Posted on 07/01/2005 2:22:18 AM PDT by kosta50
Only the interpretation in your church...
In yours as well, it would seem.
The Orthodox Faith - Fr. Thomas HopkoThe Tradition of the Church, however, maintains the testimony of the letters themselves, ascribing them to the foremost leader of Christ's apostles writing from "Babylon," which was the early Church's name for Rome, on the eve of his martyrdom there in the latter half of the first century (see 1 Pet 5:13, 2 Pet 1:14).
The Church assigned ther title "Protokoryphaioi" (leaders or chiefs) to St Peter and St Paul. This title, however, as indicated in the Orthodox Tradition, reflects their "functions, responsibilities, cares, and rôles; they do not, however, refer to special privileges, prerogatives, or authority."
Their work included more people, and was harder and more dangerous in the center of an Empire that persecuted them, so their contribution was naturally recognzied above those of other Churches.
That is a good link. Thank you MarMema.
But you denied that he was Prince, not that he was ruler. But since you mention it: "In this world there are many kings, not one, like that pope who is over the church of the whole world" (Letter of Rebuke from the Bishop of Patara to the Emperor Justinian, On the Exile of St. Silverius, 537 AD).
or that he has the right to imperial insignia
Look, this is just some silly thing from the Dictatus. Can we just forget about that? No one in the West treats the thing as a source of Catholic teaching, nor was it ever considered such.
What makes +Jerome's writing "official" is the faith behind it, not every word he says.
But here +Jerome speaks for the rest of the Fathers (as I said) - surely it is not necessary to dredge up the texts on St. Peter as prince.
We also venerate Sts. Peter and Paul as chiefs of the apostles. But St. Peter was the first and the chief of all of them. Chrysostom appears to differ on whether such titles imply authority, as I have shown - I think he's probably a good source for what those were thought to mean.
This are +Chrysostom's words...the New Testament says this:
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal 18-19)
+Paul went to see +Peter and +James. He went specifically to speak with +Peter but there is nothing that says here because "so greatly did he honor him and set him before all." That is +Chrysostom's version...it's ain't the Gospel.
+Paul doesn't say why he went to see +Peter or why he also saw +James but not others (maybe because they were busy baptizing the world!). +Paul also doesn't say anything about what they discussed. +Paul doesn't say "I went to see Peters because he is my leader, or because he is above me."
It seems to me these gaps were slowly "filled" by various Fathers as the time went by.
That the Apostles themselves did not buy into this interpretation as they argued who is first among them.
There is one instance where the NT "ranks" Apostles: "Peter as the "first" (Mat 10:2) but that can be because he was the oldest. It says nothing about first in authority.
No, the text only says that he went up "to see Peter". That he saw St. James incidentally doesn't mean that was the purpose of his visit.
It seems to me these gaps were slowly "filled" by various Fathers as the time went by.
They explained them in light of other parts of Scripture and the Apostolic traditions.
That the Apostles themselves did not buy into this interpretation as they argued who is first among them.
No, they argued about "which of them should seem to be the greater". That's not necessarily a reference to authority.
"Judging from what you wrote, it appears to me that you think that the entire Orthodox theology was made by people who didn't read the Scripture and/or didn't understand it."
I never said anything about the "entire Orthodox theology". I believe your interpretation of Mat 16 disregards the rest of the Scriptures. You are jumping to conclusions with your accusations.
"For, nowhere does the New Testament even hint that Peter was the "prince" of Apostles, nor that the Apostles considered him someone who alone possessed the purity of faith, or supreme authority in faith."
Where was I required to prove that? The Catholic Church does not make that claim - I don't recall anyone saying that the Pope possessed the purity of faith... As to him being the "prince", you'll have to define what you mean by prince. If you mean primacy of position, then it is painfully obvious you are wrong.
"...Dictatus Papae"
Frankly, these are notes of one pope, not formally promulgated as doctrine.
"The Church of the West changed with the Popes the way empires change with kings. The Orthodox Church remains unchanged despite many Patriarchs. The East never allowed an ordinary man to define the Church."
That is ridiculous! The East never allowed the Emperor to dictate policy? Have you ever studied the histories of heresies? Caesaropapism was rampant in the East...
"If the Church reflects the character of Her caretakers, it will change continuously. If the Church reflects only God, it will remain unchanged."
The Church, the Body of Christ, is human and divine. The Church consists of a changing element and an eternal one.
"That's why the Church is anchored on the faith, and not on men. Men come and go. It is the faith that defines the Church and makes it stand."
Agreed. But your argument does not follow.
"The key to the Kingdom of Heaven is the Faith."
Yes. But again, you are focusing on either/or. The key also supposes responsibility given to another. If I give you the keys to my house, does that indicate you have authority while I am not there? Sure, you will have to answer to me when I return for any mischief on your part, but you are the man in charge in my absence. I believe you are twisting Scripture to mean something more than its simple literal meaning.
"The validity of its Mysteries comes from the validity of the clergy, not from some external authority"
Agreed. And has nothing to do with Peter's special role among the apostles. For you to deny ANY special function of Peter is to deny the Scriptures themselves. WHY DID CHRIST CHANGE SIMON'S NAME? I already shown several cases of professions of faith - yet no name change. What about John and Luke's witness that Peter was given a special charge. Despite your denial, it is there in Scripture.
Now, we can argue about what EXACTLY this special role means, but you refuse even that. Even the Eastern Church itself will disagree with you on Peter's primacy among the Apostles.
St. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311 A.D.):
Head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, he became bishop around A.D. 300, reigning for about eleven years, and dying a martyr's death.
Peter, set above the Apostles. (Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv. p. 98)
St. Anthony of Egypt (330 A.D.):
Peter, the Prince of the Apostles (Anthony, Epist. xvii. Galland, iv p. 687).
St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):
Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).
The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)
St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):
The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180)
Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)
St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424):
He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)
He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)
Therefore, when the Lord had hinted at the disciple's denial in the words that He used, 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail,' He at once introduced a word of consolation, and said (to Peter): 'And do thou, when once thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.' That is, 'Be thou a support and a teacher of those who through faith come to me.' Again, marvel also at the insight of that saying and at the completeness of the Divine gentleness of spirit. For so that He should not reduce the disciple to despair at the thought that after his denial he would have to be debarred from the glorious distinction of being an Apostle, He fills him with good hope, that he will attain the good things promised. ...O loving kindness! The sin was not yet committed, and He already extends His pardon and sets him (Peter) again in his Apostolic office. (Cyril Comm. on Luke's Gospel)
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, &c.' 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.)
I think you get the gist. There are more that I have found than the ones that I have posted, but for the sake of shortness, I'll close here. There is room for discussion between Orthodox and the Latins on this issue, but we are going to have to AT LEAST go back to some common denominator. At the very least, it is clear that the East considered Peter had a special role among the Apostles. HE WAS NOT AN EQUAL...
Regards
Since you invoked the title "Prince of the Apostles," I have to ask, does a Prince rule the kingdom or does the King.
Who is the King?
And don't even thing of invoking that "who died and left you king nonsense!"
Can you cite examples of Paul being subservient to Peter? Thanks.
But this discounts the Orthodox understanding that humans are inherently fallible. There is no such thing as an infallible human, regardless of the position he holds or in the manner he speaks.
We understand that humans, even Bishops, err, as often proved when they contradict, or even modify, the rulings of a true Ecumenical Council.
I'm sorry, but how does greater authority not make make one "greater" in regards to authority on this earth.
Your statement contradicts itself.
Please reference those cases where it exists to this day?
This has been an interesting discussion to follow, everything from HTM's icons to St. Peter's clout. Just two hopefully helpful comments as follows:
1) When the state dictates religious teaching, this is erastianism, not Caesaropapism. Caeseropapism is the Pope, e.g. Pope Benedict VIII or Pope Innocent III, acting as if he were the Roman Emperor.
2) Another good read, but unfortunately out of print, is The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome 3d ed., rev. and enl. Puller, Frederick William, 1843-1938. Another good one, but much more feisty (too feisty for my taste!), is THE PAPACY: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations With the Eastern Churches by the Abbe Guettee. It's in print and also now on line.
A question. Granted that St. Peter was the leader of the holy apostles, so what? After all, he founded at least TWO episcopal sees. Tactually, therefore, the Patriarch of Antioch is as much a successor of St. Peter as was the Patriarch of the West.
Another question. How does the Church of Rome pope a pope? In Alexandria, the Pope of Alexandria is "poped" by being consecrated/ordained bishop of Alexandria. In Carthage, the Pope of Carthage is "poped" by being consecrated/ordained bishop of Carthage. So how is the Pope of Rome "poped"?
Actually it seems that the Orthodox position is that only western bishops are inherently fallible and err. Whenever the Orthodox are defining the consensus episcoporum they only refer to consensus among the eastern bishops as if they constituted the entire Church. The episcopacy of the west is as fully competent and authoritative as that of the east. If the Orthodox truly believed in the equality of all bishops they would recognize this and stop acting as if only they were the guardians of the truth and that the western bishops were somehow merely wayward and benighted children.
Again I would like to emphasize that in a correctly constituted Church the bishops in the east would only be part of a single united episcopacy and not a separate group that would have a collective veto power over the entire Church. I can find the unity of the Church in the gospels; I can find the authority of the bishops as the successors of the apostles. What I cannot find are national synods or patriarchates.
One could be greater in other ways than authority.
Really, all the Fathers agree, as you know, that some kind of primacy was conferred upon St. Peter by St. Matthew 16:18-19. I can't believe that it's necessary to prove this to you Orthodox who should respect their authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.