Peter's Keys and the Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bezant

Guest
How do the Orthodox interpret the scene where Christ calls Peter the rock, and that he will hand over the keys of Heaven and Earth?

It seems (at least from what I’m learning so far) that the Orthodox position of papal primacy of honour makes sense historically, but Scripturally, it clearly looks as though Christ is handing over special authority to Peter.
 
Bezant said:
How do the Orthodox interpret the scene where Christ calls Peter the rock, and that he will hand over the keys of Heaven and Earth?

It seems (at least from what I’m learning so far) that the Orthodox position of papal primacy of honour makes sense historically, but Scripturally, it clearly looks as though Christ is handing over special authority to Peter.
Click to expand...
I always find the average Catholic’s confidence in this passage alone odd. It is often brought out as if, by itself it proves a lot, and I always find myself perplexed. To me it just brings up a lot of questions.

What does it mean when Christ says he will build the Church on the Rock? What are the keys meant to signify exactly? Is that meant to apply just to Peter, or is he carrying them for all the Apostles? Does what is being said or given apply to the Bishops descended from peter, or to those in a particular See, or to all the bishops descended from the Apostles, or something else? Or is it all meant to be understood in a more abstract fashion?

While closer examination of the texts may rule out some of these ideas, in mt estimation the only way to come to any conclusions it to see what makes sense historically, as you say. Not just what it says (because honestly we all know we can easily pull what we want out of Scripture) but what did the very early and early Church do, and how has history treated this passage and this question.

Personally, when I look at that, I find the Orthodox interpretation more in line with how the early Church seems to have acted. But either way I am flummoxed as how anyone can find the passage itself to be obvious.
 
Bluegoat said:
I always find the average Catholic’s confidence in this passage alone odd. It is often brought out as if, by itself it proves a lot, and I always find myself perplexed. To me it just brings up a lot of questions.

What does it mean when Christ says he will build the Church on the Rock? What are the keys meant to signify exactly? Is that meant to apply just to Peter, or is he carrying them for all the Apostles? Does what is being said or given apply to the Bishops descended from peter, or to those in a particular See, or to all the bishops descended from the Apostles, or something else? Or is it all meant to be understood in a more abstract fashion?

While closer examination of the texts may rule out some of these ideas, in mt estimation the only way to come to any conclusions it to see what makes sense historically, as you say. Not just what it says (because honestly we all know we can easily pull what we want out of Scripture) but what did the very early and early Church do, and how has history treated this passage and this question.

Personally, when I look at that, I find the Orthodox interpretation more in line with how the early Church seems to have acted. But either way I am flummoxed as how anyone can find the passage itself to be obvious.
Click to expand...
It is for these questions that the Church laid it out in VI.
And she didn’t rely solely on that one passage.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Peter’s confession was a revelation from God.
To which, Jesus said He was blessed because He was chosen to be the rock that the Church was built on and to be given the keys to the Kingdom. The Kingdom of Christ the King.
 
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...
Exactly. Jesus asked the people who they said He was. The consensus of the people was wrong. He asked the Apostles, they fell silent.
 
Cavaradossi said:
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).
Click to expand...
And, amazingly enough, the Catholics would tend to think the Orthodox are doing this as well. Just to to point that out.

The only thing I care to add is that Catholics see all the Apostles as having successors in all the bishops, but that Peter has one particular successor - the Bishop of Rome. There was one Peter at the start, and so it continues.

The book The Fathers Know Best has lots of quotes from the Church Fathers, if we want to go that route. As it is, I will just throw one out there which I’m fairly certain no one can say is taken out of context. Forgive the [bracketed] identification of pronouns, but I think it is fairly obvious in this case, and should anyone wish they can look up the whole passage to see that I am not fooling around with them:
On him [Peter] he [the Lord] builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep, and although he assigns 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 also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair [cathedra]… If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?
Click to expand...
-St Cyprian of Carthage, Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) - A.D 251.

This, citation and all, is taken from Jimmy Akins book The Fathers Know Best. I wanted to throw this quote out there just so that it is clear that they aren’t all taken out of context, and will leave the rest of the debate to people more familiar with the writings concerned. (I am also aware that this text by itself does not prove anything because individual Fathers aren’t infallible, and even if they were that it doesn’t explicitly say that the Pope has any particular powers, but it does hint rather strongly that there is more than a primacy of honor going on.)
 
Iron_Donkey said:
And, amazingly enough, the Catholics would tend to think the Orthodox are doing this as well. Just to to point that out.
Click to expand...
Which is why quoting the Church fathers is useless. We need to look at what was done in practice, not what was said.
On him [Peter] he [the Lord] builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep, and although he assigns 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 also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair [cathedra]… If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?
Click to expand...
-St Cyprian of Carthage, Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) - A.D 251.

This, citation and all, is taken from Jimmy Akins book The Fathers Know Best. I wanted to throw this quote out there just so that it is clear that they aren’t all taken out of context, and will leave the rest of the debate to people more familiar with the writings concerned. (I am also aware that this text by itself does not prove anything because individual Fathers aren’t infallible, and even if they were that it doesn’t explicitly say that the Pope has any particular powers, but it does hint rather strongly that there is more than a primacy of honor going on.)
Click to expand...

The problem with this quotation is that Cyprian never qualifies what the chair of Peter is. Is it some metaphorical chair? Is it a physical location? Rome? The problem is that you are looking at that quotation with the papacy in mind. If Cyprian really meant to say that Rome was the center of all Christian unity, why did he not just call a spade a spade and say that it was Rome? This would be like somebody writing a text book about the United States government without ever naming Washington D.C., instead preferring to call it, “the Seat of George, the leader of the founding fathers and great general of deliverance for our nation.”
 
Cavaradossi said:
Which is why quoting the Church fathers is useless. We need to look at what was done in practice, not what was said.

The problem with this quotation is that Cyprian never qualifies what the chair of Peter is. Is it some metaphorical chair? Is it a physical location? Rome? The problem is that you are looking at that quotation with the papacy in mind. If Cyprian really meant to say that Rome was the center of all Christian unity, why did he not just call a spade a spade and say that it was Rome? This would be like somebody writing a text book about the United States government without ever naming Washington D.C., instead preferring to call it, “the Seat of George, the leader of the founding fathers and great general of deliverance for our nation.”
Click to expand...
Good questions. But what he does establish is that there is a greater authority granted to Peter that modern Orthodoxy downplays. Where is that authority that was passed down? Or from the modern Orthodox position, why would that authority, granted to Peter alone, vanquish?
 
jam070406 said:
Good questions. But what he does establish is that there is a greater authority granted to Peter that modern Orthodoxy downplays. Where is that authority that was passed down? Or from the modern Orthodox position, why would that authority, granted to Peter alone, vanquish?
Click to expand...
The position of the Orthodox is that Peter’s authority belongs to the Church. All bishops are capable of exercising such authority. Were they not, then the bishops would not have the authority to do things like excommunicate people within their diocese and break communion with other bishops (preventing all clergy within his diocese from communing with clergy from the offending diocese) or teaching theological opinions. All bishops in the Church have historically been capable of exercising such powers, although they are less frequently exercised now.
 
Cavaradossi said:
… why did he not just call a spade a spade and say that it was Rome? This would be like somebody writing a text book about the United States government without ever naming Washington D.C., instead preferring to call it, “the Seat of George, the leader of the founding fathers and great general of deliverance for our nation.”
Click to expand...
I think it would be more like talking about the Presidency and never mentioning Washington D.C. It is relatively well known at the moment that the Presidency is in D.C. We do not qualify it by saying “that president, the one in D.C” every time we talk about it, though we do mention D.C. occasionally. As do the Church Fathers with Rome.

Again, this is not meant to be proof text, but just an idea to point out that Peter was in fact associated with Rome: “You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra, on which sat Peter, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [Schism of the Donatists 2:2 (c. A.D. 367)].” - St. Optatus, via the same book as last time.

Again, this does not point out the specific nature of the chair, though I think the phrase “head of all the apostles” hints at the Catholic view. I agree that looking at what they did is important in determining how the Pope was seen, as well as noting that there was no point of glaring discontinuity between the behavior of various Popes (that I am aware of). What little I know supports the Catholic view, but I am no good at history, so I’ll leave that to others.
 
Cavaradossi said:
The position of the Orthodox is that Peter’s authority belongs to the Church. All bishops are capable of exercising such authority. Were they not, then the bishops would not have the authority to do things like excommunicate people within their diocese and break communion with other bishops (preventing all clergy within his diocese from communing with clergy from the offending diocese) or teaching theological opinions. All bishops in the Church have historically been capable of exercising such powers, although they are less frequently exercised now.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t at all answer Peter’s authority which is set apart from the other Apostles, as stated in the quote of St. Cyprian that was provided.
 
jam070406 said:
It is for these questions that the Church laid it out in VI.
And she didn’t rely solely on that one passage.
Click to expand...
I am glad that this topic got started because it will allow me to learn about the Orthodox Church as well.

What do you mean by VI? I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to matters of the Orthodox Chuch.

God bless.
 
Little_One0307 said:
I am glad that this topic got started because it will allow me to learn about the Orthodox Church as well.

What do you mean by VI? I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to matters of the Orthodox Chuch.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Vatican I council. Sorry. :o
 
The only Roman numeral one needs to know when learning about the Orthodox Church is LXX. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top