A
- Status
S
savedsinner
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
They all received the keys.
N
narnia59
Guest
Algernon, I don’t know how far you are into your study of Orthodoxy. It is truly a beautiful and apostolic faith. My personal opinion is that the ‘unity’ is often fragile and is maintained by an agreement amongst the patriarchs to live in mutual autonomy. However, when differences do arise there is no way for good resolution, so they remain simmering under the surface.
A couple of examples for you. Last fall the Russian Orthodox delegation walked out of the Catholic-Orthodox theological talks not over disputes with the Catholics, but with their fellow Orthodox they are in communion with.
*During the Orthodox meeting, Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria told the other Orthodox participants that his delegation would abandon the meeting if they did not ask the Estonian Orthodox delegation to leave.
The Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize the Estonian Apostolic Church, which is tied to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, said a statement by the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church believes the Orthodox in Estonia fall under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, not the ecumenical patriarchate.*
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0705762.htm
Also, review these discussions on another forum over the subject of artificial contraception. My perception is the Russian Orthodox take the same view as the RCC, and the Greek has loosened up a bit over the last few years. Still, no clear direction for the faithful.
christianforums.com/t4766838-orthodox-childfree.html
christianforums.com/t6972848-contraception.html
I’m sure a prayerful journey will lead you to where you are intended to be. Best wishes.
S
savedsinner
Guest
Really, and in which passage did you find that?
Peter alone was passed on the keys of authority in Matthew 16, and later on all the apostles were giving a similar power to bind and loose, but that was not the same as when Jesus first told Peter he was rock and on that rock he would establish his church, and he would give him the keys of the kingdom.
Are you referring to the one quote of St. John Chrysostom which a lot of the orthodox use,where he say’s they were all given the apostles the key’s?
If you are using that to argue against the papacy, then you you are being just like the Protestants who misquote the fathers to show that they believed in sola scriputra.
If you look at his other quotes, he accepted the idea of the papacy and summited to the pope.
Please don’t take the quotes of the father’s out of context to prove something that is false.
A
Algernon
Guest
Sorry John, I went out of town for a couple days; I wasn’t ignoring you.
I would define “whatever” as anything and everything.
A
A
Algernon
Guest
A
Algernon
Guest
A
Algernon
Guest
Lazerlike,
Sorry to be coming back to this so late.
Last week, I asked:
If Peter and Paul founded the church in Antioch first, why should Rome take precedence? Is it, as St Cyprian said, because of it’s great size?
A
Sorry to be coming back to this so late.
Last week, I asked:
To which you answered:
Why not? Were Linus, Cletus, and Clement Apostles?
If Peter and Paul founded the church in Antioch first, why should Rome take precedence? Is it, as St Cyprian said, because of it’s great size?
A
M
Mickey
Guest
Matthew 18:18
Yes it was. The same words were used for binding and loosing–all the Apostles had the keys. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter.
It is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.
“The rock” here is in reference to St Peter’s confession. Jesus Christ is THE ROCK. (1Peter 2:6)
The Apostles and prophets are the foundation and Jesus Christ is the cornerstone. (Eph 2:20)
The Holy Fathers were Orthodox.
You will not find quotes by ANY of the Fathers justifying the modern day innovation of papal supremacy/infallibility.
T
theistgal
Guest
So how come Simon was the only one who actually had his name changed to “Rock” (Peter = Cephas = Rock)?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The apostles created various bishoprics around the world which were to be filled by men to oversee those places. These bishoprics were new creations and did not follow from the office of one particular apostle. The episcopal power that the men in these bishoprics had came directly from the apostles, but not in a way that they were only the successors of particular apostles. In other words, just because St. Paul created the bishopric of Ephesus, that doesn’t mean that Timothy is a successor of St. Paul uniquely. St. Timothy was a succesor of the apostles in his episcopal power, but not of St. Paul uniquely in regards to St. Paul’s own particular office.
St. Peter instituted the bishopric of Antioch to oversee the place after he had left, but he did not leave his office behind. He maintained his office. The bishopric of Antioch was a wholly new office created for the oversight of Antioch, and it had existed when Peter still filled his particular apostolic office elsewhere. When St. Peter died, his unique and particular office was empty - his apostolic office. That was filled by Linus, who was a succesor directly and uniquely from Peter in Peter’s apostolic office.
Maybe a chart will help:
Offices
Approx.
Years—[A.O. of Peter]–[Bpric. of Antioch]–[Bpric. of Rome]–[Bpric. of Ephesus]–[A.O. of Paul]
37-53-------St. Peter---------------St. Peter-----------Nonexistant----------Nonexistant------------St. Paul
57-65-------St. Peter---------------St. Evodius-----------St. Peter------------Nonexistant------------St. Paul
65-80-------St. Linus---------------St. Ignatius-----------St. Linus-----------St. Timothy---- Unknown/None
80-90------St. Anacletus---------St. Ignatius-----------St. Anacletus-----Unknown--------Unknown/None
90-100-----St. Clement----------St. Ignatius------------St. Clement-------Unknown--------Unknown/None
100-110—St. Evaristus---------St. Ignatius------------St. Evaristus------Unknown--------Unknown/None
110-115—St. Alexander I------St. Heron--------------St. Alexander I----Unknown--------Unknown/None
Note that the dates are approximate for the sake of making the chart take less time to make
Peace and God bless
A
Algernon
Guest
This is a questions I have as well.So how come Simon was the only one who actually had his name changed to “Rock” (Peter = Cephas = Rock)?
Nice chart!The apostles created various bishoprics around the world which were to be filled by men to oversee those places. These bishoprics were new creations and did not follow from the office of one particular apostle. The episcopal power that the men in these bishoprics had came directly from the apostles, but not in a way that they were only the successors of particular apostles. In other words, just because St. Paul created the bishopric of Ephesus, that doesn’t mean that Timothy is a successor of St. Paul uniquely. St. Timothy was a succesor of the apostles in his episcopal power, but not of St. Paul uniquely in regards to St. Paul’s own particular office.
St. Peter instituted the bishopric of Antioch to oversee the place after he had left, but he did not leave his office behind. He maintained his office. The bishopric of Antioch was a wholly new office created for the oversight of Antioch, and it had existed when Peter still filled his particular apostolic office elsewhere. When St. Peter died, his unique and particular office was empty - his apostolic office. That was filled by Linus, who was a succesor directly and uniquely from Peter in Peter’s apostolic office.
Maybe a chart will help:
Offices
Approx.
Years—[A.O. of Peter]–[Bpric. of Antioch]–[Bpric. of Rome]–[Bpric. of Ephesus]–[A.O. of Paul]
37-53-------St. Peter---------------St. Peter-----------Nonexistant----------Nonexistant------------St. Paul
57-65-------St. Peter---------------St. Evodius-----------St. Peter------------Nonexistant------------St. Paul
65-80-------St. Linus---------------St. Ignatius-----------St. Linus-----------St. Timothy---- Unknown/None
80-90------St. Anacletus---------St. Ignatius-----------St. Anacletus-----Unknown--------Unknown/None
90-100-----St. Clement----------St. Ignatius------------St. Clement-------Unknown--------Unknown/None
100-110—St. Evaristus---------St. Ignatius------------St. Evaristus------Unknown--------Unknown/None
110-115—St. Alexander I------St. Heron--------------St. Alexander I----Unknown--------Unknown/None
Note that the dates are approximate for the sake of making the chart take less time to make
Peace and God bless
So, if I understand this correctly, Evodius inherited Peter’s episcopal but not his apostolic authority.
A
Y
yinekka
Guest
Hi Algernon,
If you have a problem with Patrick Madrid’s book *Pope Fiction *why not ask Mr Madrid for an explanation?
His blog is envoymagazine.com/EnvoyEncore/
and a site where you can send him an email is
envoymagazine.com/EnvoyEncore/AuthorBio.asp?Action=EMail&Author=Patrick%20Madrid
If I had my time over I would probably want to be Orthodox too; they are much more accommodating than the Catholic Church re divorce, contraception and abortion.
If you have a problem with Patrick Madrid’s book *Pope Fiction *why not ask Mr Madrid for an explanation?
His blog is envoymagazine.com/EnvoyEncore/
and a site where you can send him an email is
envoymagazine.com/EnvoyEncore/AuthorBio.asp?Action=EMail&Author=Patrick%20Madrid
If I had my time over I would probably want to be Orthodox too; they are much more accommodating than the Catholic Church re divorce, contraception and abortion.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Haha thanksThis is a questions I have as well.
Nice chart!
So, if I understand this correctly, Evodius inherited Peter’s episcopal but not his apostolic authority.
A
That’s close to, but not quite what I’m saying. I’m referring to Peter’s authority, but only indirectly. What I’m really referring to is his position, his particular apostolic office.
Forget about Peter, Evodius, and anyone else from the 1st century for a minute. Let’s talk about Cardinal O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, and Archbishop Wuerl, the archbisho of Washington DC.
Both of these men are bishops, and so they have the same authority. Now in addition to these two men, we’re also dealing with their particular bishoprics here. There is the bishopric of Boston, and the bishopric of Washington. Today, we tend to call bishoprics ‘dioceses.’ So currently, Cardinal O’Malley is filling the bishopric of Boston and Abp. Wuerl the bishopric of Washington DC.
Now there’s nothing about these men or about their episcopal power that makes them be the bishop of these two places. These are just two seperate offices - literally. Think of the Church as a giant office building, and each diocese as a room - an office - in it. There’s a bishop in each of those offices. But they don’t have to be in the particular ones they’re in. They could swap, and often do. Cardinal O’Malley used to bishop of Fall River, when Cardinal Law was abp. of Boston. Abp. Wuerl used to be in Pittsburgh.
The point I’m trying to get across here is that the Church is made up of many different offices - bishoprics of diocese - which are filled by various men. The men aren’t tied to the offices - they are just like rooms in an office building being filled by executives. If the company expands, more offices can be added. When the Church expanded into the new world, many new bishoprics were added, the first being, for example, the bishopric of Baltimore.
So the early Church was made up of two distinct kinds of offices: apostolic offices, and bishoprics. The apostolic offices were those 12/13 instituted by Christ. The bishoprics were allll those offices that the apostles created for the oversight of various cities and areas. Timothy was bishop of Ephesus. When he died, someone else filled that office - that “slot.”
While was in Antioch for about a decade or so, he oversaw it. He was an apostle who was overseeing a city. He was overseeing - episcopating - there. He was the bishop of Antioch. He was also an Apostle at this same time. He held two offices at once. When he left, Evodius took over the bishopric of Antioch but Peter retained his office as Apostle. He went off to continue his apostolic work elsewhere while Evodius continued his episcopal work in Antioch.
Eventually, Peter became bishop of and died in Rome, leaving both the bishopric of Rome and his Apostolic office empty. Linus suceeded him in both. In the same way, the bishop of Rome today is the unique sucessor of Peter in his apostolic office, but also in his office as bishop of Rome. He doesn’t only do the “pope thing.” He is also the bishop of Rome in the same way Cardinal O’Malley is the bishop of Boston. He’s filling two offices, two slots - the office of bishop of Rome, and the apostolic office of Peter.
So, for example, during the time of the Avignon papacy, you had popes that really weren’t being the bishops of Rome. They maintained their apostolic office, but they weren’t overseeing Rome at the time. It’s two seperate offices.
So, after typing all that, I think I basically said the same thing you did, but I wanted to make sure I was clear. Hopefully I was.
Peace and God bless
A
Algernon
Guest
That’s an excellent idea! I’ll do that.
You’re right about divorce (although Christ Himself seems to allow for it: mt 5.31-2), but contraception and abortion? Not exactly.
Where contraception is permitted, it must meet these conditions:
- the means of contraception is not abortifacient,
- if it is used with the blessing of one’s spiritual father, and
- if children are not completely excluded from the marriage.
Abortion? Only under the rarest and most extreme of circumstances. (antiochian.org/1178)
A
A
Algernon
Guest
Lazerlike,
I think you did clear things up. Thanks.
IOW, theoretically, Peter could have established bisoprics all over the world, but if he had *died *in, say, Kiev, then the bishop of Kiev would have taken on, not only the bishopric responsibilites but also Peter’s Apostolic authority.
Is that close?
A
I think you did clear things up. Thanks.
IOW, theoretically, Peter could have established bisoprics all over the world, but if he had *died *in, say, Kiev, then the bishop of Kiev would have taken on, not only the bishopric responsibilites but also Peter’s Apostolic authority.
Is that close?
A
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I think so. Now I don’t know exactly how it worked, because I wasn’t there. For all anybody knows, Peter might have declared that when he died, the bishop of Rome would be the one to fill his apostolic office because Rome was the gateway to all the world. In other words, maybe it didn’t matter where he died and he had set it up beforehand. Or maybe it’s just because he died there. Either way, I guess.
In fact, Peter probably did establish more than just the bishopric of Antioch. St. Paul set up quite a few! St. Thomas did as well, as did all of the other Apostles. They all ordained bishops to oversee different places. Take St. Thomas. He set up bishoprics in India, and probably along the path to India, and probably served in some of them over the years.
Say for the sake of argument Thomas set up 5 of them. Now he was only one guy with one office. You couldn’t have 5 guys suceeding him into that one office. They succeeded from him in that he ordained them, but not in that they filled his unique apostolic office.
Actually, this is where a lot of Protestants get messed up. They can’t accept Apostolic Succession because there were only 12 or 13 Apostles. How, they ask, can there be hundreds of bishops? There were only 13 roles to fill there! They don’t grasp the difference between the apostolic offices and the institution of seperate offices of oversight of cities.
M
Mickey
Guest
Because St Peter’s confession was 'Rock". And St Peter occupied a primary place among the Apostles–but he was not the supreme ruler over them. If you confess Jesus Christ to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God, you too can be like St Peter.So how come Simon was the only one who actually had his name changed to “Rock” (Peter = Cephas = Rock)?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
- Status