Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Stay Catholic ^

Posted on 02/03/2007 1:58:47 PM PST by NYer

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

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 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: church; peter; pope; primacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

The Crucifixion of Saint Peter

Please allow a few minutes for me to post the Scriptural Source for this thread. Thank you!

1 posted on 02/03/2007 1:58:51 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

In keeping with guidelines posted by the Religion Moderator, we are posting this thread (and future ones) a series on the Early Church Fathers, as a Catholic/Orthodox Caucus. Protestants are welcome to post comments but restraint from attacks, would be appreciated. This thread is posted to inform, support and defend the historic orgins of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches

2 posted on 02/03/2007 2:03:50 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Scriptural Basis

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen." - Matthew 28:18-20

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And 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. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." - Matthew 16:13-20

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you." - John 16:13-14

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." - John 21:15-17

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 18:18


3 posted on 02/03/2007 2:06:06 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on the "Papacy:"

869. "The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: 'the twelve apostles of the Lamb' [Rev 21:14.]. She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops."

881. "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. [Cf. Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17 .] 'The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.' [LG 22 # 2.] This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope."

882. "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.' [LG 23.] 'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.' [LG 22; cf. CD 2,9.]"

895. "'The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.' [LG 27.] But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope."


4 posted on 02/03/2007 2:08:10 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.

When the names of all the Apostles are listed, Peter is always first. Judas Iscariot, the Lord’s traitor, is always listed last (cf. Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). Sometimes Scripture speaks simply of “Simon Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (cf. Luke 9:32; Mark 16:7; Acts 2:37), showing that he had a special role that represented the entire apostolic college. Often, Scripture shows Simon Peter as spokesman for the entire apostolic college, as if he were the voice of the Church (cf. Mat. 18:21; Mark 8:29; Luke 8:45; Luke 12:41; John 6:68-69).

The Primacy of Peter

5 posted on 02/03/2007 2:12:42 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
There is an unbroken line of succession from St. Peter. The current successor ...


Pope Benedict XVI

6 posted on 02/03/2007 2:15:52 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force." Canon VI of the Council of Nicea, 325


7 posted on 02/03/2007 2:21:16 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Early Church Fathers

The Early Church Fathers on The Church (Catholic Caucus)

Early Church Fathers on (Oral) Tradition - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

The Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

The Early Church Fathers on Purgatory - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]

The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)

8 posted on 02/03/2007 2:46:22 PM PST by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Assisted by two papal priest-legates, Vito and Vincentius, Hosius of Cordova presided at the Council of Nicaea. It is reasonably certain that Pope Sylvester had designated Hosius, as well as the two legates, to represent him. Hosius and the legates were the first to sign the decrees of the Council. In fact, says historian Luke Rivington, the Graeco-Russian liturgy, in the office for Pope Sylvester, speaks of him as actual head of the Council of Nicaea: "Thou hast shown thyself the supreme one of the Sacred Council, O Initiator into the sacred mysteries, and hast illustrated the Throne of the Supreme One of the Disciples."

The Council of Nicaea condemned the teachings of Arius as blasphemy and accepted the word homoousios ("of one substance") as the appropriate term for the relation of God the Father and God the Son. The result of the council, according to Gillquist, was that "the Orthodoxy of Athanasius had prevailed at the Council." The orthodoxy of whom? Where did Athanasius get his "Orthodoxy"? From Pope Victor, who a century and a half earlier had condemned the teaching of Theodotus, a doctrinal ancestor of Arius, and from Pope Dionysius, who sixty years earlier had condemned what was called later the Arian heresy and who fixed the term homoousios as a key to authentic Christology.

Meyendorff ignores the repeated, clearly attested exercise of papal universal jurisdiction which we have seen in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. He declares that, except for the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the papacy "had no decisive influence upon the trinitarian and christological debates raging in the East" in the early centuries. Instead, the ultimate ecclesial authority was "the conciliar agreement of the episcopate." The facts are otherwise. Only the successor of Peter could and did "strengthen the brethren" and bring about the triumph of orthodox christology.

Read More

9 posted on 02/03/2007 3:42:55 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Thank you for keeping track of these threads and posting the links!


10 posted on 02/03/2007 3:47:40 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: crazykatz; JosephW; lambo; MoJoWork_n; newberger; The_Reader_David; jb6; wildandcrazyrussian; ...

Orthodox ping. Take a look at post #9. It appears that the Catholic/Orthodox Caucus thread on the "Early Church Fathers" will be using post schism Latin polemics and apologetics to advance the claims of the papacy to universal immediate jurisdiction to which we are expected to "submit". Anyone care to have a chat with them about this?


11 posted on 02/03/2007 4:46:34 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Written by a convert from TEC I see.


12 posted on 02/03/2007 4:52:55 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The Pope has no "universal" jurisdiction. He is primus inter pares, nothing more.


13 posted on 02/03/2007 5:03:48 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Texas Secessionist Conservative, US Navy Veteran, Orthodox Christian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

I'm not submitting, and that is for SURE!
The "gauntlet" has been thrown!


14 posted on 02/03/2007 5:06:40 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Texas Secessionist Conservative, US Navy Veteran, Orthodox Christian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

"I'm not submitting, and that is for SURE!"

Nor I nor any Orthodox Christian; for that matter, most of the Eastern Rite Catholics aren't submitting even now. God willing, our hierarchs won't be as foolish as those who represented us at Florence! If they are, they'll meet with the same result their predecessors did.


15 posted on 02/03/2007 5:17:37 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Kolokotronis

(Peacemaker/humorist role on)

Sometimes when I'm feeding the birds, several crows will assemble.

They will size each other up by pointing their beaks straight into the sky whilst unfurling their feathers.

The largest of them will then triumphantly announce, "Kwawawaawaaawaaaaa Ki-Ki-Ki!"

Sometimes this annoys the second largest, who then pokes the largest with his beak. Big Bird usually squawks something unprintable here, and trots off.

Moral of the story?

(Cliché time!)

"Can't we all just get along?"

:^D


16 posted on 02/03/2007 5:49:29 PM PST by Enosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Written by a convert from TEC I see.

And your point is???

17 posted on 02/03/2007 6:00:22 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; TexConfederate1861; Enosh
Every government ..... every corporation ... every enterprise .... has one person at its helm. Consensus can rule for just so long; ultimately it requires a 'final' decision maker. Is it so difficult to accept that even Christ recognized this and chose St. Peter to be that person? As such, successors to that chair have followed.

This is not intended to diminsh the roles of Patriarchs, Cardinals, Metropolitans, bishops, et al. If anything, it supports the need for their input into all discussions of faith. (I now know this intimately by virtue of my choosing to join the Maronite Catholic Church which has a Pariarch as its overseer.) But, ultimately, there needs to be a final voice. And that voice is the Successor of St. Peter.

18 posted on 02/03/2007 6:09:15 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"And your point is???"

That he had two choices if he wanted to stay in a liturgical church. He chose Rome doubtless because of the control from the top system and the claimed infallibility of the Pope. And like so many converts, he has become something of a polemical partisan of the false claims of the Papacy.

In all honesty, NYer, if I believed for one minute that Rome still claimed what this author asserts, I'd do everything in my power to make sure the next meeting of the dialog is the last. Its just such attitudes in the Roman Church which make us Orthodox recall the warning of +Mark of Ephesus:

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism - the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."


19 posted on 02/03/2007 6:12:22 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; NYer

Christ is our boss.

Friends, you are the two crows fighting over nothing in my joke observation.

Christ is our boss.


20 posted on 02/03/2007 6:25:57 PM PST by Enosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NYer; TexConfederate1861; Enosh

"But, ultimately, there needs to be a final voice. And that voice is the Successor of St. Peter."

A final infallible voice? That voice belongs to The Church, NYer. What you propose, Orthodoxy sees as heresy. One of the greatest Orthodox saints of the 20th century, one particularly noted for cures of all sorts of illnesses, especially cancer (the son of my secretary was cured of his terminal cancer through the intercessions of this saint) +Nektarios of Aegina wrote this:

"Through the dogma of "Infallibility" the Western church lost its spiritual freedom. It lost its beauty and balance, and was deprived of the wealth of the grace of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Christ- from spirit and soul and ended up a dead body. We are truly grieved for the injustice done to the church and we pray from the bottom of our hearts that the Holy Spirit illumine the mind and the heart of the Most Blessed Pontiff to have him return to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH that which he took from her, something that should never have taken place."

This is the cry of anguish of the Orthodox Church for its elder brother at Rome, NYer.

"I now know this intimately by virtue of my choosing to join the Maronite Catholic Church which has a Pariarch as its overseer."

Do you believe for one minute that +Sfeir jumps when the pope says jump, not that even +BXVI would try to tell him what to do? How long do you think it would take for the Patriarch of the Melkites to jump ship if Rome presumed to tell him what to do, let alone what to believe?


21 posted on 02/03/2007 6:36:35 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

yes, Christ is our boss but Peter His spokesman :)


22 posted on 02/03/2007 9:00:52 PM PST by rogernz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

"Can't we all just get along?"


NO! we can't. Orthodox Christians do not compromise on matters of faith. The Latin Position on Papal Authority was wrong in 1054, and it STILL is in 2007.


23 posted on 02/03/2007 9:42:59 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Texas Secessionist Conservative, US Navy Veteran, Orthodox Christian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rogernz

Peter was Bishop of Antioch, FIRST.
ALL of the Apostles spoke for Christ.


24 posted on 02/03/2007 9:46:22 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Texas Secessionist Conservative, US Navy Veteran, Orthodox Christian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism - the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

The Holy Father makes no such claim.

25 posted on 02/04/2007 12:21:08 AM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Speaking strickly in terms of practicality:

How would it work to EO satisfaction to roll back before 1054? Wouldn't they require the RC to revoke dogma?

Is there any way to meet the requirements of the Orthodox without this?


26 posted on 02/04/2007 12:39:59 AM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; NYer
That voice belongs to The Church, NYer.

Spoken like a 'true' Protestant. Somewhere, Martin Luther is applauding. His teaching on the "priesthood of all believers" is "spiritual egalitarianism", and was what led to the anarchism of the Anabaptists and the rampant individualism of contemporary Protestantism.

Kolokotronis, listen to your Eastern fathers. Sorry NYer, but your list is somewhat wimpy compared to my list of fathers on Petrine primacy. :-) Included in my list of quotations are many Eastern fathers, and their voices could not be more explicit.

And second, you absolutely have to read Soloviev's The Russian Church and the Papacy.

What you propose, Orthodoxy sees as heresy.

Nektarios of Aegina, not being infallible, is wrong when he denies the ex cathedra infallibility of the bishop of Rome. Nektarious does not carry any weight compared to the Eastern fathers that I quote in my list. On the issue of Rome, the East has departed from what it once held, as my list of quotations shows.

It is time to get over this. It is time to stop stubbornly and repeatedly assuring us that you (plural, somehow, you think it possible for you to speak for all the EOC) will never submit to Peter's successor. It is time to start working with us at least to figure out the truth together and to find a way of reconciling with a different spirit. When you repeatedly declare that you (and all the EOC) will never submit, and that our position is "heresy", that is *not* the spirit that will lead to the reconciliation that is absolutely necessary in the body of Christ. Though you have accused us of "heresy", I will only ask of you to adopt greater humility. Read my list, and read Soloviev. Read Stephen Ray's Upon This Rock. And come to the table with a different attitude, a rolling up your shirt sleeves, lets-get-to-the-bottom-of-this, sort of attitude (since, as you said before, from your point of view, the reconciliation between is not going to happen 'above' us. Well, let it then start between you (Kolokotronis) and Pope Benedict XVI.

I'm planning on reading The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, edited by Meyendorff. That provides an Orthodox perspective on the question. My point in mentioning that is to show that I'm working on reading *your* side. Are you willing to read *our* side? In order to work out this 953 year-old schism, we have to be willing to read each other's evidence and argumentation.

It seems to me that you have not grasped the significance of Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter. The visible Church has a head. Not every member is the head.

Blessings to you brother, on this the Lord's Day.

-A8

27 posted on 02/04/2007 4:44:37 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

"How would it work to EO satisfaction to roll back before 1054? Wouldn't they require the RC to revoke dogma?"

The only way it could work is if we all believe the exact same things in matters of dogma. On virtually all of the areas of disagreement arising before Vatican I I think a council can deal with them. The big one, filioque, has pretty much been nuanced out of existence anyway, though the IC may pose a problem for two reasons. First it arises out of an understanding of the Sin of Adam which is foreign to Orthodoxy and (I've often wondered if the Calvinist view of +Augustine didn't in some way contribute to Rome's notions by the 19th century) second it arguably raises questions on the human nature of Christ. I vaguely remember seeing a way around this once, but I've forgotten what it was.

Post Vatican I we have real problems for precisely the reason +Nektarios pointed out back in the early 20th century; with that declaration, the Church of Rome lost its spiritual freedom to function as a church. Everything about reunion hinges on this one issue, the proper exercise of the Petrine Office which of course our hierarchs and yours recognize. Without the infallibilty claim and an enforcible claim of immediate universal jurisdiction, even that could be worked out, but....

My suspicion is that if there is a way to cut this seeming Gordian Knot, it lies in the nature of Vatican I and indeed all the post schism councils of the churches. They were of necessity, despite what Rome may have once claimed, local and therefore only binding on the churches involved. Now even that doesn't fully solve the problem because even if the dogmas of Vatican I were said to apply only to Rome and its dependencies (save the Melkites who very wisely conditioned their assent)I sincerely doubt that Orthodoxy would enter into communion with a church which denied the basic equality of all bishops and the synergistic nature of The Church even if only internally (not to say that some of our hierarchs wouldn't love to see exactly that; they've tried before, recently in fact but we didn't let them get away with it). Maybe there's a way to call those declarations disciplinary in some fashion and thus subject to change? Maybe an Ecumenical Council, since there would necessarily have to be one, could overrule Vatican I? I don't know.

One thing is certain. Whatever the hierarchs come up with will have to be acceptable to the whole Church and despite our Orthodox nostalgia for a pre 1054 system, the fact is that the world has changed in the past 950 years and the necessity that The Church speak with one voice to, frankly, save civilization is magnified, at least as to the area in play. Rome needs Orthodoxy to make a common front not only against the Mohammedan threat, but also to the poisonous weed of secular humanism which has sapped the strength of Western First World culture. We can't go back to a system where Patriarchs communicated occassionally by letter or envoy and met only every 100+ years or so in an Ecumenical Council. Today the exercise of the Petrine Ministry and the primacy of the Church of Rome needs some sort of authority to actually make those offices meaningful. I don't know what that would be. I know it won't include infallibility or immediate universal jurisdiction. I would think it would have to include something which never existed before and that's some sort of Patriarchal world synod headed by the pope as the primus to deal with issues which affect the entire Church.


28 posted on 02/04/2007 4:55:38 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; NYer; D-fendr; TexConfederate1861

Proof texting the Fathers is as fruitless a pursuit as when the heterodox proof text the scriptures. What counts is the reality of the consensus patrum and how that worked on the ground. The Eastern Churches never accepted Rome's pretentions to universal immediate jurisdiction. The appeals to Rome made by various Fathers were made pursuant to an authority given by the Council of Sardica, an authority which was limited and only could be exercised in individual cases and accepted only if the hierarch involved chose to accept the decision. The authority of the pope lay in three areas; first, his Orthodox Teaching, second his primacy and third his right to break communion (which is not an anthema) with the offending hierarch. Examples of how this works can be seen in the way the EP and Moscow handled the matter of the Estonian Church.

Now, you doubt that an Orthodox person can speak for the Orthodox Church on these matters. You are very, very wrong. What I and the other Orthodox Christians here believe about this question is of the utmost importance because without our agreement, there will be no reunion. You say that I spoke like a Protestant, and yet Protestantism is the child of Rome, not the East. It was Rome which introduced dogmatic innovations in derogation of the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils, not Orthodoxy. It was Rome which concluded that it had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.

The excesses of Rome lead to the Protestant Reformation. The outrage of Vatican I lead to this following comment by the +Anthimos VII and the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in their response to Praeclara Gratulationis of Pope Leo XIII. Noting that unity of the churches can only be founded on a complete unity of faith, the Synod, in A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Reunion, wrote inter alia:

"XIV Passing over, then, these serious and substantial differences between the two churches respecting the faith, which differences, as has been said before, were created in the West, the Pope in his encyclical represents the question of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as the principal and, so to speak, only cause of the dissension, and sends us to the sources, that we may make diligent search as to what our forefathers believed and what the first age of Christianity delivered to us. But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church, for 'He is the Head of the body, the Church," [14] who said also to His divine disciples and apostles at His ascension into heaven, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' [15] In the Holy Scripture the Apostle Peter, whom the Papists, relying on apocryphal books of the second century, the pseudo-Clementines, imagine with a purpose to be the founder of the Roman Church and their first bishop, discusses matters as an equal among equals in the apostolic synod of Jerusalem, and at another time is sharply rebuked by the Apostle Paul, as is evident from the Epistle to the Galatians. [16] Moreover, the Papists themselves know well that the very passage of the Gospel to which the Pontiff refers, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' [17] is in the first centuries of the Church interpreted quite differently, in a spirit of orthodoxy, both by tradition and by all the divine and sacred Fathers without exception; the fundamental and unshaken rock upon which the Lord has built His own Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, being understood metaphorically of Peter's true confession concerning the Lord, that 'He is Christ, the Son of the living God.' [18] Upon this confession and faith the saving preaching of the Gospel by all the apostles and their successors rests unshaken. Whence also the Apostle Paul, who had been caught up into heaven, evidently interpreting this divine passage, declares the divine inspiration, saying: 'According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' [19] But it is in another sense that Paul calls all the apostles and prophets together the foundation of the building up in Christ of the faithful; that is to say, the members of the body of Christ, which is the Church; [20] when he writes to the Ephesians: 'Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the house hold of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.' [21] Such, then, being the divinely inspired teaching of the apostles respecting the foundation and Prince of the Church of God, of course the sacred Fathers, who held firmly to the apostolic traditions, could not have or conceive any idea of an absolute primacy of the Apostle Peter and the bishops of Rome; nor could they give any other interpretation, totally unknown to the Church, to that passage of the Gospel, but that which was true and right; nor could they arbitrarily and by themselves invent a novel doctrine respecting excessive privileges of the Bishop of Rome as successor, if so be, of Peter; especially whilst the Church of Rome was chiefly founded, not by Peter, whose apostolic action at Rome is totally unknown to history, but by the heaven-caught apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, through his disciples, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is well known to all. [22]

XV. The divine Fathers, honoring the Bishop of Rome only as the bishop of the capital city of the Empire, gave him the honorary prerogative of presidency, considering him simply as the bishop first in order, that is, first among equals; which prerogative they also assigned afterwards to the Bishop of Constantinople, when that city became the capital of the Roman Empire, as the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon bears witness, saying, among other things, as follows: 'We do also determine and decree the same things respecting the prerogatives of the most holy Church of the said Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers have rightly given the prerogative to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the hundred and fifty most religious bishops, moved by the same consideration, assigned an equal prerogative to the most holy throne of New Rome.' From this canon it is very evident that the Bishop of Rome is equal in honor to the Bishop of the Church of Constantinople and to those other Churches, and there is no hint given in any canon or by any of the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome alone has ever been prince of the universal Church and the infallible judge of the bishops of the other independent and self-governing Churches, or the successor of the Apostle Peter and vicar of Jesus Christ on earth."

Here's a link to the entire encyclical. While much of what the Synod speaks of has been resolved or near resolved, the issue of Petrine Supremacy remains, for Orthodoxy, in every aspect identical today as it was then. Proof texting the Fathers then didn't work and it won't work now.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1895orthodoxencyclical.html


29 posted on 02/04/2007 5:40:14 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; adiaireton8; D-fendr; TexConfederate1861
The apostles chose successors. But what authority did Jesus give to Peter himself? Matthew 16:19 tells us that Christ gave Peter both the power of the keys and the power of binding and loosing. The first was given to Peter alone (Matt. 16:19), the second also to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18).

As noted in my post above,

One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times.

30 posted on 02/04/2007 6:11:38 AM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
You say that I spoke like a Protestant, and yet Protestantism is the child of Rome, not the East.

If you have studied the life and writings of Luther, as I have, you would know how often Luther appealed to the state of the Eastern Churches to justify his schism. Protestantism is in that respect the younger sister of the Orthodox; the Orthodox set the example for her, and like a younger sister Protestantism followed that example.

-A8

31 posted on 02/04/2007 7:24:09 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
When you appeal to Nektarios, that's evidence. But when I appeal to fifteen pages of unanimous consent of the early fathers, that's "proof-texting".

Amazing.

-A8

32 posted on 02/04/2007 7:27:42 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
and accepted only if the hierarch involved chose to accept the decision.

Do you think Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, accepted the decision to be removed from his office. No, he did not. Soldiers had to be brought in to forcibly remove him from the church building. That was almost 80 years before Sardica.

Sardica did not *give* the bishop of Rome any authority. It recognized his authority, as the authority to whom accused bishops could appeal. And throughout the early church we see examples of accused or troubled bishops and priests appealing to the bishop of Rome. Have you read the documents from Sardica? I have.

It was Rome which introduced dogmatic innovations in derogation of the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils,

Name one such derogation.

It was Rome which concluded that it had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.

Name one place where Rome claims to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Can't do it? Ok, now retract your ridiculous straw man. (It wouldn't be your first straw man either; NYer just had to correct your claim that the Pope makes himself out equal to God, as if you didn't really know better.)

The excesses of Rome lead to the Protestant Reformation.

That's a red herring. Instead of pointing to the Protestants, let's focus on the schism between the Orthodox and the Catholics.

I have to run. Talk to you later.

-A8

33 posted on 02/04/2007 7:46:11 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; D-fendr; TexConfederate1861

"Name one such derogation."

Did they leave out the filioque in in RCIA? How about the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility? Created grace?

"Name one place where Rome claims to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Can't do it?"

Vatican I. Want some more?

"Ok, now retract your ridiculous straw man. (It wouldn't be your first straw man either; NYer just had to correct your claim that the Pope makes himself out equal to God, as if you didn't really know better.)"

Isn't that what the Vicar of Christ on Earth means, God's viceroy in effect, A? According to you guys, Christ handed over the keys to heaven to +Peter. I suppose that means the Pope gets to decide who gets in, or whether God gets out? That's not a strawman, A. That's what underlay the ecclesiological heresy which forced Rome out of The Church and ultimately lead to the Protestant Revolution.


34 posted on 02/04/2007 10:27:43 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

"When you appeal to Nektarios, that's evidence."

It is evidence of the facts on the ground, facts that have been on that ground for 1100 years. One would think Roman Catholics would accept that, learn from that and move on. Personally, I think +BXVI and +Kasper fully understand this otherwise there would be no dialog right now. But I doubt 1 in 100,000 Roman Catholics do.

"But when I appeal to fifteen pages of unanimous consent of the early fathers, that's "proof-texting"."

Indeed it is because you, like 1100 years of Latins before you haven't a clue what the consensus patrum says about this and ignore how the Petrine Ministry actually worked in the first 900 years of The Church.

"Amazing"

Indeed it is.


35 posted on 02/04/2007 10:33:40 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

"If you have studied the life and writings of Luther, as I have, you would know how often Luther appealed to the state of the Eastern Churches to justify his schism."

Luther's justifications were his alone. Orthodoxy didn't give him an imprimatur. Indeed within a generation of his death, the EP slapped down his successors hard when they appealed to him. I must say that to say that the Protestant Revolution was some how or other Orthodoxy's fault is rather beyond the pale. To my knowledge, even the most fanatical partisans of the papacy never claimed that, though I could be wrong. It sounds, however, like something the Latins would say, their pope being infallible and all and they did say that the Protestant's revolt was in effect a revolt against God Himself.


36 posted on 02/04/2007 10:40:03 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYer; adiaireton8; D-fendr; TexConfederate1861

"One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times."

And the Blessed Mother is mentioned how many times, NYer? Oh, wait, I know...19 times. Clearly she is far, far less important that the successor to +Peter, right?


37 posted on 02/04/2007 10:54:46 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Christ answered the question Himself, no one of the Apostles had authority over the rest.
38 posted on 02/04/2007 10:59:22 AM PST by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Thanks for your excellent reply. It did show me some possible practical avenues, which is what I asked for.

And more hope in what I thought I was hearing was hopeless. And that's what I was really asking for.

Barbarians are at both gates. I don't think we have much time. The way must be found.

thanks again for your reply.


39 posted on 02/04/2007 11:07:53 AM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

"thanks again for your reply."

You are very welcome as always.


40 posted on 02/04/2007 11:18:15 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; adiaireton8; TexConfederate1861
Did they leave out the filioque in in RCIA? How about the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility? Created grace?

I know you asked this rhetorically, but I'd like to answer it, to give a perspective.

It's been a while since RCIA for me, but maybe less than for others.

Created Grace: I don't remember being taught this. It seems very likely it would have been in some reading or handout, but I don't remember it. Likely because it didn't interest me or raise questions - which was what I focused on in RCIA. And as it applies to praxis, my information was other sources than theology. I actually had to go just now and read up on it. And I see where the conflict is.

Papal Infallibility: Yes, briefly. It was described as rare, special, the usual that you hear in RC apologetics. Personally, I saw and heard this as a last resort. I had overcome my anti-authority bias, so I put this in that category. I can choose to join, stay or leave, but there is a final authority and a hierarchy. I hadn't even considered the objection from the Orthodox perspective. I certainly see it now.

Immaculate Conception: Yes, of course, taught and discussed. Here's the odd thing: Coming from a bible belt Protestant background I saw the teaching on Adam's sin as much more truthful in the RC. So my comparison was with the Protestant, Calvinistic, view, rather than the Orthodox.

Filioque: Of course, the creed was centermost. The scriptural basis for each point was discussed; I don't remember if "from the Father through the Son" was used at all; Orthodox history was not discussed. Again, the culture I live in is Protestant or RC, not Orthodox or RC. My overall reaction or decision on the Creed was: "Close enough if you have to use words." My primary entry point was through the Contemplatives. I don't know if this is blasphemous, but theology was secondary. So long as what I was being taught did not negate or contradict or inhibit, I mostly looked beyond theology, if that's possible. I was reading St. John OTC, Meister Eckhart, Merton concurrently. This was Catholocism to me as much or more as what I was being taught in RCIA. And in private discussions with my teachers, this is where I was focused.

I'm pretty ignorant in a lot of these areas. RCIA in my case was not presented as choices, but as a description of what the RC teaches and questions and problems with this teaching. Without knowing the Orthodox view, and being a neophyte with theology in general...

I'm reading about Orthodox theology, rather spirituality now from Orthodox sources, and I'm reading Bishop Ware's book on The Orthodox Church. I also read the wiki entry on the Filoque Clause.It seemed a balanced, even hopeful, presentation; I don't know if it's an accurate one.

You guys are far far ahead of me on the theology and the history; I'm playing catchup from a great distance behind. I do think it's helpful for each of us to know more about the other's experience. One of the reasons I joined the Church was its breadth, and to me, where I am most often found - it is the same Church. It's a big Church, the walls are erected as far out as possible. We in here are, I believe, very close to the center, not close to the boundaries. And at the center is our spirituality.

My view only, FWIW with apologies for the length.

41 posted on 02/04/2007 12:02:32 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Did they leave out the filioque in in RCIA? How about the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility? Created grace?

Those aren't "derogations". The very notion that these are "derogations" falsely presupposes that the bishop of Rome does not have the authority that he has. In other words, you are begging the question by calling them "derogations".

"Name one place where Rome claims to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Can't do it?"

Vatican I. Want some more?

Vatican I never claimed that Rome had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. I am amazed at these straw man. Do you really think it did claim that, or are you just pulling my leg?

Isn't that what the Vicar of Christ on Earth means, God's viceroy in effect, A? According to you guys, Christ handed over the keys to heaven to +Peter. I suppose that means the Pope gets to decide who gets in, or whether God gets out? That's not a strawman, A. That's what underlay the ecclesiological heresy which forced Rome out of The Church and ultimately lead to the Protestant Revolution.

Now you pull the bait and switch. The claim was whether Rome has a "monopoly on the Holy Spirit". When I challenge that claim, you speculate about whether that's what "Vicar of Christ" means (no, it doesn't mean that). Then you construct another straw man in claiming that Christ giving the keys to Peter means that Peter gets to decide "whether God gets out". If you *do* know that it doesn't mean that, then you are intentionally constructing straw men. And if you *don't* know that it doesn't mean that, then you need to pick up a copy of the Catechism, and read it through carefully.

Then you claim that Rome is "outside of the Church".

Outside what Church? The Orthodox are not even one Church. They are a multitude of independent and autonomous Churches. Why? Because they are separated from Peter, their head and their principle of unity, which you would have seen if you had carefully studied my quotations from the fathers (which you obviously didn't, because you replied so fast), and if you had read Soloviev.

Indeed it is because you, like 1100 years of Latins before you haven't a clue what the consensus patrum says about this and ignore how the Petrine Ministry actually worked in the first 900 years of The Church.

That's an ad hominem. Engaging in ad hominems does not get us any closer to the truth or to reconciliation.

I must say that to say that the Protestant Revolution was some how or other Orthodoxy's fault is rather beyond the pale.

I didn't claim it was "Orthodoxy's fault". The Catholic Church has already admitted that there were sins on both sides (Protestant and Catholic). But there is no doubt when you read Luther, that he justified his schism by appealing to the example of the ECs.

It sounds, however, like something the Latins would say, their pope being infallible and all

That is an ad hominem and a straw man. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible simpliciter, but only under very specific conditions. Outside those conditions, popes have erred in many ways, as they themselves have admitted.

and they did say that the Protestant's revolt was in effect a revolt against God Himself.

Indeed, as Ignatius of Antioch said over and over in his epistles. Obedience to the bishop is obedience to God, for he is God's representative. It is not a zero-sum situation, just as "doing it to one of the least of these" is doing it unto Christ, but in the case of bishop, a fortiori. When Luther burned Exsurge Domine, he was scorning the rebuke of the Lord Himself.

-A8

42 posted on 02/04/2007 12:07:32 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
It lost its beauty and balance, and was deprived of the wealth of the grace of the Holy Spirit,

You apparently take offense over a claim that Rome has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit, even though Rome never claimed that. But then you do not hesitate to claim that Rome is deprived of the wealth and grace of the Holy Spirit.

Go figure. Double standards all over the place here.

-A8

43 posted on 02/04/2007 12:20:11 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Who has more authority: Nektarios of Aegina, or the successor of Peter?

-A8

44 posted on 02/04/2007 12:21:57 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Do you believe for one minute that +Sfeir jumps when the pope says jump, not that even +BXVI would try to tell him what to do? How long do you think it would take for the Patriarch of the Melkites to jump ship if Rome presumed to tell him what to do, let alone what to believe?

Why do you speculate on the strength of this relation? Are you trying to separate what God has joined together? It is enough that there is full communion there. Something you and I presently lack. Let us not tear down what has already been joined together, by speculating about the strength of the relation, based on hypotheticals. Let us instead focus on *our* task, which is getting ourselves in full communion with each other. Satan would greatly delight in weakening or breaking those unions which the Spirit through charity and humility has effected.

-A8

45 posted on 02/04/2007 12:28:09 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
The Latin Position on Papal Authority was wrong in 1054.

How do you know this?

-A8

46 posted on 02/04/2007 12:29:08 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Why didn't the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) become canon law?

-A8

47 posted on 02/04/2007 12:37:25 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; FormerLib; adiaireton8; D-fendr; TexConfederate1861
And the Blessed Mother is mentioned how many times, NYer? Oh, wait, I know...19 times. Clearly she is far, far less important that the successor to +Peter, right?

Your analogy, dear friend, is misplaced. We're discussing the primacy of Peter amongst the Apostles, not the Blessed Mother.

Our Lord said to Peter - "You are Peter and upon this rock - Cephas - I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." He didn't say "upon you and the other disciples". He said 'rock' - not rocks, boulders, stones, etc. So let's take a closer look at how the other disciples viewed Peter. From Scripture Catholic


Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.


Christ passed the leadership of His Church to Peter and that leadership has been handed down in unbroken succession to the present 'leader' - Pope Benedict XVI. And, K, the room where the newly elected pontiff changes into his papal dress, is called the Room of Tears, for obvious reasons. These are not tears of joy but tears of humility at the awesome responsibility shouldered by this individual to guide the Church, founded by Jesus Christ. His great consolation is knowing that he has the Holy Spirit to guide him along.

48 posted on 02/04/2007 12:43:38 PM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

"It is enough that there is full communion there. Something you and I presently lack. Let us not tear down what has already been joined together, by speculating about the strength of the relation, based on hypotheticals. Let us instead focus on *our* task, which is getting ourselves in full communion with each other."

I see RCIA left out the section on what communion means too. You and I are not in communion with each other now, nor will we ever be. My ancestors 1500 years ago were not in communion with yours, unless they were bishops. Communion is a relationship between bishops, A.


49 posted on 02/04/2007 12:52:32 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

"Who has more authority: Nektarios of Aegina, or the successor of Peter?"

To say what Orthodox Christians of his era, the early 20th century, believed about Rome? That's easy, the saint.


50 posted on 02/04/2007 12:54:24 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson