the same thing

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DadDave said:
Some of the same Fathers that say the keys aren’t exclusive to Peter…

John Chrysostom
Code: 
"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now"[Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.2]
Augustine
Code: 
“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.”’’On Christian Doctrine’’ Book I. Chapter 18.17 ‘’The Keys Given to the Church’’.]

"...Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."’’On the Gospel of John’’. Tractate CXXIV.7]

"...the keys that were given to the Church,"’’A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists.’’ Chapter 10.45]

"How the Church? Why, to her it was said, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."’’Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Homily X.10]
**
Tertullian**
Code: 
"What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and) your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet."’’On Modesty’’. Book VII. Chapter XXI]
Hilary of Poitiers
Code: 
“This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature‘’On the Trinity’’. Book VI.37]
Pope Leo I
Code: 
"…though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock."“On the Gospel of John” On John xx. 10, 11. (Homily LXXXVI)]
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church also teaches that the keys were given to the Church and not only to the person of Peter. As a Catholic you must know that refer to confession as submitting one’s sins “to the keys”…every Catholic priest in the world exercises the power of the keys. This does not negate Peter’s special ministry as testified to by the Fathers.
 
DadDave said:
Some of the same Fathers that say the keys aren’t exclusive to Peter…
Click to expand...
Nobody says he is the only holder of the keys, but Scripture certainly specifies that Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Therefore, it makes sense to believe that Peter shared the keys with the others, as chief of the Apostles. 🙂
 
I used to disbelieve the story about Patriarch Gregory and Pius IX…And then, I just read a couple of weeks ago in Siencinski’s book on the Filioque (published by Oxford) that kissing the pope’s foot was the accepted protocol at Florence and caused a sensation when the Greek Patriarch at Florence refused to do so at the very beginning of the Council. It almost derailed the whole Council.

After that, I’m wondering if perhaps the story with the Melkite Patriarch is true. Don’t know.
 
Byz_Guy said:
I used to disbelieve the story about Patriarch Gregory and Pius IX…And then, I just read a couple of weeks ago in Siencinski’s book on the Filioque (published by Oxford) that kissing the pope’s foot was the accepted protocol at Florence and caused a sensation when the Greek Patriarch at Florence refused to do so at the very beginning of the Council. It almost derailed the whole Council.

After that, I’m wondering if perhaps the story with the Melkite Patriarch is true. Don’t know.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t just the Patriarch, if I recall. The pope also demanded that the Eastern Roman Emperor kiss his foot, which was a far more scandalous breach of protocol.
 
Byz_Guy said:
I used to disbelieve the story about Patriarch Gregory and Pius IX…And then, I just read a couple of weeks ago in Siencinski’s book on the Filioque (published by Oxford) that kissing the pope’s foot was the accepted protocol at Florence and caused a sensation when the Greek Patriarch at Florence refused to do so at the very beginning of the Council. It almost derailed the whole Council.

After that, I’m wondering if perhaps the story with the Melkite Patriarch is true. Don’t know.
Click to expand...
Even if it is true, I don’t think it should impact relations between East and West in the present. No one claims that the bishops of Rome are free from sin. No one holds this incident up as a model of what the Latin Church expects.
 
If it is true, it kind of clouds the whole Council (Vatican I) in my opinion – at least as far as the Eastern Churches are involved.
 
I have my doubts about the incident, but in any case, an Eastern Catholic’s relationship to the Holy Father is no different than a Latin Catholic’s.
 
Wow. I’ve not read that before. ONE magazine is a fairly reliable source in my opinion. Thanks for substantiating the story.
In 1871, before the fathers of Vatican I voted to endorse “Pastor Aeternus,” which defined papal infallibility and the pope’s universal jurisdiction, Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory II Joseph left the Eternal City to avoid voting against the constitution. The patriarch believed the constitution would offend the patriarchs of the Orthodox Church and destroy chances of ecclesial communion. Reluctantly, Gregory and the Melkite Greek Catholic synod later assented to the decree, with the stipulation that “all rights, privileges and prerogatives of the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches [be] respected.”
Click to expand...
He paid for his assertion: During Vatican II, Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Maximos IV revealed that Pope Pius IX humiliated the patriarch, having him cast to the ground by members of the Swiss Guard and then addressing the patriarch with his foot pressed against his head. But Gregory’s defense of the Eastern Christian tradition is cited as the main influence behind the landmark apostolic letter, “Orientalium Dignitas Ecclesiarum,” issued in 1894 by Pius’s successor, Pope Leo XIII.
Click to expand...
 
IIRC there were no written sources about this for about a century after the alleged event - the story started making the rounds at Vatican II. There are a variety of version of the tale - some more believable than others - the violence of the Swiss guards being in relatively few accounts. There have been outright denials of the story by Melkite sources.

This story gets propagated - perhaps innocently - by people who have no capacity to verify a bit of it. But it also gets repeated by those who are fully aware of the lack of substantive support for it.

Why?
 
One sources it to Maximos IV at Vatican II.

I still don’t know what to think of the story. I used to think it was all poppycock. Then I read in Edward Siencienski’s book on the Filioque that it was standard protocol to kiss the pope’s foot at that time.

Still, perhaps we should consider this situation where Pope Paul VI kissed the foot of an Orthodox Metropolitan:

archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/19th-december-1975/1/pope-kisses-feet-of-orthodox-patriarch

That was a powerful example of humility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top