Questions about Peter's role

[MilesVitae]

It seems clear to me that Peter was the rock on which the Church is built in Matthew 16:18 (no “petros = pebble” et al). This being so, Peter must have played a unique role in the Church. The rest of the New Testament bears witness to this.

But why must this role involve a unique authority among the Apostles?

If it does involve a unique authority, why must this be a role that is passed on to successors? Why could it not simply be Peter himself, and no one else, who is given this authority for the sake of the early Church?

 

[po18guy]

The See of Peter is akin to the “seat of Moses” (Matthew 23:2), if you want to segue from OT to NT. Jesus taught that the Pharisees had authority in the position they held, and that all should obey them, even though they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:3). He knew that they taught according to the law, but did not behave according to the law. Today, we have the common expression “practice what you preach” from this exact teaching.

Now, let’s say that God knows everything. He knows also that He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). He also promised the Apostles that He would be with them, “even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Logically extending this to the amount of human time before He was to return, how will his Church stand after those millennia, if there is not a single voice to speak up?

God knew that men would disagree, and so ensured that a single voice would reason with and unite Christians when they differed in their thoughts. Look at what Jesus taught about deciding matters: “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:15-20).

Contrast this with protestantism: From a single spark (Luther), to a spreading flame (Calvin, Zwingli, et al), there was no central authority, since the very DNA of protestantism rejects authority which is outside of the self (private interpretation of scripture). With no uniting and authoritative voice, the “reformers” quickly fell away from one another and developed their own, disagreeing doctrines. It continues to this day, ever fragmenting into tinier and tinier bits.

Look at what Jesus did in Matthew 18: He gave absolute authority to His Church. Paul respected this authority when he travelled to Jerusalem to obtain a decision on the circumcision question (Acts 15:1-30). At the first Church council, Peter stood up and silenced them with his words. James, being the first Bishop of Jerusalem, announced the decision. The Church spoke. It was final.

Protestantism rejects the very Church authority that Jesus explicitly gave to His Church. It is my opinion that, in reacting to a Pharisaic Pope, the “reformers” went overboard and threw out also the very authority which held the Church together in spite of that bad Pope. Remember the “seat of Moses” teaching of Jesus? It works. Even with a bad occupant of that seat.

 

[MarcoPolo]

As to successors, in Scripture, I think it’s important to remember that the Old Testament carried with it the less-perfect shadows of what was to come. The succession of the OT priesthood descended through physical lineage in the tribe of Levi, (e.g. 1 Chron. 9:26, Heb 7:5) like Aaron (e.g. Ex 29:9) which typifies the NT priesthood which is passed down through spiritual lineage as seen in the laying of hands to appoint office-holders. Both these examples speak of an “office” which has an occupant. Paul speaks of himself as holding an “office” too (e.g. Rom 11:13) and refers to other “offices” of Holy Orders (e.g. 1 Tim 3:1, 1 Tim 3:13). The office-holder bears the charism proper to the office. For example, of the high priest, we are told: He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation (John 11:51). The idea that God should confer special capacities to the highest religious leader is not novel with the office of Peter.

 

[po18guy]

Why could it not simply be Peter himself, and no one else, who is given this authority for the sake of the early Church?

Without Peter passing this authority on, there would be no modern Church. It is part and parcel of Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Just as scripture is a seamless garment, so is Christ’s plan for His Church. Peter and his successors are simply a part of it. Think of this: at many workplaces today, there is a mission statement posted on the wall. Now, does every employee read that statement and do whatever they personally think is best, or is there a boss in charge to see that the mission is carried out?

 

[MilesVitae]

The See of Peter is akin to the “seat of Moses” (Matthew 23:2), if you want to segue from OT to NT. Jesus taught that the Pharisees had authority in the position they held, and that all should obey them, even though they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:3).

Okay, but do you have a basis for this claim (the parallel between Peter and the Seat of Moses)? If I accept the Papacy, then the parallel seems to follow quite nicely - but what evidence is there that they are similar?

Contrast this with protestantism

Just to be clear, the reason I am asking these questions is because I am considering Eastern Orthodoxy - Protestantism is obviously false to me.

Look at what Jesus did in Matthew 18: He gave absolute authority to His Church. Paul respected this authority when he travelled to Jerusalem to obtain a decision on the circumcision question (Acts 15:1-30). At the first Church council, Peter stood up and silenced them with his words. James, being the first Bishop of Jerusalem, announced the decision. The Church spoke. It was final.

Two comments.
My question is not simply about Church authority in general (that is not in question for me), but particularly about Peter and the claim to papal authority.
Secondly, that being said, are you arguing here for the authority of the Pope, or simply of the Church? If the former, the Council of Jerusalem does not seem to me to show any special authority on the part of Peter. Peter did not simply silence the council with his own decision. He silenced the council by relating the dream he had from God. So one can argue that it was not because of any special authority on the part of Peter himself which settled the matter, but the revelation which God made.

Now, let’s say that God knows everything. He knows also that He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). He also promised the Apostles that He would be with them, “even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Logically extending this to the amount of human time before He was to return, how will his Church stand after those millennia, if there is not a single voice to speak up?

Why can’t God give authority simple to the body of the Bishops? Why must there be one over the rest of them? Although Protestantism has fractured, what about Eastern Orthodoxy? Have they lost their doctrinal integrity due to the absence of one visible head?

 

[lowell_mass]

Why can’t God give authority simple to the body of the Bishops? Why must there be one over the rest of them? Although Protestantism has fractured, what about Eastern Orthodoxy? Have they lost their doctrinal integrity due to the absence of one visible head?

God does give authority to the Bishops as a group. But disagreements arise. If Bishop 1 and Bishop 2 can’t agree, the people need recourse to an authority to settle the dispute - Rome.

As for the Eastern Church, they have lost docternal certainty without the Pope. Was Mary immaculately conceived? Catholics can answer that question, others can’t. At least they can’t answer the question correctly, confidently, consistently, and convincingly.

 

[fhansen]

God does give authority to the Bishops as a group. But disagreements arise. If Bishop 1 and Bishop 2 can’t agree, the people need recourse to an authority to settle the dispute - Rome.

As for the Eastern Church, they have lost docternal certainty without the Pope. Was Mary immaculately conceived? Catholics can answer that question, others can’t. At least they can’t answer the question correctly, confidently, consistently, and convincingly.

Yes, I’ve come to the conclusion that without a single authority of some sort, the Church can’t be said to have true unity-or be ensured of teaching a sound, unified doctrine. It’s echoed or paralleled, I believe, by the rejection of Gods authority in Eden.

 

[Abu]

MilesVitae, #1,5
It seems clear to me that Peter was the rock on which the Church is built in Matthew 16:18 (no “petros = pebble” et al). This being so, Peter must have played a unique role in the Church. The rest of the New Testament bears witness to this. But why must this role involve a unique authority among the Apostles?
If it does involve a unique authority, why must this be a role that is passed on to successors? Why could it not simply be Peter himself, and no one else, who is given this authority for the sake of the early Church?
Why can’t God give authority simple to the body of the Bishops? Why must there be one over the rest of them? Although Protestantism has fractured, what about Eastern Orthodoxy? Have they lost their doctrinal integrity due to the absence of one visible head?
the reason I am asking these questions is because I am considering Eastern Orthodoxy.

The solution is to listen to Christ first in, with and through His Catholic Church:

Why would you want to deny Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God over giving His authority and Primacy to Peter as His Vicar?
It was Jesus who said to His apostles “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16)

But all four promises were made to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
And Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

You wouldn’t want to deny St John and St Paul too, would you?
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! We are redeemed by Christ’s Passion and Death (heaven was opened); we are not saved until we co-operate with Him.

Or do you doubt St Paul again? “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience. We see here that Christ’s Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ) is His Mystical Body through whom all salvation comes.

The celibacy of the priesthood is an Apostolic Norm which Christ’s Church keeps as a norm, allowing exceptions only for defined reasons in Her discipline.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Without Christ’s Vicar to lead in faith and morals, we wouldn’t have the teaching against embryonic stem cell research, against contraception, nor the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, for instance.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

…

Secondly, that being said, are you arguing here for the authority of the Pope, or simply of the Church? If the former, the Council of Jerusalem does not seem to me to show any special authority on the part of Peter. Peter did not simply silence the council with his own decision. He silenced the council by relating the dream he had from God. So one can argue that it was not because of any special authority on the part of Peter himself which settled the matter, but the revelation which God made…

I think you are combining two separate instances.

Peter’s vision relates to his baptism of Cornelius in Acts 10-11.

4* But Peter began and explained to them in order: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, something descending, like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down to me. 6 Looking at it closely I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘No, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ 10 This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. 11 At that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brethren also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16* And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”

Acts 11:4-18. Not further that his actions were justified not only by his vision, but by the act of the Holy Spirit at Cornelius’.

The Council of Jerusalem relates to the answering of the Antioch controversy brought forward by Paul in Acts 15.

7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12 And all the assembly kept silence;

Acts 15:7-12

Note also Acts 9:32

32 Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

While the others evangelized this or that area, Peter travelled over the whole area, supervixing their progress.

 

[fred_conty]

It seems clear to me that Peter was the rock on which the Church is built in Matthew 16:18 (no “petros = pebble” et al). This being so, Peter must have played a unique role in the Church. The rest of the New Testament bears witness to this.

But why must this role involve a unique authority among the Apostles?

If it does involve a unique authority, why must this be a role that is passed on to successors? Why could it not simply be Peter himself, and no one else, who is given this authority for the sake of the early Church?

This has a number of issues dealing with Peter and the Papacy.

catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

 

[inkaneer]

It seems clear to me that Peter was the rock on which the Church is built in Matthew 16:18 (no “petros = pebble” et al). This being so, Peter must have played a unique role in the Church. The rest of the New Testament bears witness to this.

But why must this role involve a unique authority among the Apostles?

If it does involve a unique authority, why must this be a role that is passed on to successors? Why could it not simply be Peter himself, and no one else, who is given this authority for the sake of the early Church?

Isaiah 22 is your key. In this chapter there is told the story of the Chief steward of the kingdom. See iof you can see the parallel in the NT. The OT Davidic kings had people callled stewards to assist them in governing the kingdom. There were twelvew such stewards, one from every tribe. Of these 12 stewards one was selected to be the chief steward. The chief steward had the authorityh to act in the name of the king and to rule the kingdom in the kings absence. This chief steward was given the keys to the Kings house [his kingdom] and what he would shut no one could open and what he opened no one could shut [Is 22:22]. Now Jesus is of the line of David and is therefore a Davidic king. He has twelvew stewards called apostles. You can take it from there.

 

[fred_conty]

@ Miles
You said that you were considering the Protestant or Orthodox Church. This may shed
some light on this subject.

Catholics believe that any part of a drop of precious blood or any part of the precious body received in Holy
Communion is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ. Catholics know that when the precious blood
is received, also the precious body is received, and visa versa.

Not all the Orthodox Eastern Churches (non Catholic) believe this.

---

“Why I became Catholic and not Orthodox”
justingridveritasluxmea.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-i-am-catholic-and-not-orthodox.html​

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true ?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=604653&page=2

From my vantage, everything comes down to the credibility of the Church and that can be directly measured by the credibility of the founder. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were founded by Christ. This lends great credibility to both and of course, almost

all doctrines are the same. So what about the split. When the Eastern Churches left Rome, about 30% of the Church went into schism. Subsequently, 30% of those Eastern Churches returned to Rome as the Eastern Rite Churches Its hard to say that Rome is in schism with the East, given those numbers. here is a look at the numbers today:
adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity.

As for the point that we need to reunite. Making this more difficult of course, is that their is not one orthodox church to work with, there are many.​

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=559107&highlight=gurneyhalleck1&page=5
See post #69 and post #70
Should I check out a Russian or a Greek church first?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1
The Orthodox could’ve lived side by side with Catholics and the filioque and leavened bread and all the other things,
I’m not so sure of this… to put it mildly.

Since the original thread is about Russian or Greek, here’s my own experience with the Russian EOC. I met a Russian woman back in 2004, and I went with her to the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) service. One of the first things I learned that all New Calendar Churches are “not really Orthodox”. There are three other Orthodox churches in the city (New Orleans, Louisiana) I was living in, namely a Greek EO, an Antiochian EO, and the Basilian Fathers’ church which serves both the EO and WO Divine Liturgy, but those were “apostate”, “not really Orthodox”, as far as ROCOR was
concerned. Thus, the community made up of Russians and others (including a guy of Greek heritage - but he subscribed to the Mount Athos version of Greek Orthodoxy, which is Old Calendar) rather drove more than 100 miles and 3 hours to the nearest ROCOR church two states away in Alabama, because that was “truly Orthodox”.

The number one problem was that these other churches (the local “apostate” churches) accepted the New Calendar. But also, the fact that they had pews, and that the Greek one (also the Antiochian one, I seem to remember) had musical instruments, were critical offenses to Orthodoxy. The Russians insist on no pews, no musical instruments (only human voice).

And the ROCOR priest told his parishioners not to attend those other EOC except in special cases when there was no access to a “truly Orthodox” Old Calendar church, and not to present themselves for Holy Communion in the New Calendar (Greek, Antiochian) churches.

Since the benign-looking differences like pews and musical instruments are so major to the Russians (not to mention the Calendar!) that they will break communion with fellow EO over those issues, I came to understand that they will only naturally reject communion with the Catholic Churches, over other issues such as the filioque, unleavened bread, and beardless clergy in the Catholic Churches.

See here:
orthodoxchristianity.net/…c=21910.0;wap2

Quote:
An Orthodox man gets on the train and takes his seat.
After a while, he notices an Orthodox Cross on the man next to him.
After a while longer he asks, "Sir, I couldn’t help noticing you’re wearing an Orthodox Cross. Are you an Orthodox

Christian?"
The passenger answers, “Yes, I am.”
The man says, “Oh! I am too! Are you Greek or Russian Orthodox?”
“I’m Russian Orthodox.” The man says,
“Ohhh, so am I! Are you Old Calendar Russian Orthodox or New Calendar Russian Orthodox?” "
I’m Old Calendar Russian Orthodox." The man says,
“Alleluia! I am too! Are you Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenist Russian Orthodox or Old Calendar Pro-Ecumenist Russian Orthodox?”
“I’m Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenist Russian Orthodox.” The man says,
"Ooooh! Well, I am too! Are you Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenist New Ritualist Russian Orthodox, or Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenist

Old Ritualist Russian Orthodox?"
“I’m Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenist New Ritualist Russian Orthodox.” The man says,
"Well, glory to God! I am too! Are you Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenist New Ritualist Old-Man Trinity Icon-using Russian

Orthodox, or Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenist New Ritualist non-Old-Man Trinity icon-using Russian Orthodox?"
“I’m Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenist New Ritualist Old-Man Trinity icon-using Russian Orthodox.”
So the man says, “Aaaaaaa, you damned heretic! May you burn in hell forever!”

And another version from:
home.comcast.net/~acbfp/topten.html

 

[fred_conty]

Quote:
Train Tale
Two people meet on a train. After some introductory chat, they discover both are Orthodox and of Russian descent.
Vlad: Old Calendar or New Calendar?
Alex: Old.
Vlad: Very good. Do you have a three-hour Vigil in church every Saturday night and before every holy day, even if the holy

day is on a Monday?
Alex: Yes.
Vlad: Excellent. Pews or no pews?
Alex: No.
Vlad: Clean-shaven or bearded priest?
Alex: Bearded.
Vlad: Does he wear his cassock and cross on the street?
Alex: Da.
Vlad: Is your jurisdiction ecumenist or non-ecumenist?
Alex: Non.
Vlad: Do you have an old-man Trinity icon?
Alex: Uh, yes.
Vlad: Aha! Heretic!

Heck, even something seemingly as inconsequential as making a full prostration versus half prostration at a certain moment in

the DL is serious enough to warrant the Tradition of engaging in fistfights over it, according to the Russian joke below! And

before anyone says, hey, that’s a ROCOR thing - NO, IT’S A RUSSIAN THING!!! There’s no longer ROCOR, and look at

the joke - it’s not a ROCOR joke, it’s a RUSSIAN joke.

 

[fred_conty]

Quote from:
home.comcast.net/~acbfp/topten.html

Which Is The Tradition?
In the village of Omsk all was not well in the local Pokrov Parish. Every year, during Lent, at ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord,

teach me Thy statutes’, half of the congregation would make a metany at the waist, and half would make a full prostration.

The little metanists would start whispering sharply, ‘No! No! From the waist!’ To which the great metanists would hiss back

even louder, ‘Wrong! Full prostration! Who are you following, the Devil?!’ And fistfights would break out and the service could

not even be completed.

Finally the war-weary parishioners decided to ask their priest, Fr Veniamin. ‘Batiushka, what is the tradition? In Lent, at

“Blessed art Thou”, do we make a little metany, or a great metany?’ Knowing the rancour attached to the dispute, poor Fr

Veniamin trembled, grew pale, then fainted dead away and fell backwards.

So next they went to the Skete of the Forerunner, and asked Fr Onouphry: ‘Batiushka, we want to know, we have a terrible

argument at Omsk–what is the tradition? Because half the people say to make small metanies at “Blessed art Thou” now,

and half say great metanies. And we start fighting, terrible, terrible. So, tell us, what is the Tradition?’ Seeing the ferocity in

their faces, poor Hieromonk Anatoly simply fainted dead away.

Then someone shouted, ‘Let’s go to Elder Ioann and ask him!’ It was a marvellous idea. Surely the elder’s answer would

bring peace, for he was respected by all, a native of Omsk, and his hoary 94 years guaranteed a knowledge of what the

old tradition had been.

So a large crowd gathered at the elder’s dacha on the outskirts of town. Some 15 men from both sides entered the dacha,

and found frail Elder Ioann lying on his bed. As he struggled to draw himself up and offer tea, they cut him off: ‘Elder

Ioann, you have to help us! What is the Tradition? Every year in Lent, at “Blessed art Thou, O Lord”, half of the people at

Pokrov make little metanies, and half the people great metanies, and we start to argue, and the service doesn’t even finish

because of the fistfight!’ Then Elder Ioann said firmly, in his voice shaking with age, and with tears streaming down his joyful

face, ‘That… is… the Tradition!’

When I showed this joke to my Russian date (born and raised in Russia), she especially appreciated the part about "Who

are you following, the Devil?!" That is very authentically Russian and Orthodox, according to her.

When I first told her about Eucharistic miracles in the Catholic Church, and she harshly replied "Don’t bring the Devil to the

chalice!" - meaning don’t even mention your Catholic stuff in the same sentence with the Eucharist of the EOC -, I was

shocked, but not so much after I learned more about the Russian psyche, so well illustrated by the joke above.

I briefly did consider converting to Eastern Orthodoxy at that time. Since I grew up in Romania, a country which is at least

80% EO, I asked about the Romanian EOC. My Russian acquaintances first asked, are the Romanians Old Calendar or

New? When I said, New, that was all they needed to hear. Yup, Heretics - that was the answer. They didn’t even ask

whether the Romanian churches had pews or no pews, musical instruments, or if the Romanian priests have beards and

wear cassocks. No, they are damned New Calendar heretics - regardless of anything else.

After this, I started to think more about my native city in Romania, and how there were two (2) EO churches in my

meighborhood, one Romanian and one Serbian. I mean, we have Catholic churches where they celebrate Sunday Mass in

three languages like Hungarian, Romanian, German, they didn’t need to build separate Hungarian Catholic, Romanian Catholic,

German Catholic churches. And there’s a Catholic pilgrimage site not far from my native city where they celebrate Mass in 5

languages and more, no need to build 5 or more different churches for all the nations. So, why did the Romanians and the

Serbs need to build 2 separate churches, within 100 meters (300 feet) of each other? Well, you see, the Serbians are Old

Calendar, but the Romanians are damned heretics.

Which brings me to the next joke:
home.comcast.net/~acbfp/topten.html

Quote:
Russian Orthodox ‘Survivor’
Robinson Krusovsky was shipwrecked on an empty Pacific island. When after a long time a rescue ship came to pick him

up, the rescue party found two churches Robinson had built, complete with domes and three-bar crosses on top. ‘Why two?’

they asked. ‘One is the church I go to,’ Robinson explained. ‘The other is the church I don’t go to!’

There’s also an Ukrainian version to the joke above, as follows:

Robinson Hrusoev builds not two, but three churches. When the sailors ask him, why had he built three churches, he

replies: "One is an Old Calendar church. Another one is a New Calendar church. And the third one, is the one in which I

wouldn’t get caught dead!"​

Also, when I attended ROCOR, the priest told parishioners not to present themselves for Holy Communion in the Greek and

Antiochian EOC. Also, ROCOR was out of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) at that time. There was also a

time in the 1990s when the MP broke communion with the EP (Constantinople). The lack of unity within the various EOC is

often seen not only in their disagreements on doctrine and discipline (and territorial jurisdiction), but in effectively breaking

communion with each other.

 

[po18guy]

Okay, but do you have a basis for this claim (the parallel between Peter and the Seat of Moses)? If I accept the Papacy, then the parallel seems to follow quite nicely - but what evidence is there that they are similar?

The evidence is the principle from scripture. Jesus spoke to both subjects. As to historicity, read the early Church fathers. The Church took shape under a single leader, and has persisted as the oldest human organization on earth. Perhaps a book like Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid, or The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin would help. Consider: For 1,000 years,the Church was united under the Pope. A millennium.

Why can’t God give authority simple to the body of the Bishops? Why must there be one over the rest of them? Although Protestantism has fractured, what about Eastern Orthodoxy? Have they lost their doctrinal integrity due to the absence of one visible head?

God could have given equal authority to all, but that does not produce unity. Peter is named 195 times in the NT. The closest is John, at 29 times. The rest, even fewer. Many Apostles are named only in the lists of Apostles. Nothing else is even known about them. By the weight of the evidence, as well as scriptural citations, Peter was primary. Quick - name an Orthodox Patriarch. Any one of them. Not one is known worldwide. Not one is recognized worldwide. Taking nothing away from them, but how can they claim to represent a universal Church is that Church is not known in all nations?