What is Eastern Catholicism?

[JohnVIII]

Excuse me. Clement was interveing in a Local Church’s Affairs. Please. Stay on issue…

Any neighboring bishop can do this in the event that a local church has no bishop. Do you think that in the year 80 AD there would already be written canon laws that would tie down the hands of bishops to keep them from attending to the flocks of Christ, especially in times of persecution? There are later canons that make reference to earlier times and call such things as “the custom of the fathers” were the lines of jurisdiction were not yet explicitly defined, and basically any bishop could tend to any flock depending only on whether or not the need was there.

You are slicing and dicing.

No sir, I’m sorry, but I think it is you that is ‘slicing and dicing’.

…no Bishop, no Priest, no Eucharist, no Church…

What do you call what he did other than an intervention? A Hail Mary pass?

It looks to me that Corinth had some sort of body of elders there, but no bishop yet. You make it sound like everyone back in 80 AD were strict followers of Vatican I !

 

[Aramis]

At the time of St. Clement (late 1st Century), no bishop meant no liturgy, for all liturgy was what we now term hierarchical liturgy (or, for the latin use, the term is the pontifical mass). Presbyters who were not bishops could not say the liturgy alone until the second or early 3rd century; hence the creation of Chorbishops and auxiliary bishops.

So St. Clement, in the 80’s, would have been writing to a church with a bishop, since he refers to their liturgy. It might have been a council of several bishops, however, but in no way would it have been without a bishop.

(At the time, a priest’s role was to commune the faithful and elect the bishop, not to confect the Eucharist; deacons handled the incense, carried the cup, and administered the cup to the faithful, and took the Eucharist to the homebound. As the church grew, it became more common to have vicar priests act when the bishop was absent, and to have multiple parishes in a city, with chorbishops, and later ordinary priests, as rector and/or pastor.)

 

[JohnVIII]

At the time of St. Clement (late 1st Century), no bishop meant no liturgy, for all liturgy was what we now term hierarchical liturgy (or, for the latin use, the term is the pontifical mass). Presbyters who were not bishops could not say the liturgy alone until the second or early 3rd century; hence the creation of Chorbishops and auxiliary bishops.

So St. Clement, in the 80’s, would have been writing to a church with a bishop, since he refers to their liturgy. It might have been a council of several bishops, however, but in no way would it have been without a bishop…

The fact is St Clement made no reference to a bishop at Corinth. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit in with the way you think things have to be.

 

[Aramis]

The fact is St Clement made no reference to a bishop at Corinth. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit in with the way you think things have to be.

He wouldn’t need to; the fact that they have liturgy means they have at least one bishop. At least until the mid 2nd century, and in many places, into the 3rd.

 

[porthos11]

**The Western (Latin) Catholic Church

Latin liturgical tradition**

1. Ordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that you will find in virtually every Latin Catholic Church almost every day of the week. This Mass has existed since the mid-1960s, ever since reforms were made following the Second Vatican Council.)
2. Extraordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that was used in virtually every Latin Catholic Church from the Middle Ages until the mid-1960s. It may still be said in Catholic Churches should a priest choose to use it. Some of the differences from the Ordinary Form include the exclusive use of the Latin language (except for the homily), the receipt of Communion exclusively on the tongue and kneeling, the priest facing the same direction as the people (toward the altar and God) so he can lead the people in prayer, no lay participation on the altar, and usually, no responses by lay people.)
3. Ambrosian Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Milan)
4. Mozarabic Rite (Only permitted in the Cathedral of Toledo, Spain and a few surrounding churches of the diocese)
5. Bragan Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Braga, Portugal)
6. Anglican-Use Mass (This form was once only permitted in the extremely rare circumstance in which an Anglican priest converted to Catholicism and brings his entire parish with him. In that event, a parish could continue to use the Anglican liturgy, with corrections to make it conform with Catholic teachings. It was originally meant as a transitional liturgy, and upon the death of the pastor, the church would revert to the Ordinary Form. With the recent provisions announced by the Vatican to allow Anglicans into the Catholic Church and keep their traditions, it seems that the Anglican-Use will now become both far more widespread AND permanent.)

**Rites of Religious Orders **

1. Dominican Rite
2. Carthusian Rite
3. Carmelite Rite
4. Cisternian Rite

Note: Technically, the forms of the Latin liturgy listed above are NOT different rites, but variations of the SAME rite, although people do tend to commonly use the term somewhat erroneously in this context. The differences between the Latin “rites” are FAR less than those between the Latin liturgy and any of the Eastern Rites.)

I don’t mean to hijack the thread, but shouldn’t this really be:

Latin liturgical tradition
1) Roman Rite
a) Ordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that you will find in virtually every Latin Catholic Church almost every day of the week. This Mass has existed since the mid-1960s, ever since reforms were made following the Second Vatican Council.)
b) Extraordinary Form (This is the form of the Mass that was used in virtually every Latin Catholic Church from the Middle Ages until the mid-1960s. It may still be said in Catholic Churches should a priest choose to use it. Some of the differences from the Ordinary Form include the exclusive use of the Latin language (except for the homily), the receipt of Communion exclusively on the tongue and kneeling, the priest facing the same direction as the people (toward the altar and God) so he can lead the people in prayer, no lay participation on the altar, and usually, no responses by lay people.)
c) Anglican-Use Mass (This form was once only permitted in the extremely rare circumstance in which an Anglican priest converted to Catholicism and brings his entire parish with him. In that event, a parish could continue to use the Anglican liturgy, with corrections to make it conform with Catholic teachings. It was originally meant as a transitional liturgy, and upon the death of the pastor, the church would revert to the Ordinary Form. With the recent provisions announced by the Vatican to allow Anglicans into the Catholic Church and keep their traditions, it seems that the Anglican-Use will now become both far more widespread AND permanent.)

1. Ambrosian Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Milan)
2. Mozarabic Rite (Only permitted in the Cathedral of Toledo, Spain and a few surrounding churches of the diocese)
3. Bragan Rite (Only permitted in the Archdiocese of Braga, Portugal)
   …

 

[justamoose89]

 

[KyivAndrew]

Not losing site of the obvious, one big difference is in Eastern Catholic discipline in respect to priestly celibacy. Before ordination, Eastern Catholic priests can be married in many of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Celibacy in Roman rite Catholicism is a discipline not dogma but I assume some Roman Catholics are still getting used to the idea of married Catholic priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[TP2]

Any neighboring bishop can do this in the event that a local church has no bishop. Do you think that in the year 80 AD there would already be written canon laws that would tie down the hands of bishops to keep them from attending to the flocks of Christ, especially in times of persecution? There are later canons that make reference to earlier times and call such things as “the custom of the fathers” were the lines of jurisdiction were not yet explicitly defined, and basically any bishop could tend to any flock depending only on whether or not the need was there.

No sir, I’m sorry, but I think it is you that is ‘slicing and dicing’.

It looks to me that Corinth had some sort of body of elders there, but no bishop yet. You make it sound like everyone back in 80 AD were strict followers of Vatican I !

No bishop was there? Are you sure? Were you there? Why did Pope Clement so early on cross juridictions of other bishops who were closer, then ? Please tell…

You fail to recognize early as 80 AD of the Authority Peter’s Successsors actually had.

 

[JohnVIII]

No bishop was there? Are you sure? Were you there?

No, of course I’m not sure. You don’t know either. However, the epistle makes no mention of a bishop, the men ‘in charge’ in Corinth were referred to in the plural, from the earliest of times no city ever had more than one bishop. Yet they did have the supper of the Lord, but too early to have priests (so we think). So who knows! You wish to think that Pope Clement lorded over another bishops jurisdiction, you can think that if you wish. To me it is all too unclear what was going on to say for sure.

…Why did Pope Clement so early on cross juridictions of other bishops who were closer, then ? Please tell…

I do believe Pope Clement had the Keys of St Peter and probably received them directly from St Peter himself as part of how the Apostle laid the foundation of the Church with Rome being the primary See. But I remain unconvinced that Pope Clement had authority over any other bishop anymore than St Peter had authority of any other apostle. I don’t think the Keys had anything to do with lording over any other bishops.

…You fail to recognize early as 80 AD of the Authority Peter’s Successsors actually had.

I think Pope Linus was the first bishop of Rome ordained by St Paul. This made Rome a See, no different then any other See. Then Pope Anacletus became the second bishop of Rome ordained by St Peter. This gave Rome a double honor because it then became a See that was founded by two apostles. Then Pope Clement became the third bishop of Rome, and it is said that St. Peter appointed Clement to be Bishop and some lists of bishops put him first, from this I guess that the Keys were passed from St Peter to Pope Clement. In other words I think the first bishop of Rome to hold the Keys of St Peter was Pope Clement, and this was done after the See of Rome was set up as a See of double honor to prepare Rome for to be the holder of the Keys of St Peter. Nevertheless the authority of the bishop of Rome does not extend ‘over’ other bishops, even though he has something that other bishop do not have.

 

[TP2]

No, of course I’m not sure. You don’t know either. However, the epistle makes no mention of a bishop, the men ‘in charge’ in Corinth were referred to in the plural, from the earliest of times no city ever had more than one bishop. Yet they did have the supper of the Lord, but too early to have priests (so we think). So who knows! You wish to think that Pope Clement lorded over another bishops jurisdiction, you can think that if you wish. To me it is all too unclear what was going on to say for sure.

I do believe Pope Clement had the Keys of St Peter and probably received them directly from St Peter himself as part of how the Apostle laid the foundation of the Church with Rome being the primary See. But I remain unconvinced that Pope Clement had authority over any other bishop anymore than St Peter had authority of any other apostle. I don’t think the Keys had anything to do with lording over any other bishops.

I think Pope Linus was the first bishop of Rome ordained by St Paul. This made Rome a See, no different then any other See. Then Pope Anacletus became the second bishop of Rome ordained by St Peter. This gave Rome a double honor because it then became a See that was founded by two apostles. Then Pope Clement became the third bishop of Rome, and it is said that St. Peter appointed Clement to be Bishop and some lists of bishops put him first, from this I guess that the Keys were passed from St Peter to Pope Clement. In other words I think the first bishop of Rome to hold the Keys of St Peter was Pope Clement, and this was done after the See of Rome was set up as a See of double honor to prepare Rome for to be the holder of the Keys of St Peter. Nevertheless the authority of the bishop of Rome does not extend ‘over’ other bishops, even though he has something that other bishop do not have.

And you claim to be a practicing Catholic? Your wrong in your historical data. Any online resource ill tell you that.

Every See was the same? Are you kidding me? Why was Rome called “OLD ROME”? Because of It’s preeminence…All the Fathers agree…

The holder of the Keys is Peter in Mt 16 of the Gospels. No One Else is given this symbol of authority.

He has something that other bishops do not have? What’s that?

ope Clement’s Letter is not what I wish, but what is FACT from FICTION.

How do you accomodate the writing below of Irenaues having said that "With This Church ALL Churches must agree? You got a spin on that, too?

"With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree… all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Irenaues – A.D. 189).

And a LIST OF ALL THE POPES FROM PETER ON a secular resource… hmmmm…
Where is your resource?

infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0839708.html#axzz0wBZEmS8M

 

[JohnVIII]

And you claim to be a practicing Catholic? Your wrong in your historical data. Any online resource ill tell you that.

Why does this discussion have to be about me or you? I was Orthodox & I joined Rome. That makes me Eastern Catholic now. But I go to a Dominican Roman Catholic Church with my wife. So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Why was Rome called “OLD ROME”? Because of It’s preeminence…All the Fathers agree…

Ok, sounds like you agree with me then!

The holder of the Keys is Peter in Mt 16 of the Gospels. No One Else is given this symbol of authority.

He has something that other bishops do not have? What’s that?

The Keys are the ‘authority’ over the sacraments of the Church. Not the power to order other bishops around.

How do you accomodate the writing below of Irenaues having said that "With This Church ALL Churches must agree? You got a spin on that, too?

"With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree… all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Irenaues – A.D. 189).

If the Pope didn’t agree with you, you would say he is putting a spin on it too! Ok, here’s my ‘spin’. “Agree” means ‘in communion with’. All Churches must be in communion with Rome who holds the Keys. ‘In communion with’ isn’t the same thing as inter-communion. ‘in communion with’ means that the churches acknowledge that each others sacraments are true sacraments of the Church. That’s why St Cyprian accused Pope Steven of destroying the true Rock of St Peter by his recognition of the baptism of heretics. In St Cyprian’s mind this put Rome ‘in communion with’ heretics, or this put Rome in ‘agreement’ with heretics. Rome has the authority to use the Keys to say that heretics have baptism.

 

[Gregory_I]

TP2, that interpretation of matt. 16:18 is not universal. Listen to St. Augustine, the Father of modern western theology:

St. Augustine taught that Peter represents all the apostles as a whole, so that whatever Christ spoke to Peter is implied to apply to the other apostles as well.

“And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). **So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. **What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer”
(John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ **On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. **For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).

Your opinion is not of universal consent, even among the greatest of the western Doctors, TP2.

 

[JohnVIII]

…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession.

What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’…The Works of Saint Augustine

The ‘Rock’ probably is Peter’s confession, but it is Peter’s confession, not someone else’s confession, because the person of Peter “the Church is to be recognized”. And more importantly that this was said to Peter by Christ because He wanted all to know that it was for this reason that Christ is choosing Peter to be the one who will receive The Keys of the Kingdom. Which Keys were later passed on to Pope Clement and the bishops of Rome. So the Rock can still be Peter’s confession (i.e. an orthodox confession) without invalidating the fact that the Keys went to the bishops of Rome.

 

[TP2]

Why does this discussion have to be about me or you? I was Orthodox & I joined Rome. That makes me Eastern Catholic now. But I go to a Dominican Roman Catholic Church with my wife. So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Ok, sounds like you agree with me then!

The Keys are the ‘authority’ over the sacraments of the Church. Not the power to order other bishops around.

If the Pope didn’t agree with you, you would say he is putting a spin on it too! Ok, here’s my ‘spin’. “Agree” means ‘in communion with’. All Churches must be in communion with Rome who holds the Keys. ‘In communion with’ isn’t the same thing as inter-communion. ‘in communion with’ means that the churches acknowledge that each others sacraments are true sacraments of the Church. That’s why St Cyprian accused Pope Steven of destroying the true Rock of St Peter by his recognition of the baptism of heretics. In St Cyprian’s mind this put Rome ‘in communion with’ heretics, or this put Rome in ‘agreement’ with heretics. Rome has the authority to use the Keys to say that heretics have baptism.

I don’t liv e with the idea of “If” the Pope didn’t agree with me. Others have to always choose to take sides. I don’t. The Pope is The Successor of Peter who “Carrieth the keys of the Kingdom ALONE”-- Cyril of Alexandria.

First of all, I will answer your last question, first. The “Keys” are not over the sacraments because Christ never said anything of the sort. He gave Peter the “Key’s” of The KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, not over Sacraments. Your opinion is void. “KEYS” are a representation of “opening and closing” something. That means Authority over The Church since The Church requires “someone” to “open and close” on issues, doctrine, anything… Read the Old Testament on that meaning. The early Fathers wrote clearly on what The Keys represent. It wasn’t “Sacraments”. But I am sure you know that…

Matthew 16:19 says this by Christ, not me. "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."

Jesus is defining to Peter what those “Keys” are to mean. But He does not do so to the rest of the Apostles because They receive the power to bind and loose, but WITHOUT the keys because you need PETER to “Open and to Close”… No one else.

Cyril of Jerusalem – 350 AD (Only)

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, **for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven ALONE **[Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

 

[TP2]

Actually I like Chinese Green Tea. lol…

 

[Gregory_I]

Anybody wanna challenge Augustine?

“The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church” (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).

The Keys is Clearly the Power to bind and loose sins, all the apostles received that power, therefore all the apostles received the keys. IPSO FACTO.

 

[TP2]

Anybody wanna challenge Augustine?

The Keys is Clearly the Power to bind and loose sins, all the apostles received that power, therefore all the apostles received the keys. IPSO FACTO.

Augustine says “TO HIM THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM ARE GIVEN”…Power of binding and loosing is secondary… You like to switch words to your own liking. Well, that’s not what Augustine said. It’s what Your Interpretation is of what Augustine said.

Binding And Loosing is NOT equivalent to having The keys of the Kingdom. Why did Your Patriarch John Chrysostom and Cyril disagree with you?

** in your world that can be ipso facto true.** But in God’s World, Jesus NEVER gave any “KEYS” to anyone else but Peter ALONE. There’s nothing more to say. Binding and loosing was given after the Resurrection to everybody as a confirmation, but the **Keys are not synonymous with Binding and Loosing. **

---

Constantinople
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty …even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)

He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ’ ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: ‘Simon, Simon, etc.’ (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep.** And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.** (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

I am so sure that you agree with EVERYTHING your Patriarchs have taught you, right?

How about this Patriarch of Jerusalem, too?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363)

Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the disciples, He asked, ‘Whom do men say that the Son of man is?’ …And all being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says to Him, ‘Thou art the Christ,’ not simply that, but ‘the Son of the living God.’ (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)

For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350).
Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)

**In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, also the foremost of the Apostles and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ. (Cyril, Catech. xviii. n. 27) **

 

[JohnVIII]

…The Pope is The Successor of Peter who “Carrieth the keys of the Kingdom ALONE”-- Cyril of Alexandria.

I have no problem with St Peter holding the Keys alone. When I was Orthodox I believed all bishops held the Keys & Peter was just the first. But the scripture never says that any of the other apostles hold the Keys and since Peter & Paul went to seemingly great measures to establish the Church in Rome apparently for some unique reason I now side with the view that only Peter holds the Keys.

…The “Keys” are not over the sacraments because Christ never said anything of the sort. He gave Peter the “Key’s” of The KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, not over Sacraments. Your opinion is void. “KEYS” are a representation of “opening and closing” something.

And so you say that the “opening and closing” has nothing to do with sacraments, such as the sacrament of Confession, where sins are forgiven, or Baptism for the forgivness of sins which places a man in the Body of Christ, which is the Kingdom of Heaven, or the sacrament of the Lords Supper, ‘so that sins may be forgiven’. Yet the scripture says that the Keys are used to forgive or retain sins! Every reference a Church Father has made that I have seen just reiterates this same teaching from the scripture.

…That means Authority over The Church since The Church requires “someone” to “open and close” on issues, doctrine, anything… Read the Old Testament on that meaning. The early Fathers wrote clearly on what The Keys represent. It wasn’t “Sacraments”.

I’m willing to be shown that I am mistaken about this. Can you, or anyone else, show us a quote from some Church Father that says that the Keys do not have to do with the forgiveness of sins, like the sacraments do, but rather they make the holder of them the boss of all the bishops in the Church?

The conflict between St Cyprian and Pope Steven seems to me to be an example of how Pope Steven used the Keys to make it so that even those who are heretics may exercise the sacrament of Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Logically the dispute between Pope Steven & St Cyprian made St Cyprian seem to be the correct one, because how is it possible that a heretic could have the baptism of the Church? Yet in retrospect we see that Pope Steven’s position was right; why can’t the reason Pope Steven was right be that he had the power to make it right through the exercise of the Keys that he only held?

 

[JohnVIII]

Ok [user]TP2[/user], we crossed in our postings & I see that you already quoted some Church Fathers. If your quotes are accurate you may have partly convinced me. I read them carefully and I can’t see were there is any teaching that the Keys are not for the Sacraments, but for the boss over other bishops. However, they do make it clear that St Peter is a head (whether it is because of the Keys or some other reason). Perhaps the holder of the Keys needs to be such a great man that St Peter had to be made super great!?

But from what you quoted it even goes further then what I thought Rome claimed to have!

…Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe…the presidency over the brethren…'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep…He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.

Is it so that the Bishop of Rome not only claims to be the boss of all bishops but is “set over the entire universe” & “teacher…of the whole world”? And so if the Pope has authority over the universe that would include the bishops of the Church as a subset of the universe! That’s what your quotes seem to imply!!!

I hesitate to jump to the conclusion that St Peter & the Bishops of Rome are in fact the boss of the entire universe. Your quotes call Peter the ‘Head’ of the brotherhood (and everything else), and then seems to define that headship by saying that he is “the ‘presidency’ over the brethren”. I’m ok with the Bishop of Rome ‘presiding’ over the Church as this does not make him have ‘power’ over all the Church. A presiding head is not is not a dictator over the universe. It says that he is a ‘teacher’ of the whole world, but a teacher is not a ruler. I see the Keys as a ‘power’, but I don’t see that it says that it is a power over the universe, world, or even over the Church. I still see that the power of the pope is limited to the sacraments of the Church. You have convinced me that he is a teacher over the whole Church, but not that he rules over the whole Church. The Pope can teach another self-ruling Catholic Church jurisdiction but that self-ruling jurisdiction has the right to rule itself and abide by what the pope says or not. If not then they remain a valid part of the Church and there is still nothing within the power of the pope to cause them to be punished for not following what the pope has taught; unless he wishes to use the Keys to make that jurisdiction unable to have any sacraments, but I can’t imagine that happening; if he were to try the Lord would surely stop him from doing so somehow!

Call my reluctance to go as far as you do in accepting to power of the pope crazy if you wish, but I see other valid apostolic traditions in the Church that are based on freedom that seem far more useful in furthering the work of the Lord than anything that can come of a power dictatorship of the pope could do. Tell me what good can come of such a religious universal dictatorship? I think we all could agree that Christ himself as a dictator on earth would be great and that only good could come of this, but is the pope really that great that he too could be nothing but good for the world as the dictator of the universe?!

 

[Gregory_I]

TP2 and John,

     I was thinking about this in the shower (where all inspiration is born) and I thought perhaps there is adequate middleground here between Peter holding the keys alone, and the Eastern claim that the Church as a whole holds the keys.

I will just put it simply, and maybe you two can extrapolate.

Christ gave the keys to Peter alone. Ok. But, in accord with Saint Augustine and others, the Church also received the keys THROUGH and FROM Peter. So, how about this:

Peter alone holds the keys, and the Churches in communion with him exercise the Power of the keys in their ordinary and extraordinary teaching offices. So the whole catholic church would exercise the power of the keys, because the Catholic church alone is in communion with he who holds them.

This is probably common sense to some, but I like to think things out from the opposite point of view and come full circle, so it’s a clear path in my mind.

However, one objection could be made to this: Peter’s infallibility does not exist apart from the Church. The Pope CANNOT innovate doctrine, he CANNOT break apostolic tradition, and he cannot rupture what is called the status ecclesiae, which is sort of hard to define, but basically and he cannot remake over the face of the church overnight, or bring others to contradict that which has been legitimately received. He also CANNOT define any doctrine that would be out of harmony with the mind of the church.

In the East, The church’s mind is definitive as a whole on doctrinal points, and this is guided by the Holy Spirit. Any external authority, whether it be Pope or ecumenical council does not exist to “lord it over the faithful” but to “serve and protect” the faith received and to guide the spirituality and practice of the faithful INTO the true Heart of the church. YES, I admit the Papacy is necessary for this, but, what I am getting to is that since the CHURCH CANNOT DEFECT, And since the Holy Spirit himself is the Soul of the Church, and since the Pope is ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE MIND OF THE CHURCH AS ITS HEAD: He cannot lead the church astray in matters of faith or morals that are solemnly defined. But this is not because His authority exists apart and OVER the church, it is because his authority is derived from the Heart of the church’s acknowledgment of the Words of Christ in Matt. 16;18-19.

To put it succinctly, the Church’s mind (sensus fidei) is guided as a Whole by the Holy Spirit. The Church recognizes, through the Holy Spirit, the Truth of Christ’s gift to Peter and his successors. So the Church recognizes the delegation of her authority to Peter, and as such, is bound by her own recognition to accept him as her head. BUt this is not some process of “Ok, NOW we understand that the Pope has power. Ok Pope, NOW you can officially represent us, the Church.” Really, it is just the fact that Aside from what Christ said to Peter, The church never contested the rights of the Bishop of Rome, and as such, fromt he times of the apostles, The church just kinda…got it. And accepted it.

Does any of this make sense? Help me, I think you know what I am saying.