Primacy of Peter unimportant...

[JonNC]

The first Ecumenical Council didn’t take place until 325 AD, which is already nearly half way through the Early Church period. The Bishops were certainly not “winging it” lone-ranger style, between the death of Peter and the Council of Nicea - they were united together under the Bishop of Rome, and were going to him to settle their disputes.

First, I never accused anyone of “‘winging it’ Lone Ranger style”. You are misrepresenting my intentions. I believe that I am careful not to misrepresent the intentions of others. I simply ask the same in return. I’ll defer to the OP if I am wrong about this.

I would say they were united with, not under, the Bishop of Rome. Did (and does) the Bishop of Rome have a primacy of respect and honor, yes, but not the primacy of power which appears to me a to be a projection into the past.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

First, I never accused anyone of “‘winging it’ Lone Ranger style”. You are misrepresenting my intentions. I believe that I am careful not to misrepresent the intentions of others. I simply ask the same in return. I’ll defer to the OP if I am wrong about this.

I would say they were united with, not under, the Bishop of Rome. Did (and does) the Bishop of Rome have a primacy of respect and honor, yes, but not the primacy of power which appears to me a to be a projection into the past.

Jon

It seems to me that their relationship back then was very similar to how it is today, with Bishops being fully in command of their own Dioceses, but using as their “template” the norms given to them by Rome.

For example, Bishops can say how many times a week priests will say Mass, but it will never be less than once a week on Sundays, and it will never be more than twice a day on weekdays or three times on Sundays, except when there are unusual circumstances. He also tells the priests which parishes they will serve or which offices they will hold in the Diocese, but each priest will have at least one assignment, and no priest will have more than three assignments. The Pope doesn’t interfere with the details, but he gives a broad outline within which they are supposed to be working.

 

[joe370]

Jon, what I don’t completely understand is:

Why did/does the EOC admit that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor? If the primacy is one of honor, what is the reason for Rome having it and what comes with this honor?

The doctrine’s reliance on the scriptural verse “I will give unto thee the keys…” is interpreted by the EOC as having a wider application than to Peter alone. Their position, as is yours, is that while the words were spoken to Peter alone, they were given to all the apostles equally.

My question is, where in scripture or tradition of either the EOC or the CC is this claim that the keys were given all of the apostles, supported?

 

[joe370]

Jon, I think the real issue is the ongoing tension between Peter’s primacy of jurisdiction and the collegiality of all the bishops, regarding both the EOC and the CC. The mistake, I think, is to consider primacy and Collegiality to be antithetical to one another. The fact is that primacy without collegiality is a form of ecclesiastical totalitarianism and a collegiality without primacy can most definitely leave a dispute unresolved.

Is it possible to say that there exists a true collegiality among the Orthodox Church(es) today?

There seems to be a much more concrete collegiality between the current Bishop of Rome and many ecumenically minded Orthodox patriarchs than there is among many Orthodox bishops among themselves! I guess the 64000 dollar question is:

Did the primacy of Peter, in tandem with a college of bishops, exist in the church before the East West schism?

 

[joe370]

John I love the EOC’s but the absence of unanimity and agreement among many Orthodox bishops from the Greek, Russian, American backgrounds, etc… seems like a good example as to why Jesus established the Petrine office, by giving Simon the keys and saying to Simon:

You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church. …I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Let’s say that Jesus had all of the apostles in mind regarding the keys, and those apostles, upon their demise, passed their metaphorical keys on to their successors, who established catholic churches everywhere and continued to pass the keys on to their successors, then, one day, all of these respective churches, with a leader possessing the keys of authority, begin to disagree with one another regarding certain doctrinal matters, and all of them continue to claim, due to the keys passed on to them from the 12 apostles, that they have the authority to settle the matter once and for all.

How would any sort of resolution, in light of steadfast discord among all of the key holders, even be possible, and how could the holy spirit infallibly see to it that truth was preserved?

It occurred to me long ago, logically and biblically, if we want to find the church built by Jesus we must locate the church built on Kepha. Now, if one of the EOC’s claimed to be the church built on Kepha, and could prove it, I would most definitely belong to that church!

Like I told my niece: If Jesus said to Martin Luther:

"Blessed are you, Martin Luther, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (cephas) - and on this rock (cephas) - I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Martin Luther, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

You wouldn’t be able to keep me away from the Lutheran church.

Jon, what do the following words mean to you? We both know that they have nothing to do with preventing corruption from existing in Jesus’ church, so what is Jesus talking about? Preservation of doctrinal truth is all I can come up with. I guess, by itself, those words could mean that Jesus’ church, regardless of doctrinal unity, will never be blotted out, but in tandem with John 14 and 16, we know this can’t be the case, because, according to the bible, Jesus’ church, built on kepha, will be guided into all truth, as opposed to partial truth, until the end of time.

"I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it."

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben J:

The keys were given ONLY to Peter, not to the other apostles. You were saying that the keys were given to the other apostles too which clearly was not mentioned in the Gospels.

Why were the keys only given to Peter? - that and the ensuing role of Peter being the major spokeman for the apostles says quite a lot about his primacy.

Reuben, I hope someone (Protestant or Eastern Orthodox) - will venture to answer that question!

In the light of rev kevin rather confused about the meaning of ‘keys’ I would like to know too if other Protestants can answer this. As for the Orthodox, I think this issue simply does not arise for them. I have not come across one who actually have discussed about the keys as mentioned in Mt 16.

Basically this (the giving of the keys) is what separates Peter from the rest of the apostles.

And, did Peter pass those metaphorical keys on, to his successor, knowing that he and his fellow Apostles would not live forever???

Based on the keys in the Davidic Kingdom in the OT, then why not?

 

[Reuben_J]

Hey Reuben, you said:

That is what it really boils down to! If the current key holder of the kingdom of heaven, is not being protected by the holy spirit, (even against his own human flaws) - to lead Jesus’ church, then a simple question must be asked:

Who is and where can that church be found, in the world today???

Exactly! That’s why Jesus followed with **‘the Gate of Hell will not prevail …’. ** It’s awesome when we think about the promise of God in ensuring that his Church wll stand and will stay.