Peter's Keys and the Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a cradle catholic inquiring into western rite orthodoxy(in interest of full disclosure a catechumen) what initially got me wondering is in acts 15(council of Jerusalem ) the decision was not under Peter’s leadership but James’. Also asking hoe the early church veiwed the bishop of Rome it was as the most prominent of bishops but not a monarch. In orthodoxy western rite I fond the liturgy I was raised with.
 
Rdunbar123 said:
I am a cradle catholic inquiring into western rite orthodoxy(in interest of full disclosure a catechumen) what initially got me wondering is in acts 15(council of Jerusalem ) the decision was not under Peter’s leadership but James’. Also asking hoe the early church veiwed the bishop of Rome it was as the most prominent of bishops but not a monarch. In orthodoxy western rite I fond the liturgy I was raised with.
Click to expand...
When Jesus asked who the people said He was the answer was wrong.
When Jesus asked the Apostles, who do you say I am?, they couldn’t answer.
When Jesus asked Peter he answered correctly and Jesus told him the Church would be built on him. Jesus didn’t establish a democracy or aristocracy. It is a Monarchy with Himself as King and Peter as His chosen representative to tend His sheep. The Apostles were also given a role in the formation of the Church but Peter is the visible leader.
 
jam070406 said:
When Jesus asked who the people said He was the answer was wrong.
When Jesus asked the Apostles, who do you say I am?, they couldn’t answer.
When Jesus asked Peter he answered correctly and Jesus told him the Church would be built on him. Jesus didn’t establish a democracy or aristocracy. It is a Monarchy with Himself as King and Peter as His chosen representative to tend His sheep. The Apostles were also given a role in the formation of the Church but Peter is the visible leader.
Click to expand...
Still no answer to acts 15 or the practice of the early church
 
Rdunbar123 said:
Still no answer to acts 15 or the practice of the early church
Click to expand...
Not gonna respond to the narrative that clearly shows what governance Jesus established for His Church?
Why did Jesus prayer for Peter’s protection when Satan wanted to sift him?
Why did Satan choose Peter?
Why did Jesus tell Peter he must strengthen his brothers?
 
jam070406 said:
Jesus didn’t establish a democracy or aristocracy. It is a Monarchy with Himself as King and Peter as His chosen representative to tend His sheep.
Click to expand...
I’m still struggling with the issue of Peter. But it seems to me when thinking about it we suffer from a modern culture that hypervalues democracy and does not give authority its true respect. The Scripture constantly upholds authority: parents, husbands, masters and kings. It speaks to the obligation of that authority to the people it rules over, and that obligation is tremendous. It seems to me in our modern thinking with tend to hold to radical equality. This removes the obligation of those who follow but also of leaders. We have to submit to the Will of God. So it is hard to see how submission to authority could ever be a problem for Christians. But it is very much so in the modern world. Again, I’m not sure understanding that answers the question of Peter’s role but it surely tells us we tend to a disordered view of how things should be.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Yes, this is a well-worn topic here.

The Orthodox position is basically that Peter is a special apostle, but that his powers are not limited to one successor upon the earth (the papacy). We have to keep in mind that there is quite a leap to be made from Peter being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven to there being one and only one successor on earth who possesses Peter’s powers. The Orthodox do not believe that Peter’s succession is limited to only one bishop.

I fully expect that this thread will shortly be flooded with a bunch of out of context quotes, mined from the Church Fathers, being flung around by people who have probably never even read the works which they are referencing. People, however, can proof-text all they want from the writings of the Church Fathers, but it all relies on a leap of faith that, when you see references to “Peter” or the “See of Peter,” the Church Fathers were speaking of the same papacy as that which we have had for the last six or seven hundred years. The Orthodox would contend that the Catholic apologists are going into the writings of the Church Fathers with a conclusion already in mind and picking out that which supports their conclusion, seeing in the process evidence for something which is not really there (ironically, this is exactly what Protestants will do with the Bible, much to the chagrin of Catholics).

Personally for me, the lack of Canons regarding the powers of the bishop of Rome over the entire Church is perhaps the biggest hurdle to me ever accepting the concept of the papacy. Were the popes really invested with universal jurisdiction and a visible presidency of some sort over the Church, why are there no Canons which state that this is so? Why are there no Canons which enumerate the powers of the bishop of Rome (other than the Canon which gives the bishop of Rome the power to order the retrial of a deposed bishop if the deposed bishop successfully makes an appeal)? Why are there no Canons which regulate the interaction between the Pope’s universal jurisdiction and a bishop’s local jurisdiction? Which Canons can tell me what jurisdictional powers the Pope has over other Churches, like Patriarchate of Constantinople or the Patriarchate of Antioch?

Anyway, that’s just my two cents. I’m honestly a bit burnt out with debating over this topic, so I may not be very responsive beyond just getting my viewpoint out. I honestly have very little interest in a pointless quotation battle.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Thanks for your response.
 
DJK100 said:
Honestly, to me it just makes sense that you would have an ultimate authority. If Jesus came to earth to establish his church he obviously had an agenda and certain doctrines to teach. He left that agenda in the hands of the tweleve Apostles to carry out. If he didn’t leave someone with authority then you could easily have a bunch of schizm. What happens if the 12 apostles voted 6-6 on something. Six strongly believe that this is a doctrine of faith 6 strongly don’t. Now what? You have a schizm right there. Which seems to be kind of what happened with Orthodox / Catholic split. (Obviously there is more to it than that and I will admit I haven’t read that extensively on it so fell free to tell me I am wrong – I won’t take offense.) Even if Peter was first among equals that still means that a 6-6 vote would be problematic. So I think just from a logical point of view it makes most sense to have a one over riding authority just in case a senerio like this happens because after all there is only one body of Christ and having one over riding authority would be the most effective means to ensure that body stays intact.
Click to expand...
As far as the benefit of having one agreed leader to sort out all the essentials and hold the tide against schism and foot-dragging, I agree with you there. One of the strong points about Catholicism is that you can always and easily refer back to a unified doctrine.

The problem is that historically the pope has struggled to assert and prove his authority, and schisms have happened anyway. We’ve lost the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Protestants, the Old Catholics. The papacy didn’t even preserve itself in the 14th century in the Avignon years.
 
Bezant said:
As far as the benefit of having one agreed leader to sort out all the essentials and hold the tide against schism and foot-dragging, I agree with you there. One of the strong points about Catholicism is that you can always and easily refer back to a unified doctrine.

The problem is that historically the pope has struggled to assert and prove his authority, and schisms have happened anyway. We’ve lost the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Protestants, the Old Catholics. The papacy didn’t even preserve itself in the 14th century in the Avignon years.
Click to expand...
While I can agree that the papacy was at the center of the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation and the schism with the Old Catholics, I think one would be hard pressed to blame the schism involving the Oriental Orthodox on the papacy. Chalcedon was in 451, which was far before the development of the papacy which lead to the friction behind the later three schisms. Of course, from what I’ve heard from some Oriental Orthodox, the Tome of Leo was a big part of the schism, and it is still regarded as being dangerously Nestorian in character (the same Oriental Orthodox Christians also told me that while they could accept dyophysitism as being Orthodox, they would not be willing to accept the Tome), but we can’t blame that schism on any sort of papal claims to authority, unlike the other three.
 
Bezant said:
As far as the benefit of having one agreed leader to sort out all the essentials and hold the tide against schism and foot-dragging, I agree with you there. One of the strong points about Catholicism is that you can always and easily refer back to a unified doctrine.

The problem is that historically the pope has struggled to assert and prove his authority, and schisms have happened anyway. We’ve lost the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Protestants, the Old Catholics. The papacy didn’t even preserve itself in the 14th century in the Avignon years.
Click to expand...
The gates of hell shall not prevail.
 
jam070406 said:
Peter addressed the issue. James reiterated what Peter said and addressed the people in his jurisdiction. James did not dispute Peter.
Click to expand...
Look further in acts 15 vs 19 " therefore I (James talking) judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles that are turning to God…

Also verse 28 ( letter from the Apostles) "for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…

These vs seem to show the Apostles acted as a group. To your point about listening to Peter, in the next verse Paul and Barnabas also testified
 
Rdunbar123 said:
Look further in acts 15 vs 19 " therefore I (James talking) judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles that are turning to God…

Also verse 28 ( letter from the Apostles) "for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…

These vs seem to show the Apostles acted as a group. To your point about listening to Peter, in the next verse Paul and Barnabas also testified
Click to expand...
I’m not sure your point. Yes, they acted as a group but, how does this nullify the special role given to Peter, from Christ?
 
jam070406 said:
I’m not sure your point. Yes, they acted as a group but, how does this nullify the special role given to Peter, from Christ?
Click to expand...
Your point seemed to be that Peter merely gave dictation to James as his secretary. My counterpoint, not cherry picking verses is that the Apostles made the decision as a whole, much as all the early doctrines of the church were defined by ecumenical councils there is no evidence that the authority of the Bishop of Rome was absolute in the early years.
 
Rdunbar123 said:
Your point seemed to be that Peter merely gave dictation to James as his secretary. My counterpoint, not cherry picking verses is that the Apostles made the decision as a whole, much as all the early doctrines of the church were defined by ecumenical councils** there is no evidence that the authority of the Bishop of Rome was absolute** in the early years.
Click to expand...
(bold emphasis mine)

In my reading, there’s no evidence in Acts 15 or anywhere else that the Apostles overruled and overturned the teachings of Peter. When Peter, who had the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, opened a door, I would say there’s no evidence that anybody then came and shut that door against Peter’s will. Also when Peter shut a door, figuratively speaking, there’s no evidence of anyone among the Apostles overruling him and opening that door in opposition to Peter.
 
jam070406 said:
I’m not sure your point. Yes, they acted as a group but, how does this nullify the special role given to Peter, from Christ?
Click to expand...
This is how I also read the historical accounts in the NT.

Also, I see no evidence whatsoever that the Apostles, collectively, have been made “Rock” or received the “Keys”. Jesus talks to Peter ALONE in Matthew 16: 16-18.
 
never said that the Apostles overturned Peter. Just that the first council did not issue a ruling in Peters name. Also Peters first see was Antioch. Does this make the current Patriarch of Antioch the leader of the church since he is also Peters successor? The only Cannon of the early church councils that give the Bishop of Rome any power is to hear an appeal from a diposed bishop, and even in that case it only give the Pope power to order a new trial. Also early bishops except in the Roman Patriarchate did not depend on Romes approval nor did the Bishop of Rome appoint Bishops in other Sees. what really happened is that the West(Latin speaking) had only one Patriarchate(Rome) while the East Had four and spoke greek. As the Germanic tribes invaded the west rome was the only power in the area and thus developed a church goverment with power concentrated in the Roman See while the East acted as brothers not rulers. Again, in the early day of the church the Pope did not have absolute authority.From the days of the Apostles power was shared and doctrine developed in the Ecumenical Councils none of which pre schism were held in Rome.
 
“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top