Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[KathleenGee]

Byeveryword…are you then speaking of the clergy sex abuse?

Most of the abuse happened during the 60’s and 70’s when the free sex and drug revolution, anti-Church, anti-religion, anti-chastity was sucking people in like a vacuum…my girlfriend and I would walk across town at night near the Canadian border to pray in the church before the Sacred Heart…it was that powerful…and it is now coming out that this force also impacted those priests.

Also note that the priests involved in the sex abuse were the very ones who became very close to their parishioners…and this was the means to reach their victims.

I think we are quite in tune with the needs of our parishioners in the various parishes around me…it is a matter whether or not you want to visit after Sunday Mass…if you attended a Catholic parish, you would immediately find the means how parishioners communicate their needs.

Finally, the sex abuse among clergy is now coming out with the right numbers…about 1%…when most deviancy in social institutions and settings is about 3%…It is about Latin celibacy…thinking it is causing the priests to become abusive.

Most priests want to be alone after having a full day with so many people…I was visiting with a fellow who was staying at the rectory…and it was very moving to see my pastor come in down the hall, get down on his knees and bow his head in humble prayer before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Some how I don’t think you have an idea what it is like to be a Catholic…

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Exactly! If it is an innovation,then where are the rebukes from the ECF’s? But you still have not answered the question at hand:

How many ECF’s discuss infallibility when Peter wrote his two epistles?

None, so why should I believe with a more recent (and innovative) interpretation of said verse?

Hello brother in Christ. Indeed, I think that is part of the issue at hand;but I am confident, it can be resolved and a mutual understanding can be achieved. I’ll be honest with you, it is not about who is right or wrong,but more important, how to work on unification and respect each others positions and take them all into consideration.

It is very much about who is right or wrong - this is the very grounds on which unity must be based.

 

[byeveryword]

St. Peter and St. Paul were not bishops. They were apostles and servants, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles. The church had its differences back then, but did not become divided. It truly became united in Rome when both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyrs for their faith, along with countless others after them before Constantine put an end to such persecution. When persecution ended, division began.

Maybe if we focused more on ‘taking up our crosses daily and following our Lord Jesus Christ’ as did these holy apostles, rather than focusing on the primacy of Rome we would then become a holy united church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Problem is then you are not listening to Christ, nor understanding all the issues that arose within Christianity over time.

What little I know, what is amazing to me is how the Church has gone through so much, with seemingly small periods of peace and flourish, then no soon after, more trials, tribulations, persecutions, and troubles within.

Greater complexity requires a focal point that represents our faith. There has always been primacy of Peter. A protestant theologian spent 27 years of research and found the succession of Peter never broken. There were bad popes, bad ways of selecting.

But if you knew of the history of papal teachings, may be you would understand better. I see papal primacy as being the one thing many Christians cannot accept. It is sad, but true. I grew up Catholic, and having the Holy Father in my heart and prayers as been very enriching and a real blessing.

I think it is very tolerable in my mind that the Orthodox believe that Mary never sinned since birth, or they see the Holy Spirit coming both from Father and from Son. But they believe in the Holy Trinity as we. They have married clergy. I have heard Latin priests tell me they hear about how some Orthodox priests wish they weren’t married so they could devote their entire lives to Christ. I am all for married clergy and their rites, but I uphold the celibate Latin rite. It will never change.

Between the Orthodox and Catholic, there is room to accept others’ understanding. We have had a Thomasinian understanding of theology for a long time, even though S. Thomas did not draw to the concept of the Immaculate Conception for very good reasons. But the Franciscans did. It was a matter of how they related to Christ with their charism. And both the Dominicans and Franciscans did great work in building up the Church.

It was Yves Conger, a Dominican who wanted the Pope Pius XII to allow other forms of theology. He suffered and was considered a dissenter for some time, before allowed to continue again as a theologian. It is because the Church is so entrusted by Christ to seek truth and teach the whole and entire truth about Jesus Christ. It is its mission.

The Church, 100 AD, had its liturgy, its hierarchical structure, and its creed, that was further expanded at the Council at Nicea giving us the Nicene Creed. The Church took some time before approving the Gospels of St. John the Evangelist. And the Book of Hebrews took 200 years to finally determine they were part of the Bible.

If you have a dispute, and it is not resolved even by its local councils, then where does one go? The bishops of the world are in union with the Holy Father. The differences with the Orthodox entail culture, region and geography, history language, different rites…but it is good to have a figure representing us all as one.

Jesus said He prayed that we would be one so the world would believe…and the first impression non-Christians have of Christianity in these days…is how come there are so many divisions?

John Paul II said his work is to work for unity among all believers. He prays not only for us but for all mankind. The local bishop prays for all souls in his diocese, irregardless of their beliefs. The pastor prays for all those in his parish boundaries, likewise irregardless of their beliefs.

When you are baptized, you are baptized into the Catholic Church. When a Protestant wants to enter, all they have to do is affirm the constructs of our faith and our duties and they can then attend at Mass and receive the sacraments, it is that simple. But we do wish they attend RCIA to get formal training and initiation, as well as introduction at Mass for a little while before full and formal entry…it is up to them in conjunction with the pastor.

 

[byeveryword]

KathleenGee,

St. Peter was never a bishop of Rome, or any other locale. Neither were any of the other apostles. So how can we speak of succession, when St. Peter was never a bishop? According to early church documents, St. Peter ordained Euodius as the first bishop of Antioch. Does that mean there is a succession of primacy in the Eastern Church of Antioch from Peter? According to early church documents, St. Paul ordained St. Linus as the first bishop of Rome, while St.Peter ordained St.Clement as the second or third bishop of Rome. How does one sort out any sort of succession from that?

Furthermore, the apostolic tradition of choosing bishops with the whole consent of the laity from a local city or diocese was forsaken. So how can we speak of true succession, even if we could modify our definition of it.

Really, this whole discussion of the primacy of Rome is taken too far. Frankly, the rock that the church is truly founded upon, is the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Yes, St. Peter had a spiritual authority in the beginning of the church age, but I am not so sure whether that authority was passed on to anyone. Much like Joshua, who received authority from Moses, Joshua’s primacy was never really passed on after Joshua died.

 

[GaryTaylor]

i would like to read before or after that passage in his book or maybe read elsewhere what else he believes or has said about primacy

or maybe Romes hand in the Eastern affairs of the East, is Charity also to Benedict.

Unless your Orthodox and you dont want the Pope to feed his lambs,or to feed his sheep or to tend his sheep…

Well you could jump right to 2010 and read Light of the World to see exactly what he has to say about communion with the Orthodox.

 

[Contarini]

So you’d have still refused to eat non-kosher foods if you were there when Peter anounced his vision to the other apostles? I’m not trying to be a jerk, just trying to figure out how you resolve that logical conundrum.

It’s only a logical conundrum if you assume that Peter was exercising some kind of juridical authority, rather than sharing with his brothers in Christ a revelation he had received, which they discerned to be authentic.

It seems to me as if you are reading your ecclesiology into the Council of Jerusalem, seeing as a juridically authoritative act something that is not in fact described in those terms, but in the language of charismatic experience.

Florovsky on “The Councils as Charismatic Events” is the best defense of the Orthodox position on this that I know. I for one find it convincing. That doesn’t necessarily mean that one should be Orthodox rather than Catholic. I think it’s possible to read Catholic ecclesiology charismatically and to understand monuments of the tradition like Vatican I as apophatic restraints on erroneous juridical understandings (like Western conciliarism with its inappropriate importation of a representative model into ecclesiology). But the problem is that the actual functioning of the Catholic Church is deeply embedded in juridical ecclesiology. (To be fair, so is that of the Orthodox Church, but they are so obviously messed up at the juridical level that they’re relatively less tempted to take that aspect seriously.)

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

Not on the universal level. I suppose …

I disagree.

Your examples just demonstrate that Roman Catholics do not have the same understanding of primacy as the early church, nor of the eastern church today, and until we can agree on this definition we will always talk passed one another.

 

[KathleenGee]

St. Paul confronted St. Peter for backing down from his dream to have freedom to eat anything…

Yves Conger disputed Pope Pius XII for being the only one the Church could listen to. The popes are not set up to be semi-gods or dictators. The nature of the hierarchy is communion, and we encounter unity among diversity.

But you cannot dismiss Peter’s obvious presence and actions throughout the Gospels, and especially more than anything, Christ naming Peter the rock. St. John stepped back, to give way to Peter when he entered the tomb at the Resurrection.

Also, for such a position then why would the Holy Spirit guide Peter to Rome, and Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, to Rome, when all the other apostles went elsewhere to the Eastern regions. Why would you think that?

The situation and events of Rome would not give Peter any opportunity to set up a church in this sense. But he nevertheless established the faith there with his followers, as well as Paul, when we see and acknowledge the new temple of God as being Christ Himself.

The Vatican has been established over the remains of these two apostles. The Vatican has the greatest library in the world, and it does not just contain documents of churches and believers. Its artifacts are statements to the Church as being the base of Western civilization. That is indicative of the Church of Rome’s nature to hold on to all its believers, to oversee them and their works in the glory of God.

And you take it to the street level…we have many kinds of cultures now coming to our shores. And if you get to know people from cultures very different from your own, going into their homes, studying their family structures, the treatment of women, the openness to learning, the application of personal morality to every day life, Christianity does have a great and positive impact on elevating the human person.

The Roman Church seeks systematic and scholarly approach to the events of life. I do see the Roman Church as universal and all encompassing.

And I also see great good among the Orthodox, with charisms that would greatly restore depth to our liturgies and practice of faith, and the shunning of materialism and power to the point of death…The fruit of martyrs is very abundant in the Eastern churches, and this is perhaps the good fruits of the apostles who founded the faith there. And being universal in faith in these times, there is a tendency now in our liturgies in some places to be devoid of depth.

There is a movement across the USA now among Roman Catholic churches that want to have more icons in their churches. Ours will be filled with them. There are new church buildings going up that are Roman Catholic but in the Byzantine style. So the Holy Spirit is also moving us as a people to draw more to the east.

I looked at the events leading up to the Schism, and there was ongoing separating then reunification, as well as misrepresentation. The Roman Church exonerated one patriarch, Photinos, spelling. And Roman Catholics should be sensitive to the issues of the Filoque and their understanding of Mary. I really don’t see these as stumbling blocks. We need balance to the scholarship of Thomas Aquinas. Religion can be at times too much in the intellect, but lacking in the mystery of faith and heart.

I personally like the Franciscans, was educated by them, and worked with them…and they draw much more on Christ’s humanity. St. Francis’ spirituality came down from the Cappadocians, and he is considered about the most beloved of all saints, and he was so extremely loving, joyful, and simple.

May be we can pray to St. Francis to ask for his help in bringing about this unity.

But there is a need for the Orthodox and Protestants to reform their hearts and that is to forgive the Church for its past sins. In this scope, and our side tolerating the understanding of Filoque and Mary sinless through her life, non-Latin Christians should come to acknowledge the great presence and teaching the primacy of Peter has, and the gift to be representative of all believers.

People react to the Holy Father without even knowing the teachings and works, but more from this image of when they were trying to offset the dismantling of Christianity.

Pray we will be one so the world may believe…The world and its enslavement needs Christ now more than ever. There is just too much suffering in the world…it is becoming intolerable.

 

[byeveryword]

St. Paul confronted St. Peter for backing down from his dream to have freedom to eat anything…

Yves Conger disputed Pope Pius XII for being the only one the Church could listen to. The popes are not set up to be semi-gods or dictators. The nature of the hierarchy is communion, and we encounter unity among diversity.

But you cannot dismiss Peter’s obvious presence and actions throughout the Gospels, and especially more than anything, Christ naming Peter the rock. St. John stepped back, to give way to Peter when he entered the tomb at the Resurrection.

Also, for such a position then why would the Holy Spirit guide Peter to Rome, and Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, to Rome, when all the other apostles went elsewhere to the Eastern regions. Why would you think that?

The situation and events of Rome would not give Peter any opportunity to set up a church in this sense. But he nevertheless established the faith there with his followers, as well as Paul, when we see and acknowledge the new temple of God as being Christ Himself.

The Vatican has been established over the remains of these two apostles. The Vatican has the greatest library in the world, and it does not just contain documents of churches and believers. Its artifacts are statements to the Church as being the base of Western civilization. That is indicative of the Church of Rome’s nature to hold on to all its believers, to oversee them and their works in the glory of God.

And you take it to the street level…we have many kinds of cultures now coming to our shores. And if you get to know people from cultures very different from your own, going into their homes, studying their family structures, the treatment of women, the openness to learning, the application of personal morality to every day life, Christianity does have a great and positive impact on elevating the human person.

The Roman Church seeks systematic and scholarly approach to the events of life. I do see the Roman Church as universal and all encompassing.

And I also see great good among the Orthodox, with charisms that would greatly restore depth to our liturgies and practice of faith, and the shunning of materialism and power to the point of death…The fruit of martyrs is very abundant in the Eastern churches, and this is perhaps the good fruits of the apostles who founded the faith there. And being universal in faith in these times, there is a tendency now in our liturgies in some places to be devoid of depth.

There is a movement across the USA now among Roman Catholic churches that want to have more icons in their churches. Ours will be filled with them. There are new church buildings going up that are Roman Catholic but in the Byzantine style. So the Holy Spirit is also moving us as a people to draw more to the east.

I looked at the events leading up to the Schism, and there was ongoing separating then reunification, as well as misrepresentation. The Roman Church exonerated one patriarch, Photinos, spelling. And Roman Catholics should be sensitive to the issues of the Filoque and their understanding of Mary. I really don’t see these as stumbling blocks. We need balance to the scholarship of Thomas Aquinas. Religion can be at times too much in the intellect, but lacking in the mystery of faith and heart.

I personally like the Franciscans, was educated by them, and worked with them…and they draw much more on Christ’s humanity. St. Francis’ spirituality came down from the Cappadocians, and he is considered about the most beloved of all saints, and he was so extremely loving, joyful, and simple.

May be we can pray to St. Francis to ask for his help in bringing about this unity.

But there is a need for the Orthodox and Protestants to reform their hearts and that is to forgive the Church for its past sins. In this scope, and our side tolerating the understanding of Filoque and Mary sinless through her life, non-Latin Christians should come to acknowledge the great presence and teaching the primacy of Peter has, and the gift to be representative of all believers.

People react to the Holy Father without even knowing the teachings and works, but more from this image of when they were trying to offset the dismantling of Christianity.

Pray we will be one so the world may believe…The world and its enslavement needs Christ now more than ever. There is just too much suffering in the world…it is becoming intolerable.

I am with you, and the Catholic church. We have a few differences, but they are not enough to divide us.

Some early church writings say that St.Peter went to Rome to confront Simon Magus. St. Paul went to Rome because he was arrested over the controversy that arose between the Saduccees and the Pharisees when St. Paul spoke about his hope in the resurrection.

It seems that St.Paul, as a Roman citizen, used this opportunity to apeal to Ceasar regarding his arrest, and thereby, preach the gospel to Ceasar. Rome was the capitol of the world at that time. It had a large population of Jewish people, as well as influential non-Jews, something which both St.Peter and St. Paul were called to evangelize.

 

[Hesychios]

In his book Principles of Catholic Theology, Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) presents an interesting viewpoint from the position of a Catholic theologian :

“… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

During my time in a Catholic seminary, I neither heard this position taught nor did I read anything about it. I understood the concept of doctrinal development, but my Church history professor was quite clear in stating the Orthodox had abandoned the historic view of the Roman primacy. My question is this : how prevalent is this position amongst Catholics (be they scholars, clergy, or even members of the forum)? I only know of one other (a Jesuit historian) who espouses this viewpoint.

Unfortunately, this quote is almost never reproduced in full, and a lot of the context is lost. It’s out of a book of course, and the complete context could be seen as the complete book, but discussing an entire book is hardly practical in single posts, or even in entire single threads, so we must consider his ideas in discrete chunks.

The problem is in how closely should we trim the citations and still get a sense for what the author is proposing. To be fair he also discusses the Lutheran split at the same time and tries to reconcile all three, but we ignore his comments on the Lutheran/Protestant subject entirely.

To begin with he describes the problem as one of ecclesiology and lays out a description pof the differences (I won’t reproduce that portion), then he states the parameters of the arguments from both sdes (I have to trim the paragraph) as follows …

The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear. On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as been accepted by the Uniate churches. On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

He goes on to say …

How, then, are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

The Cardinal is proposing a Quid Pro Quo. He (at the time of writing) wanted to make deal.

(I paraphrase) ‘You agree to let us have our new dogmas, and we’ll promise not to lean on you with our awesome power’.

OK, maybe that’s not fair either . It could be rephrased in a couple of different senses.

 

[jlhargus]

St. Peter was never a bishop of Rome, or any other locale. Neither were any of the other apostles. So how can we speak of succession, when St. Peter was never a bishop? According to early church documents, St. Peter ordained Euodius as the first bishop of Antioch. Does that mean there is a succession of primacy in the Eastern Church of Antioch from Peter? According to early church documents, St. Paul ordained St. Linus as the first bishop of Rome, while St.Peter ordained St.Clement as the second or third bishop of Rome. How does one sort out any sort of succession from that?

JL: It doesn’t matter who anyone ordaind or did not ordain. What matters is who was appointed as Peter’s successor, thereby receiving the keys.

St. Peter and St. Paul were not bishops. They were apostles and servants, one to the Jews and the other to the Gentiles. The church had its differences back then, but did not become divided. It truly became united in Rome when both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyrs for their faith, along with countless others after them before Constantine put an end to such persecution. When persecution ended, division began.

JL: Scripture itself tells us of division because of hersay in the Church from the beginning.

Maybe if we focused more on ‘taking up our crosses daily and following our Lord Jesus Christ’ as did these holy apostles, rather than focusing on the primacy of Rome we would then become a holy united church.

JL: Are the thousands of Protestant denominations focused on the primacy of Rome? Yet they continue to split, because there is no primacy of authority.

 

[byeveryword]

JL: It doesn’t matter who anyone ordaind or did not ordain. What matters is who was appointed as Peter’s successor, thereby receiving the keys.

JL: Scripture itself tells us of division because of hersay in the Church from the beginning.

JL: Are the thousands of Protestant denominations focused on the primacy of Rome? Yet they continue to split, because there is no primacy of authority.

No one knows who was appointed as St.Peter’s successor, if there was a successor, it is strictly conjecture. Was it Euodius, the first bishop of Antioch, whom St. Peter ordained?
Was it St. Clement of Rome, whom St.Peter ordained as the second, or third bishop of Rome?

I do not think that the spiritual authority Jesus Christ gave to St.Peter, the apostle was transmitted to anyone. His gifting and calling were separate from the gifting and calling of a regional bishop.

 

[GaryTaylor]

JL: It doesn’t matter who anyone ordaind or did not ordain. What matters is who was appointed as Peter’s successor, thereby receiving the keys.

JL: Scripture itself tells us of division because of hersay in the Church from the beginning.

JL: Are the thousands of Protestant denominations focused on the primacy of Rome? Yet they continue to split, because there is no primacy of authority.

Right the term “Bishop” wouldn’t make a difference when in fact we are talking Apostles. Also its documented fact St Peter chose the first Three Bishops of Rome and its thought the forth also. St Peter is also not only the first Bishop of Rome but also of Antioch. You can read all this its documented in “Heir to the Fisherman” by Pham for starts. And we see this in fact in reality with St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St Ignatius of Antioch and the work which they left behind. There’s no question as to Romes Spiritual Primacy. Its Biblical Historic and documented by the early church fathers. Administrative authority is a completely different issue.

Matthew 16 is the Divine Providence which gives Peter by name the authority to bind and lose. The fact that Christ built or established his ministry upon Peter and the Apostles doesn’t distract that the Church “is” Jesus Christ which is what is referred to above. In fact its overlooking Matthew and shooting straight to Paul and His letter to Carthage when he refers to the Rock as Christ. Why does he do this? In Carthage the churchs were praying to Peter and Apollos instead of Christ. So St Paul corrects the error yet still points to Rome as the primacy. I “assume” this whats being referred to above.

Also while Benedict was writting as Cardinal can’t be viewed as his thinking “today”. There are several points he has elaborated on which he felt were completely out of context. Anyway his views on Communion are not unknown. He just sent two Cardinals to Russia in 2011. Nevertheless the marion dogmas are not the issue. To be able to bring closure by agreeing what the primacy is in fact required of in its tasks as primacy is the issue. “Dominus Iesus” is the doctrine under review. I haven’t read it so I couldn’t speak on it. At any rate nothing Marion was even mentioned.

 

[jlhargus]

No one knows who was appointed as St.Peter’s successor, if there was a successor, it is strictly conjecture. Was it Euodius, the first bishop of Antioch, whom St. Peter ordained?
Was it St. Clement of Rome, whom St.Peter ordained as the second, or third bishop of Rome?

I do not think that the spiritual authority Jesus Christ gave to St.Peter, the apostle was transmitted to anyone. His gifting and calling were separate from the gifting and calling of a regional bishop.

JL: We do know, along with the Orthodox, the successor of Peter was the bishop of Rome. Peter more than likely ordained several bishops makes no difference. Peter may or may not have ordained his successor makes no difference. Was it Linus or someone else makes no difference. the bishop of Rome is still holder of the keys as Peter’s successor

 

[byeveryword]

Church history can be interpreted, and even revised in many ways.

 

[Cavaradossi]

JL: We do know, along with the Orthodox, the successor of Peter was the bishop of Rome. Peter more than likely ordained several bishops makes no difference. Peter may or may not have ordained his successor makes no difference. Was it Linus or someone else makes no difference. the bishop of Rome is still holder of the keys as Peter’s successor

The opinion that the bishop of Rome is Peter’s sole successor is not one that is widely held in Orthodoxy.

 

[jlhargus]

The opinion that the bishop of Rome is Peter’s sole successor is not one that is widely held in Orthodoxy.

JL: Who are they and who do they claim is Peters successor?

 

[jlhargus]

Church history can be interpreted, and even revised in many ways.

JL: I don’t know if this is in response to my above post or not. Yes the Church’s history can be and is offend revised. Especially by those who don’t like the Church or the truth. It’s even done with world history.

 

[Cavaradossi]

JL: Who are they and who do they claim is Peters successor?

The Patriarch of Antioch also traces his succession back to Peter. It is also usually understood that the power to bind and loose has been inherited by all bishops, not just the bishops who can directly trace their lineage back to Peter. We don’t really have the concept that there is one successor of Peter who then confers Peter’s power upon the rest of the Church (unless you happen to be reading the more ecumenically minded Orthodox writers like Kallistos Ware), which is a view which seems to be prevalent amongst Catholics…