have only heard of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church.

Where are the other Orthodox Churchs in all of this?

Generally speaking, we are early in the process, and if we want to get anywhere Rome is going to have to talk to the individual Churches. Ultimately move into unity would come at a discussion with every last Church, both autocephalous and autonomous.

But there have been discussions between the Greeks and Rome. I imagine there will be more in the future.

 

[Art321]

Generally speaking, we are early in the process, and if we want to get anywhere Rome is going to have to talk to the individual Churches. Ultimately move into unity would come at a discussion with every last Church, both autocephalous and autonomous.

But there have been discussions between the Greeks and Rome. I imagine there will be more in the future.

So, that would mean that Rome would have to talk to each church individually. So let’s say that the Russian Orthodox Church decides to come into communion with Rome. I imagine that they would not do so unless it will be done as a group with the other Orthodox Churchs, right?

 

[Mickey]

Those are good points. Alright ill check the Greek word for love.

English translations for the word “love” in Scripture are inadequate. If we read the Greek, we see that there are three different meanings for the word, “love”.

Eros = Erotic. Strong feeling toward another. (there can be divine eros).
Philos = Love based on friendship between two people (on a human level).
Agape = Unconditional love. Selfless. Perfect. Sacrificial.

In Verse 15 Jesus uses “agapas” but St Peter responds with “philo”.
In Verse 16 Jesus uses “agapas” but St Peter responds with “philo”.
In verse 17 Jesus uses “phileis” and St Peter responds with “philo”

Christ uses the word which depicts perfect, sacrificial love, but St Peter could not comprehend and responds with “philo”. In verse 17, Christ changes the word from “agapas” to “phileis”. St Peter realizes that he was unable to comprehend and he is grieved.

The Gospel verses of St John chapter 21 vv15-17 have a twofold meaning. There is Christ’s triple affirmation restoring St Peter to his apostolic standing after the triple denial. And there is the teaching of perfect sacrificial love and St Peter’s inability to understand it at this time.

 

[Nine_Two]

So, that would mean that Rome would have to talk to each church individually. So let’s say that the Russian Orthodox Church decides to come into communion with Rome. I imagine that they would not do so unless it will be done as a group with the other Orthodox Churchs, right?

Not just a group, but all of them.

Although Rome would probably get further if it were not just Rome, but the other Catholic Churches speaking, as equals.

 

[Nine_Two]

English translations for the word “love” in Scripture are inadequate. If we read the Greek, we see that there are three different meanings for the word, “love”.

Eros = Erotic. Strong feeling toward another. (there can be divine eros).
Philos = Love based on friendship between two people (on a human level).
Agape = Unconditional love. Selfless. Perfect. Sacrificial.

In Verse 15 Jesus uses “agapas” but St Peter responds with “philo”.
In Verse 16 Jesus uses “agapas” but St Peter responds with “philo”.
In verse 17 Jesus uses “phileis” and St Peter responds with “philo”

Christ uses the word which depicts perfect, sacrificial love, but St Peter could not comprehend and responds with “philo”. In verse 17, Christ changes the word from “agapas” to “phileis”. St Peter realizes that he was unable to comprehend and he is grieved.

The Gospel verses of St John chapter 21 vv15-17 have a twofold meaning. There is Christ’s triple affirmation restoring St Peter to his apostolic standing after the triple denial. And there is the teaching of perfect sacrificial love and St Peter’s inability to understand it at this time.

Some English translations try to distinguish the two forms of love in that section, but they tend to fail. For example in the NIV Christ asks if Peter “Truly loves” him.
Which is too bad.

 

[Art321]

Not just a group, but all of them.

Although Rome would probably get further if it were not just Rome, but the other Catholic Churches speaking, as equals.

Thanks and that is what I meant. All of them together.

 

[Peter_J]

So, that would mean that Rome would have to talk to each church individually. So let’s say that the Russian Orthodox Church decides to come into communion with Rome. I imagine that they would not do so unless it will be done as a group with the other Orthodox Churchs, right?

Yes, but this sort of topic gets a bit confusing because many people assume that some of the Orthodox Churches are much closer to swimming the Tiber than other Orthodox Churches. This assumption is not really true. None of the Orthodox Churches are very open to union with Rome.

 

[Mickey]

None of the Orthodox Churches are very open to union with Rome.

I would tend to agree with this.

 

[Art321]

Yes, but this sort of topic gets a bit confusing because many people assume that some of the Orthodox Churches are much closer to swimming the Tiber than other Orthodox Churches. This assumption is not really true. None of the Orthodox Churches are very open to union with Rome.

This is true and I suppose it has been a view they have held for centuries. Hey, but there are talks between us about a possible reunion!

I would say that is a miracle in itself considering our past relations. I hope that with time union does take place if ever. It make take decades even centuries for all we know. But in the end, I pray and hope it comes to pass.

 

[Jacob50]

He made Peter a caretaker, but Christ remained the shephard.

Pastoral care was the responsibility of all the apostles. This particular message was for Peter, as shown by the fact that he took Peter aside to give it to him. I would see it in the light of Peter’s earlier denial as well as his failure in response to Christ’s “Do you love me?” question. It was a penance so that he might truly love Christ.

No.

As I’ve said many times on this forum, I agree there is such a thing as Papal Primacy.

I just wouldn’t use that verse to back it up.

Christ is the Shepherd. But he made Peter the Shepherd of the visible Church. Just as Christ is Rock, and made Peter Rock. Sure Christ gave authority to all the apostles collectively, but here he singled out Peter. This is why Christ said: "“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Here Christ chooses Peter among the apostles. And afterwards Christ says “Feed my sheep/lambs”. Christ never told any other apostle feed my sheep/lambs. I think this is more than a mere penance for his denials.

Feeding his sheep, a penance? hmmm

Also, what exactly does “feed” mean according to you in these verses?

If you agree that there is such thing as Papal Primacy (which I know you do), and you don’t use this verse to back it up, then in what verses would you say that there is clearly a primacy?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Christ is the Shepherd. But he made Peter the Shepherd of the visible Church. Just as Christ is Rock, and made Peter Rock. Sure Christ gave authority to all the apostles collectively, but here he singled out Peter. This is why Christ said: "“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Here Christ chooses Peter among the apostles. And afterwards Christ says “Feed my sheep/lambs”. Christ never told any other apostle feed my sheep/lambs. I think this is more than a mere penance for his denials.

Feeding his sheep, a penance? hmmm

Also, what exactly does “feed” mean according to you in these verses?

If you agree that there is such thing as Papal Primacy (which I know you do), and you don’t use this verse to back it up, then in what verses would you say that there is clearly a primacy?

Do you believe that the other apostles were not already asked to feed His sheep? That seems a bit odd…

 

[Jacob50]

English translations for the word “love” in Scripture are inadequate. If we read the Greek, we see that there are three different meanings for the word, “love”.

Eros = Erotic. Strong feeling toward another. (there can be divine eros).
Philos = Love based on friendship between two people (on a human level).
Agape = Unconditional love. Selfless. Perfect. Sacrificial.

In Verse 15 Jesus uses “agapas” but St Peter responds with “philo”.
In Verse 16 Jesus uses “agapas” but St Peter responds with “philo”.
In verse 17 Jesus uses “phileis” and St Peter responds with “philo”

Christ uses the word which depicts perfect, sacrificial love, but St Peter could not comprehend and responds with “philo”. In verse 17, Christ changes the word from “agapas” to “phileis”. St Peter realizes that he was unable to comprehend and he is grieved.

The Gospel verses of St John chapter 21 vv15-17 have a twofold meaning. There is Christ’s triple affirmation restoring St Peter to his apostolic standing after the triple denial. And there is the teaching of perfect sacrificial love and St Peter’s inability to understand it at this time.

I think John 21 is more than restoring St. Peter to his apostolic standing after his denials. It is more than a perfect sacrificial love and St. Peter’s inability to understand it, which I’m not sure if he did or did not actually understand it. But even so, lets recognize that this is more than just that. Christ entrusts his flock to St. Peter. And to him in a particular way.

Christ is the Shepherd. No one argues that. But before his ascension he left Peter with the charge of feeding his sheep (there must be a visible authority).

Sure…this restored St. Peter’s denials if you will. I’m not going to argue that. Let us not argue whether or not all the apostles received authority. I know they all did.

But Peter is singled out for Christs flock just as he is singed out in Matt 16:18, Luke 22:32 and elsewhere.

Would you agree that here Christ is entrusting his flock to Peter?

 

[Jacob50]

Do you believe that the other apostles were not already asked to feed His sheep? That seems a bit odd…

What I believe is Christ gave authority to all the apostles. But St. Peter, having a particular role.

 

[Nine_Two]

Christ is the Shepherd. But he made Peter the Shepherd of the visible Church. Just as Christ is Rock, and made Peter Rock. Sure Christ gave authority to all the apostles collectively, but here he singled out Peter. This is why Christ said: "“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Here Christ chooses Peter among the apostles. And afterwards Christ says “Feed my sheep/lambs”. Christ never told any other apostle feed my sheep/lambs. I think this is more than a mere penance for his denials.

I specifically didn’t refer to Peter as Shephard because of your quotation that “there will be one shephard”, that was Christ. In the context of one shephard, the apostles are just men who help the shephard.

Feeding his sheep, a penance? hmmm

The eastern concept of penance is something that is given to help you deal with your sin. Either to somehow make restitution, to drive home the knowledge of how big a deal you did, that sort of thing. In this case, the command Christ gave Peter helped Peter to love him in the sense of agape.

Also, what exactly does “feed” mean according to you in these verses?

I doubt there is any disagreement on this (though good call to make sure this is true), I would say “feed” means to take care of his flock. To provide spiritual sustinence.

If you agree that there is such thing as Papal Primacy (which I know you do), and you don’t use this verse to back it up, then in what verses would you say that there is clearly a primacy?

Well for the Primacy of Peter, I would note that all the gospels are in full agreement that he was one of the closest apostles to Christ. I think it would be pretty easy to make a good argument that he was the closest. The incident with the temple tax comes to mind (I’m not sure of the book chapter of verse off the top of my head, but the part where Peter is approached and asked if his master pays the tax).
However, none of that translates to Papal Primacy. For that you have to look at the tradition of the Church. It is clear throughout early tradition that the office of the Roman bishop is highly regarded to an extent that no other contemporary offices are. For example, St. John Chrysostom, in his writings, continually praises the office.

 

[Jacob50]

I specifically didn’t refer to Peter as Shephard because of your quotation that “there will be one shephard”, that was Christ. In the context of one shephard, the apostles are just men who help the shephard.

Ok…Lets forget about the “there will be one Shepherd” passage. Lets get into
John 21:15-19.

When Jesus tells Peter Feed my sheep/lamb, would you agree that he (Christ) gives Peter a particular role in the Church?
I know the answer just confirming…

The eastern concept of penance is something that is given to help you deal with your sin. Either to somehow make restitution, to drive home the knowledge of how big a deal you did, that sort of thing. In this case, the command Christ gave Peter helped Peter to love him in the sense of agape.

We could say in a way, that Peter wasn’t the only one who denied Christ in the full sense. All the apostles ran when Jesus was arrested in Matt 26:56. This is a way of denying him. We know Judas betrayed him and just a few verses before John 21, Thomas the apostle didn’t believe in his resurrection (John 20:24-29).

I Just think its quite incomplete to simply say “Oh this is Peter’s penance” kind of thing. I think its more than that. Its a special Job Peter will have from now on (yes, I believe it is also given to his successors). You would disagree though.

I doubt there is any disagreement on this (though good call to make sure this is true), I would say “feed” means to take care of his flock. To provide spiritual sustinence.

k

Well for the Primacy of Peter, I would note that all the gospels are in full agreement that he was one of the closest apostles to Christ. I think it would be pretty easy to make a good argument that he was the closest. The incident with the temple tax comes to mind(I’m not sure of the book chapter of verse off the top of my head, but the part where Peter is approached and asked if his master pays the tax).
However, none of that translates to Papal Primacy. For that you have to look at the tradition of the Church. It is clear throughout early tradition that the office of the Roman bishop is highly regarded to an extent that no other contemporary offices are. For example, St. John Chrysostom, in his writings, continually praises the office.

Hmm I would have to look at the tax verse you are referring to because I’m not aware of Peter’s primacy present there. Anyhow, the tradition sometimes speaks of this office, in a way that, I just think that its quite problematic for such office that was regarded with very high esteem to be in schism. Now I wont quote anyone here (then im accused of cherries), but the tradition regards this Petrine office as if one would have to be in unity with it, or else be considered a heretic/schismatic. It also regards it as the “head”. Again too problematic for me to think the head is in schism. And we could give many examples of early traditions, though I know you are aware of such.

Just saying, that in my opinion, tradition is quite clear on where one should stand. And tradition, does not support the idea of the true Church being where the Bishop of Rome is not. It simply does not.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

When Jesus tells Peter Feed my sheep/lamb, would you agree that he (Christ) gives Peter a particular role in the Church?
I know the answer just confirming…

Of course you do, I’ve already acknowledged that Christ gave Peter a pastoral role. That is the roll he was given.

We could say in a way, that Peter wasn’t the only one who denied Christ in the full sense. All the apostles ran when Jesus was arrested in Matt 26:56. This is a way of denying him. We know Judas betrayed him and just a few verses before John 21, Thomas the apostle didn’t believe in his resurrection (John 20:24-29).

Judas and Peter are the contrasts though, both betrayed him, yet Peter repented. Thomas doubted but when he saw evidence he believed willingly, and happily. The disciples all ran out of fear, but they did not betray him in the same sense.

I Just think its quite incomplete to simply say “Oh this is Peter’s penance” kind of thing. I think its more than that. Its a special Job Peter will have from now on (yes, I believe it is also given to his successors). You would disagree though.

So why do you think Christ told him to “Feed my sheep” immediately after Peter found he could not tell Christ he fully and truly loved him?

Hmm I would have to look at the tax verse you are referring to because I’m not aware of Peter’s primacy present there. Anyhow, the tradition sometimes speaks of this office, in a way that, I just think that its quite problematic for such office that was regarded with very high esteem to be in schism. Now I wont quote anyone here (then im accused of cherries), but the tradition regards this Petrine office as if one would have to be in unity with it, or else be considered a heretic/schismatic. It also regards it as the “head”. Again too problematic for me to think the head is in schism. And we could give many examples of early traditions, though I know you are aware of such.

The tax verse on its own really doesn’t say much, it is combined with everything else that it begins to take on meaning. I don’t believe there is a magic verse that says it.
I don’t think it is at all problematic that an office held in high esteem should be in schism. Christ told Peter to “Get behind me Satan”, for at that moment Peter was in Schism from Christ. Similarly he was in schism when he betrayed Christ, yet it is clear that he was held in high regard by all the rest.
The office is held by men, and any abuses are possible. Christ promised his Church would prevail against Hades, but he made no promises regarding specific offices.

Just saying, that in my opinion, tradition is quite clear on where one should stand. And tradition, does not support the idea of the true Church being where the Bishop of Rome is not. It simply does not.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

I would agree that tradition is quite clear. But I think we’ve come to different conclusions.

 

[Mickey]

Christ entrusts his flock to St. Peter. And to him in a particular way.

Christ entrusts His flock to all the Apostles…in a particular way.

(there must be a visible authority).

All the Apostles and their successors.

Would you agree that here Christ is entrusting his flock to Peter?

Not to St Peter only.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: