Hey Trebor135,
First off, I want to apologize to you and the other Orthodox-inclined posters for being cantankerous and uncharitable.
In response to some of your comments:
As far as books/essays I’ve read, for me it was a process coming from Protestantism and was looking at both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Some of what I was reading came from the internet (OCA website for example and other EAstern Orthodox pages.) I spent time on this site and forum, Catholic radio, etc. Reading Jurgen’s 3 volume set on the Fathers, Steve Rays “Upon this Rock.” A little bit here and there, as well as listening to various debates. From my point of view, I can relate a lot to what Jimmy Akin wrote in his article "“Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox”. (Which doesn’t appear to be on this site anymore.)
About the
Catholic Encyclopedia, I don’t see the entry on St. Chrysostom saying that he wasn’t in communion with Rome for a time. I’ll go back and look at the posts but I am guessing that you (and others) are perhaps inferring this from the entry on St. Meletius of Antioch?
You said, “St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology is a matter best left for another thread. Suffice it to say that there are conflicting interpretations of his thought on Church organization.” Yes, I agree although I will make just one response to another poster. I find
this to be a very helpful article. Notably, the arguments made by Dom John Chapman.
As far as St. Chrysostom’s words about St. John the Apostle (in the first citation), I don’t see the taking away from what Catholics believe about St. Peter. Pope Benedict XVI wrote in an address while in Turkey that: “Simon, notwithstanding his human weakness, was called ‘Peter’, the ‘rock’ on which the Church was to be built; to him
in a particular way were entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Mt 16:18).” (source:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061130_divine-liturgy_en.html) (accessed 6/22/2012) (emphasis mine.)
So, is it possible to speak of other Apostles as having received the keys in some sort of secondary way, by way of allusion, regarding St. Matthew 16:18-19? Perhaps, I’m not sure. I’ll let the Church and Her Theologians answer that question. But if so, then this would not take away from the fact that St. Peter, and him alone, was given the keys “in a particular way”, to borrow the Holy Father’s words (cf. Isaiah 22:22)
I think that his own statements about the keys and St. Peter show that he saw that the keys were given to St. Peter “in a particular way” as well (
see Phil Vaz’s article again and scroll down to St. Matthew 16:18)
St. John’s words make me think of Origen’s commentary on St. Matthew 18 about “binding and loosing”:
Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, Matthew 16:19 has been specially set before the words, And what things soever you shall bind on earth, etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class.** For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. Matthew 16:19** The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished.
Source:
newadvent.org/fathers/101613.htm (emphasis mine)
Here, if I am not mistaken, Origen allows the possibility of others having keys but, as he states, “Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more”, showing that although he implies that others have keys to bind and loose “in one heaven”, nevertheless this doesn’t not discount that St. Peter received the keys in a unique way.
As far as the second citation you gave, I assume you are paying close attention to the words “But since it is not he *, but God by him, that speaks to mankind…”, I see no problem here either. First of all this is his commentary on the Gospel of John and yes indeed “God by him…speaks to mankind…” through his Gospel (and his Epistles) But also the fact that God may (at least in a sense) speak to mankind using other men (or women) than St. Peter (or his successors) no way detracts from the Papacy. If that were the case, would the Church have approved the various apparitions of Our Lady?
Also, for the record, I don’t agree with everything that St. John Chrysostom wrote and neither does the Church require me to do so. For example, I disagree with his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:15.
Regards,
–Nick*
