H
Hesychios
Guest
Bingo.
- Status
L
Louie1983
Guest
Blessings Hesychios,
I can’t accept what you have written above in regards to Jesus’ comments “Jesus told him to get back to the business of being a good shepherd!”. This is our lord confirming that Peter is the rock of which he built his church , Our lord knew Peter would deny him threw times as he predicted it! “amen i say to you but before the cock crows, thrice you shall deny me”. This only demonstrates Peter’s human nature.
There are far too many scriptural passages and incidents that support the primacy of Peter to suggest that Peter was to remain a bishop like the rest and our lord makes it abundantly clear! To back that up there are hundreds of church father quotes that support Peter as the head of the church here on earth. From these quotes it was always assumed that the one who occupied the chair of St Peter was the head of the church here on earth. And you say that Peter did not any works of a pope (appoint new bishops, infallibly teach etc), wasn’t it Peter who appointed James as the bishop of jerusalem? Wasn’t it Peter who closed the council on circumcision by his decision?
When our lord said “feed my sheep…” this was a command to govern the church here on earth. There were many successors who taught infallibly and who issued doctrines after Peter, it was always assumed that Peter and his successors were the head of the church, all the church did later on was to make it clear to everyone. There was no “new ideas”.
God bless.
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
Well, Hesychios and Trophybearer, the three-fold question obviously refers to Peter’s three-fold denial. However: did Jesus tell the other Apostles to tend his sheep? NO. Jesus clearly set aside Peter, as the shepherd of his flock. One flock, one shepherd. I’m convinced therefore that Peter is the shepherd of Christ’s flock anywhere on planet Earth, including in Constantinople and Moscow. 
Also, consider this: Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Rock”, and said that he will establish his Church on this Rock (Mt16, 17-19). In the OT, God renamed Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel. Here, Jesus renamed Simon to Rock, and built his Church on him. Also, Jesus gave authority to Peter to bind and loose, no ifs and buts about it. See Mt16, 17-19. Jesus didn’t say, “You can bind, if the rest of the Apostles (Bishops) agree. You can loose, but only if the Ecumenical Council approves it.” Thus, I feel confident that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Peter’s (the Pope’s) authority, as expressed at Vatican I, is correct. The Pope is the supreme shepherd of Christ’s flock, and he can bind and loose without seeking the approval of other Apostles, Bishops, and Ecumenical Councils. In addition, Jesus only gave the Keys of Heaven to Peter, not to the rest of the Apostles (Mt16,17-19). Moreoever, in Lk22,31 Jesus said that he prayed for Peter so that his faith would not fail. I take this to mean that other Apostles (Bishops) faith may fail, but Jesus through his prayer placed a special safeguard around Peter’s faith.
I will add, EO do not seek to abolish Papacy, merely to replace it with their own versions of “Papacy”. That’s why Constantinople called itself “Second Rome”, and Moscow calls itself “Third Rome”.
Also, consider this: Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Rock”, and said that he will establish his Church on this Rock (Mt16, 17-19). In the OT, God renamed Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel. Here, Jesus renamed Simon to Rock, and built his Church on him. Also, Jesus gave authority to Peter to bind and loose, no ifs and buts about it. See Mt16, 17-19. Jesus didn’t say, “You can bind, if the rest of the Apostles (Bishops) agree. You can loose, but only if the Ecumenical Council approves it.” Thus, I feel confident that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Peter’s (the Pope’s) authority, as expressed at Vatican I, is correct. The Pope is the supreme shepherd of Christ’s flock, and he can bind and loose without seeking the approval of other Apostles, Bishops, and Ecumenical Councils. In addition, Jesus only gave the Keys of Heaven to Peter, not to the rest of the Apostles (Mt16,17-19). Moreoever, in Lk22,31 Jesus said that he prayed for Peter so that his faith would not fail. I take this to mean that other Apostles (Bishops) faith may fail, but Jesus through his prayer placed a special safeguard around Peter’s faith.
I will add, EO do not seek to abolish Papacy, merely to replace it with their own versions of “Papacy”. That’s why Constantinople called itself “Second Rome”, and Moscow calls itself “Third Rome”.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t know if I’ve read the specific articles you’re referring to, but I do remember reading the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article about Photius of Constantinople. Oh brother.I will admit that a long time ago, when I first converted to Orthodoxy, I was glancing through the old Catholic Encyclopedia and came across some very unflattering things about the Orthodox, distorting the truth about what certain patriarchs did and fallacies like that. It angered me and probably made me rather resentful, I’m sorry to say. Some time later I was watching EWTN and found Fr. Mitch Pacwa answering questions about various issues, one of them Orthodoxy. I held my breadth, but was surprised when he presented the Orthodox Church in a favorable light and represented the opinion of the Church accurately. That greatly improved my opinion regarding Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue.
So here’s to you Fr. Pacwa
(Incidentally, I personally prefer to call it “the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia”, rather than “the old Catholic Encyclopedia”. 96 years isn’t all that old, in terms of Church history. 
)Fr. Mitch Pacwa is great, in my opinion. (I recently listened to a debate he did. The other debater was Protestant, so it isn’t terribly relevant to this thread. But a great debate to listen to nevertheless.)
P
Peter_J
Guest
H
Hesychios
Guest
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
Mt16,17-19:
I guess at the first Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles could have gone on disagreeing with each other forever, had not Peter stepped in and resolved the dispute about whether the Mosaic laws should apply to former gentiles who became Christians.
And in the Catholic Church’s modern history, a majority of Bishops and Priests advised Pope Paul VI to allow the use of birth control pills. Yet, he decided to go against the majority’s recommendation, and released his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” in 1968, in which he upheld the ban on artificial birth control, in accord with the Church’s 2000-year old teaching. Even if all the other Bishops wanted to allow the Pill, the Pope had a God-given authority to settle the question alone, against the recommendations and opinions of everybody else.
It is worth mentioning that later in Matthew chapter 18, Jesus expands this authority to “bind and loose” to the 12 Apostles. However, only Peter was called blessed, Rock, and only he was promised the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Moreover, someone on another thread pointed out that if a disagreement arises between the Apostles (Bishops), because some of them want to bind, while others want to loose the same thing, only Peter (the Pope) can break the impasse and decide the issue one way or the other, because he alone has the INDIVIDUAL authority to bind and loose, without securing the agreement and approval of the rest of the Apostles (Bishops).
I guess at the first Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles could have gone on disagreeing with each other forever, had not Peter stepped in and resolved the dispute about whether the Mosaic laws should apply to former gentiles who became Christians.
And in the Catholic Church’s modern history, a majority of Bishops and Priests advised Pope Paul VI to allow the use of birth control pills. Yet, he decided to go against the majority’s recommendation, and released his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” in 1968, in which he upheld the ban on artificial birth control, in accord with the Church’s 2000-year old teaching. Even if all the other Bishops wanted to allow the Pill, the Pope had a God-given authority to settle the question alone, against the recommendations and opinions of everybody else.
T
trophybearer
Guest
What on earth do you you think the keys do except to bind and loose? Christ gives the same keys to all the Apostles, the authority to ‘bind and loose’!Mt16,17-19:
It is worth mentioning that later in Matthew chapter 18, Jesus expands this authority to “bind and loose” to the 12 Apostles. However, only Peter was called blessed, Rock, and only he was promised the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Moreover, someone on another thread pointed out that if a disagreement arises between the Apostles (Bishops), because some of them want to bind, while others want to loose the same thing, only Peter (the Pope) can break the impasse and decide the issue one way or the other, because he alone has the INDIVIDUAL authority to bind and loose, without securing the agreement and approval of the rest of the Apostles (Bishops).
I guess at the first Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles could have gone on disagreeing with each other forever, had not Peter stepped in and resolved the dispute about whether the Mosaic laws should apply to former gentiles who became Christians.
And in the Catholic Church’s modern history, a majority of Bishops and Priests advised Pope Paul VI to allow the use of birth control pills. Yet, he decided to go against the majority’s recommendation, and released his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” in 1968, in which he upheld the ban on artificial birth control, in accord with the Church’s 2000-year old teaching. Even if all the other Bishops wanted to allow the Pill, the Pope had a God-given authority to settle the question alone, against the recommendations and opinions of everybody else.
You will also find that majority of the Church Fathers (a rather large majority numbers-wise) identify Peter’s confession as the “rock” on which Christ builds his Church. Even St. Augustine who had at an earlier time stated that the “rock” Christ referred to was the person of Peter later in his work entitled Retractions confesses he believes he was wrong about this and now believes the ‘rock’ to refer to Peter’s confession!
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hello Joseph,
Peter is honored and remembered by Orthodox. Roman Catholics sometimes act as if they have a monopoly on him, but they cannot really make that claim.
All bishops are are successors to all the Apostles. All of the bishops are successors to Peter… John… Thomas… Matthew… Andrew… Philip… etc.
That is why there are traditionally at least three co-consecrators.
" …each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? "
1 Cor 1:12-13
Switching reference from Peter-Pope-Peter back and forth as if they are synonyms is misleading and not justified.
Correct.
Peter is honored and remembered by Orthodox. Roman Catholics sometimes act as if they have a monopoly on him, but they cannot really make that claim.
All bishops are are successors to all the Apostles. All of the bishops are successors to Peter… John… Thomas… Matthew… Andrew… Philip… etc.
That is why there are traditionally at least three co-consecrators.
" …each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? "
1 Cor 1:12-13
That has not been established, it is possible that many, or all, have been called blessed. Not everything Christ said or did has been written, and you cannot prove a negative.
Simon’s nickname.
That has not been established, it is an argument from silence and cannot be proven.
Switching reference from Peter-Pope-Peter back and forth as if they are synonyms is misleading and not justified.
Not relevant. It is not how the early church handled disputes.
It was Saint James who chaired that council.
Not relevant.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Here’s one i know of. I don’t have the exact date but this pope was around from the years 88-97:
1, Pope Clement I: One of the earliest letters in Christendom is Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthian Church in the first century. Even though John the Evangelist was still living on the island of Patmos, and geographically closer to the Corinthian church, the Corinthians appeal to Rome to resolve their dispute (about ordinations). Clement makes it clear in his letter that Rome is the instructor of the other churches. This is a powerful witness of the early primacy that Rome had among the churches.
God bless.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Hello Joseph, Correct.
Peter is honored and remembered by Orthodox. Roman Catholics sometimes act as if they have a monopoly on him, but they cannot really make that claim.
All bishops are are successors to all the Apostles. All of the bishops are successors to Peter… John… Thomas… Matthew… Andrew… Philip… etc.
That is why there are traditionally at least three co-consecrators.
" …each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? "
1 Cor 1:12-13
Whoever said christ was divided? Your putting words into peoples mouths here. All the apostles are honoured but there was only one apostle to whom Jesus handed the keys to the kingdom of heaven! That was Peter! Jesus makes it abundantly clear!
That has not been established, it is possible that many, or all, have been called blessed. Not everything Christ said or did has been written, and you cannot prove a negative.
I agree many people have been called blessed, the one obvious that comes to my mind is our lady!
Simon’s nickname.
Great example of scripture knowledge here!
That has not been established, it is an argument from silence and cannot be proven.
Switching reference from Peter-Pope-Peter back and forth as if they are synonyms is misleading and not justified.
Not established???!!! are you serious? there are many scriptural passages and hundreds of quotes from early church fathers that supported the succession of the papacy! Even some from byzantine fathers!! An argument from silence and cannot be proven? give me a break!
Not relevant. It is not how the early church handled disputes.
And how it still handles it today! Whenever there is a dispute the church headed by the pope will infallibly decide!
It was Saint James who chaired that council.
But it was peter who closed it! Once he had spoken “all remained silent”.
Not relevant.
P
pipper
Guest
I think it sad that the subject of re-unfication had so quickly been abandoned and the “submit!” triumphalism has so quickly taken it’s place.
I also think it sad that many of us here obviously have no interest in reunification, instead we go back to “We are correct, they are wrong” that has kept us from unity for over a millenium.
IMHO if we continue this rhetoric it will be another thousand years before we get back together, and thousand years where we will grow even further apart, and reunification will be even harder.
Could I take a little poll?
How many Catholics here have interest in bringing the two lungs of the church back together?
How many of us Catholics are only interested in the Orthodox submitting?
I also think it sad that many of us here obviously have no interest in reunification, instead we go back to “We are correct, they are wrong” that has kept us from unity for over a millenium.
IMHO if we continue this rhetoric it will be another thousand years before we get back together, and thousand years where we will grow even further apart, and reunification will be even harder.
Could I take a little poll?
How many Catholics here have interest in bringing the two lungs of the church back together?
How many of us Catholics are only interested in the Orthodox submitting?
H
Hesychios
Guest
L
Louie1983
Guest
Yes it is! The Pope is teaching here about ordination! it had to be an infallible teaching since there was confusion/disputes going on and they needed an answer! They were given one and it was an infallible teaching!
L
Louie1983
Guest
Absolutely i’m 100% interested in bringing the 2 churches back together! But you have to understand pipper, if the church’s do get together and discuss being re-united don’t you think all the topics discussed here will be discussed by the bishops and priests when/if they get together?
Everyone does have an interest in re-unification but that’s why we are discussing it here! To say that no-one is interested is a bit unfair.
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
Pipper,
I was trying to make the argument that submission to Peter is good, because it was ordained by Christ. I do not see the Pope’s role as triumphalistic.
Jesus Christ himself, as a child, submitted himself to St. Joseph and Mary, obeying his parents. By obeying his earthly stepfather, St. Joseph, he obeyed his Heavenly Father, since St. Joseph was appointed in a position of authority over Jesus by the Heavenly Father.
I repeat, I submit myself and obey the Pope joyfully, because he was appointed by Jesus Christ. When I obey the Pope, I obey Christ himself. Why can’t the EO do the same?
Look, Adam and Eve refused to submit to God, and they found themselves submitting to Satan and his yoke of death, instead. Israel’s nation grumbled against Moses and refused to submit to Moses in the desert. They were punished by God, some of them got the leper, others were swallowed up by the ground, yet others were bitten by snakes. God appointed Moses and God did expect Israel to submit to Moses as Israel’s leader. Why on earth would I submit to schismatic Bishops and Patriarchs whom, in their turn, failed to submit to Peter and his successors, even though Peter was appointed by Jesus Christ himself as their leader?! No thanks, I will not submit to Bishops whom, on their turn, are too proud and arrogant to submit to Peter. But I will joyfully submit to those Priests and Bishops who stayed faithful to Christ’s chosen shepherd of his Church, who is Peter, and his successor the Bishop of Rome.
Also, reunification will be based on charity AND TRUTH. The Pope exercises charity towards the EO Churches. The EO Churches, in their turn, will recognize at God’s appointed time the TRUTH, and the truth is that Christ appointed Peter and his successors as supreme shepherds and leaders over the entire Church. No EO can be reunited to Christ’s Church before he/she recognizes and accepts this truth. Until then, our EO brethren are still joined to us Catholics by a less then perfect bond, and we Catholics pray and make sacrifices not only for other Catholics, but also for our EO brethren.
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
OK, Trophybearer and Hesychios, let me get this straight. Do you propose that anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Messiah, is called Rock, and is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, by Jesus Christ? Do you mean that they are all “Rock”, on whom Christ will build his Church?
How about the active gay Gene Robinson, who confesses Christ as Lord and Messiah? Is he Rock, does Jesus build his Church on him, and was he entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven? If so, expect him to let a bunch of unrepentant gays into the kingdom of heaven, because Gene Robinson teaches that there’s nothing wrong with the practice of homosexuality. How about the woman “Priestess” who recently said that God rejoices when abortions are performed? Since she confesses Jesus, is she Rock, the foundation of the Church, and in charge of the keys, too? If so, expect her to let in all unrepentant murderers, abortionists and women rejoicing over killing their own children, into the kingdom of heaven! Hey, she has the authority to bind and loose, she has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and she decided that unrepentant murderers belong into the heaven! And, how about the EO Priests and Bishops who “bless” their faithful to use birth control pills and procure vasectomies, even though these methods of artificial birth control were called gravely evil and forbidden by all Popes, without exception? Will there be a scuffle at the gates of Heaven, with the Popes trying to lock out the unrepentant users of contraception, and the EO Bishops and Priests trying to shoo them in?
I’m not sure I’m so excited about this version of Heaven - a Heaven occupied by evildoers who are unrepentant and even rejoice over and celebrate their sins!
If you still insist that Jesus meant only Peter’s confession and not the person, and that he would name anyone who confessed him to be the Messiah as “Rock”, then please explain this to me (John1):
Do you still insist that Jesus didn’t mean the person of Simon the son of John, only his confession, as being the Rock and foundation of his Church? Why did he tell to him in John1,42, and not to others, that he will be called Rock (Cephas)?
How about the active gay Gene Robinson, who confesses Christ as Lord and Messiah? Is he Rock, does Jesus build his Church on him, and was he entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven? If so, expect him to let a bunch of unrepentant gays into the kingdom of heaven, because Gene Robinson teaches that there’s nothing wrong with the practice of homosexuality. How about the woman “Priestess” who recently said that God rejoices when abortions are performed? Since she confesses Jesus, is she Rock, the foundation of the Church, and in charge of the keys, too? If so, expect her to let in all unrepentant murderers, abortionists and women rejoicing over killing their own children, into the kingdom of heaven! Hey, she has the authority to bind and loose, she has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and she decided that unrepentant murderers belong into the heaven! And, how about the EO Priests and Bishops who “bless” their faithful to use birth control pills and procure vasectomies, even though these methods of artificial birth control were called gravely evil and forbidden by all Popes, without exception? Will there be a scuffle at the gates of Heaven, with the Popes trying to lock out the unrepentant users of contraception, and the EO Bishops and Priests trying to shoo them in?
I’m not sure I’m so excited about this version of Heaven - a Heaven occupied by evildoers who are unrepentant and even rejoice over and celebrate their sins!
If you still insist that Jesus meant only Peter’s confession and not the person, and that he would name anyone who confessed him to be the Messiah as “Rock”, then please explain this to me (John1):
Here in the beginning of John’s Gospel, a bunch of people confess that Jesus is Lord, Messiah, Son of God. St. John the Baptist, Andrew, Philip, Nathanael all confess this. Yet, Jesus does not say to them, “you will be called Rock (Cephas)”. Peter, on the other hand, is immediately greated with the prophecy that he will be called Rock (Cephas), even before he could open his mouth to say anything, let alone confess that Jesus is Lord and Messiah.
Do you still insist that Jesus didn’t mean the person of Simon the son of John, only his confession, as being the Rock and foundation of his Church? Why did he tell to him in John1,42, and not to others, that he will be called Rock (Cephas)?
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
Sorry, I wasn’t clear here. What I meant is not simply that Peter is blessed, but rather that he is blessed because the Heavenly Father revealed to him that Jesus is Christ, Lord, Messiah. That’s why I trust the Popes, that they will not teach error. Not because they are smarter, better educated, or holier than the rest of Bishops. Even an unholy womanizer like Pope Alexander VI never taught error, because the Heavenly Father kept him free of error in his teaching role.…it is possible that many, or all, have been called blessed.
…
Not relevant.
And yes, Pope Paul VI’s decision to release the encyclical Humanae Vitae and keep the Catholic Church from falling into error IS relevant. Because the EO and Protestants, who failed to listen to him, DID fall into error by allowing artificial birth control such as condoms, the Pill, vasectomy, and tubal ligation. When we have EO priests “blessing” couples to use contraception and vasectomy, it’s clear that the EO Church has fallen into error in his teaching ministry. They forbade contraception for nearly 2000 years, but after the 1960’s they innovated and started allowing it.
M
Mickey
Guest
Interesting. I have never met or heard of an Orthodox priest who condones “the pill” or vasectomy. When I was a RC I had heard of preists who condoned ABC. Do you know how many Catholic laity practice ABC and disagree with the Church? You would be surprised. I have noticed that you have jumped in on a thread about unification to start bashing the Orthodox Church. This lack of charity has become apparent in most of your posts. If you would like to discuss ABC, then start a thread. Otherwise, perhaps you have other thoughts on unification without hurling insults?
E
eOxy
Guest
If you refer to Constantinoplean Patriarch, as “leader of the Orthodox Church”, he could be a leader, but not the leader of OC.
Not going to happen.
- Status