Posted on 05/29/2007 8:53:16 AM PDT by kawaii
Tenable? Maybe,but is it true? Don't forget the obligation as a Catholic to hold as truth the Infallibility of the Pope in regards to faith and morals.
I think there are many more instances in the new testament providing examples of Peters Primacy among the apostle, even if some wish to deny what seems to me fairly conclusive proof of his infallibility, which flows from the charism of his office.
I will not post all the quotes, for I don't have time right know. But I'm sure the rest of you well informed RC's can supply.
John 20:22-23 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
You seem to have missed my point entirely. Yes, the Apostles are given the power to bind and loose, but only Peter is given "the keys of the kingdom."
What do the keys represent?
They have meaning historically, as the physical representation of the office of the vice-regent of the House of David. In Rev. 3:7, we see that Jesus is the power behind the keys. In Matthew 16:19, we see Jesus give the key of this office to Peter.
The parallelism of these verses is powerful.
Isaiah 22:22The keys are given to Peter, not the Apostles!I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Revelation 3:7
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Matthew 16:19
"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."
Peter is the vice-regent of the eternal King of the House of David, not the Apostles!
And this makes sense, because there was only one vice-regent of the Davidic kingdom; only one "keeper of the keys."
Sorry, but that is just silly. Either its correct or its not, and you as one of the faithful should know right away if it is correct or not if you are truly orthodox in faith.
If its incorrect, the Church should never have accepted it, and presented it to others (such as the English non-jurors) as truth, which it did. The idea that a Council will come along 350 years later and say X, Y, and Z in this document we proposed previously as representing the faith is heretical means you don't really believe in an unchanging faith given once to the saints, rather you believe the faith is whatever a Church Council says it is. You might as well accept the Latrocinium then.
Not true.
Peter is told he "will" be given the keys but Matthew 16:19 does not tell of him actually receiving them. It is in John that they receive the Holy Spirit along with the ability to bind and loose and they do so all at the same time.
Cephas mentioned that there were other citations from Scripture to support primacy but the Orthodox do not take any of those to translate to the Bishop of Rome (so doing the cut-and-paste doesn't get us anywhere).
Ultimately, there is no way to reconcile these two positions and I do not believe that either side is going to alter their stance.
Good catch! I meant to say that the two positions can not be reconciled.
Sorry, 'no'.
which means that they’re in no way infailable and regardless of who the writer is there is no telling whether what they set forth is Orthodox doctrine or a personal opinion.
so our Greek fathers write a letter and it’s referencable fact but your own church’s catechism posten on the vatican web page might be wrong?!?
when has the church ‘accepted it’?
since when are laity able to make pronoucements on that canonicity of the statements of individual Bishops?
btw the councils took many years to reject ALL the early heresies.
Wow, that's DC Comics view of history. Time travel and all. The schism happened in 1054. The Fourth Crusade was in 1201–1204, hundred and fifty years later.
This is as if you claim that Luther's Reformation started because of the Peace of Westphalia. Utter nonsense. At least here on Earth.
The reason for schism in 1054 can not be something that happened in 1201.
However, the murderous looting of Constantinople can be explained the other way around. As well why the loot was never returned.
Has it ever occcured to you that "Orthodox schismatic" is an oxymoron? Schismatic is splinter from the trunk, not the trunk itself. it was Splinter that added Filioque to the Nicene creed, and the trunk opposed it.
I asume that is the reason why you call Orthodox Church "so called "Orthodox".
well said DTA!
Well, that verb there in Matt 16 "sou" is very much in the singular. So whether it's "will" give, or "am giving", or even "have given"...the point is that the direct object of the giving in that particular incident was Peter and Peter alone.
That's something special. Somehow the singular gift to Peter and the corporate gift to the Apostles of John and Matt 18:18 must coexist. Maybe we disagree on how exactly, but I don't like this idea of emphasizing one Scripture at the expense of another...no matter who does it.
They're both there...they both must be reckoned with.
Little researcj before posting might go a long way. Theolopgical differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were established long before the sacking of Constantinople by the crusaders.
Now I have to say that's a rather good point! :)
Are you referring to what happened when Saint Mark of Ephesus gathered the support of the laity against the other bishops?
To me, there is no conflict between the two unless someone attempts to claim that Peter's gift was somehow set apart from the rest. There's just nothing to suggest that was done.
As I said before, one side would have to give on the subject and I do not see that happening.
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.