Posted on 08/15/2004 7:09:04 PM PDT by TheStickman
Of course we recognize the Church Fathers, but they are not Ecumenical Councils. The opinion of individual Fathers does not have the authority of doctrine. Let’s not forget that Tertullian and Origen taught themselves right out of the Church, so no one can say that their opinions were without fault. Also, the Fathers you mention are all Latin, so their zeal for the Patriarch of Rome is that much more understandable.
Why are all your quotes from the 3rd century and not earlier? Could it be because the special office of papacy was unknown to the Church and because the Latin Fathers didn't play a prominent role in the Church, Tertulliam being the first? Why is there no instance where the will of the Pope was imposed over the decision of an Ecumenical Council. But, the contrary is true, where the Ecumenical Council passed a decision with which the Pope disagreed, but he could not change it.
The Greeks never denied St. Peter's primacy of honor among Apostles, and -- by extension -- his successors' primacy of honor among other bishops. What the orthodox reject is the notion that the Pope was given a mandate to rule the Church. The Church has one Head, and He is not the Pope.
Instead of being the last, and a servant to all, as Jesus said, the First Among Equals was too busy grabbing power - which eventually resulted in the splitting of the Church. It was the denial of the power he was not entitled to, and not the denial of his primacy of honor, that split the Church. The machine behind this power grab were the Frankish heretics with whom your church, sadly but apprently agrees.
The Bible leaves no doubt that Peter was the “senior” in honor and in age, and as such the honorary bearer of the “keys” to the Church, but that the NT does not single out any of the Apostles; in the end, all twelve of them will sit with Christ in judgment; all, not one.
I don't either. But this is not the only example. The others are the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church, and the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. An autocephalous Orthodox Church is the one that has a valid Patriarch who is in communion with the Patriarch in Constantinople and was accepted by the Synod of the Orthodox Church.
The process of gaining autocephaly is spelled out in the way the Church operates. Certain conditions have to be met. As far as I know, OCA does not have a Patriarch, but a Metropolitan (senior archbishop) whose church is in communion with an existing Patriarch. Metropolia is an auto-governing church (i.e. independent) whose nominal head is a Patriarch of another Church -- something like the members of the British Commonwelath who have their prime ministers whose head of state is the British Monarch. Thus, Canada has a prime minister, but the Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II.
Maybe Destro can shed more light on the technical aspect of your question.
Who received the Keys?
They all did, actually.
Can you cite a reference in scripture to support this? The only reference I can find is Matthew 16:19 and this is directed to Peter.
Thanks
John 20:19-23 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."In the reference that you cite, Peter is directly addressed when the keys are mentioned but they are delivered to all of the Apostles equally.
I'm sure you'll disagree otherwise you'd be Orthodox instead of Roman Catholic.
Oh yes, and I've heard ALL of the arguments surrounding this so let's not hijack this thread to run down that well-worn path again, please.
You're right, I don't buy the interpretation that the keys refereed only to the power to forgive sins and were distributed equally among the apostles. As far as "hijacking goes, I agree, we disagree and there's no point in going on.
"And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers," (1 Cor 12:28). There is no mention of Peter first.
There is no first because the first is the last, the master is the servant...
"He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out the unclean spirits and to heal every disease and sickness." (Mt 10:1)
The Church was built on the "rock" of faith expressed by Peter on behalf of all (the question was directed to all (Mt 16:15), but the cornerstone of the Church is Jesus.
Peter and his successors were always given primacy. But duiirng the first 1,000 years of Christianity, the office of papacy was nothing even resembling the createure of the Vatican I. The more time elapsed from the Pentecost, the greater the myth of papacy became in the minds of men.
Yes, this is an excellent opportunity to "agree to disagree" without generating so much heat with so very little light.
Amen. Ecumenical endevors are well beyond my paygrade:)
It turns out that instead of the faith being eternal and immutable -- the creations of men are. Not that we would let pride get in the way of a higher goal.
Pride is a foolish vanity and I look forward to the day when I can either seek for giveness for adhering to error or graciously forgive those who previously held and eronious position. Who am I controvert the will of God?
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.