Orthodox-What is Your View Re The "Primacy" of Peter/Keys?

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

Gabriel of 12,

I appreciate your comments. However, I will defer to the Orthodox forum members to comment on their views of St. Augustine's writing.

The topic of this thread was inspired by the book entitled, "The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor. This book is written from the Orthodox viewpoint and does mention St. Augustine, along with many others, in making a case for Peter's Confession:

Quote:Thus according to Origen, all those saved by faith in Jesus Christ receive also the keys of the Kingdom: in other words, the successors of Peter are all believers. "If we also say," he writes, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, then we also become Peter. . . .for whoever assimilates to Christ becomes the Rock. . . Does Christ give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?"

This same interpretation implicitly prevails in all the patristic texts dealing with Peter: the great Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine all concur in affirming that the faith of Simon made it possible for him to become the Rock on which the Church is founded, and that in a certain sense all those who share the same faith as his successors. This same idea is to be found in later Byzantine writers, "The Lord gives the keys to Peter," says Theophanes Kerameus, a preacher of the twelfth century, "and to all those who resemble him, so that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven remain closed for the heretics, yet are easily accessible to the faithful." In the fourteenth century, Callistus I, Patriarch of Constantinople (1350-3, 1354-63), in a homily for the Sunday of Orthodoxy, gives the same interpretation of the words of Christ to Peter. Other examples could easily be found. . .("The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor,Chapter 3, St Peter in Byzantine Theology, John Meyendorff, page 70) (Emphasis is mine.)

I can understand your disagreement, considering the Catholic perspective; but the Orthodox have just as much right to quote the Church Fathers as any other Christians. Though, I do appreciate your additions to the quotes of St. Augustine.

Again, I will defer to the Orthodox forum members to comment on their views of St. Augustine's writing.

I really don't want this thread to turn into a debate or argument against the Orthodox view. I am trying to understand their perspective.

You could always start a new thread to debate the interpretation of St. Augustine's writing. It would be an interesting thread.

Respectfully,
Anna

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

While you haven't provided enough context, it is very likely that "Roman Church" means the Roman Empire, not the City of Rome. A second note is that Orthodox do recognize St. Augustine. He's just not considered as important by us, he was one voice of many in the East, in the West he was a lone voice.


On an unrelated note, I was reading St. Clement of Alexadria's Exortation to the Greeks last night and came across this:

"[God] may throw open wide for us the gates of heaven. For the gates of the Word are the gates of reason, opened by the key of faith. 'No man knoweth God, save the Son, and him to whom the Son revealeth Him.'"

The faith expressed by St. Peter is the key to the gates of heaven.

Nine_Two,

Thank you for commenting on the Orthodox view of St. Augustine's writing.

Also, interesting quote of St. Clement, which is similar to the words of Theophanes Kerameus: "The Lord gives the keys to Peter, and to all those who resemble him, so that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven remain closed for the heretics, yet are easily accessible to the faithful."

Thanks,
Anna

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1

Respectfully I think someone who thinks that Augustine needed Eastern bishops to accept his work and pander to him in order to feel accepted by them is a narrow vision. The Church was UNITED during Augustine's time. He lived in the fifth century, pre-1054 obviously, and so he didn't speak in terms of "Catholic" vs. "Orthodox." The "Catholic Church" for Augustine was everything and everywhere around him. So trying to imply that he thought in terms of east and west is fruitless.

Also, thinking in terms of contradictions is worthless as well. Many bishops started their vocation thinking a certain way only to develop their thinking on issues. If you really follow the quotes, Augustine developed over time from a Peter=Rock mentality to a Confession=Rock thinking. You could easily drum up quotes from the venerable Bishop of Hippo that accentuate the Roman position but those were earlier in his career by and large. Look at the thinking he developed later in life and he was more in tune with the thinking of men like Meyendorff.

I'd also like to know how it is possible that Augustine's sermon here was "misquoted?" The citations were given so follow them. We might not always like what the Early Fathers had to say but to call them "misquoted," that's about as anachronistic and cheesy a way out as one can get.

The mistake amateur apologists make in trying to make such allegations is they think all ECF's were perfect, almost inallible themselves, and that ALL of their teachings and reasoning and sermons were 100% consistent and orderly and fit tightly and neatly into a little Scott Hahn box. This doesn't work. Cyprian is another example. Take a guy who had a very Petrine view of Matt. 16:18 and then later in life rails at the idea. People change and develop. Tough lesson to learn sometimes. Hard to put people in a box.

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1

One poster talked shortly ago about "quote wars." I don't think anyone wants to engage in much less READ quote wars. I posted a few for a simple purpose (because I usually detest cut-and-paste posting and proof-texting, etc). I wanted to point out that the Fathers had a wide array of beliefs on the papacy. Meyendorff and other Orthodox authors point this out easily. There is a steady, steady, vast supply of quotes to be had that point to a definite variety of views on this issue.

Catholic Answers is a Catholic apologetics website. They are out to further the Catholic cause. Makes sense! I would expect them to do nothing less. Problem is, in doing so they're going to cherry-pick quotes just as I have just done on the other side of the coin. They'll put a slough of pro-papal-sounding ECF quotes, often context-free, and Catholics will look at them and explode in excitement that the ancient Church supposedly held the Vatican I view of the papacy. I know because I felt this way about seven years ago. I read these quotes, didn't bother to look at the Eastern quotes didn't bother to look at context, and I got into the bubble.

It's not about quote wars, it's about showing disagreement and variety. It also helps us to narrow down WHAT primacy for the Chair of Peter was in its heyday. Was it an all-encompassing universally supreme in jurisdiction See that could override, control, influence, and discipline as well as unilaterally define everything over the rest of the venerable bishops? Or was it a See that was proud, built on Peter and Paul's foundation where they were martyred, the Capital City of the Roman Empire full of influence anyway (like the New York City of today or London) and through virtue of Peter's being first called-out and blessed the occupant of this great See had a primacy of honor, a Coryphaeus big brother respect that entitled him to be first among equals and often the final consultant in a democratic conciliar process often guided more by emperors than clergy? What is primacy? Is it lordship over all with infallible powers or is it being honored as the first among equals, a bishop with great wisdom and respect to be highly-considered and listened-to in ecclesiastical, moral, and theological matters?

gurney,

Are you sure you aren't Orthodox? hmmmm.

The issue of quotes is an odd subject. We can't really have a discussion about Christianity without quoting Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers. It is very interesting to me that different people can quote the same Scripture and the same ECF's and use them to prove conflicting viewpoints. Happens all the time on the forums.

I think you make a great point regarding the fact that the early Christian writers often changed their views over time. For the purpose of our Orthodox discussion, it is especially important to consider the date of writings in view of the East/West Schism.

I also recognize this is a Catholic website, and I understand that Catholics want to defend their position.

I've tried to set the guidelines for this thread to allow the free discussion of the Orthodox views and beliefs. I do realize it's very difficult for Catholics to avoid commenting on something so important as the issue of Peter, since Catholicism rests heavily upon the interpretation of Peter and the Keys. So, I know I am asking a lot.

Since I'm considering Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, I need to read/study and hear all sides. I've dedicated this particular thread to the Orthodox view.

If non-Orthodox forum members want to post additional quotes, to show context; that's fine. I'm realizing there is no way around this, and I do want to be fair. I just don't want the thread to turn into an argument/debate against the Orthodox position.

I feel kind of bad for FrancisofPaola3, because he just joined the forums today; and I know he wants to discuss his viewpoints on the issue.

Anna

[Gabriel of 12]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

Gabriel of 12,

I appreciate your comments. However, I will defer to the Orthodox forum members to comment on their views of St. Augustine's writing.

The topic of this thread was inspired by the book entitled, "The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor. This book is written from the Orthodox viewpoint and does mention St. Augustine, along with many others, in making a case for Peter's Confession:

I respect your journey here, the question I raise here? is not to dispute orthodox opinions, but to question how is it that they can distort a teaching of a Roman Cathoilc Saint to fit their new orthodox protestant views when they (the orthodox are not in communion with Saint Augustines teachings that Peter is the Rock upon whom Jesus built his church) don't respect St. Augustines teachings as authoritative in their new traditions by removing themselves from the Orthodox Church which was in full communion with the Primacy of the Popes. I find this argument very troubling and stereotyping of a Catholic Saint to say the least deceiving.

Quote:[color="Blue"]Thus according to Origen, all those saved by faith in Jesus Christ receive also the keys of the Kingdom: in other words, the successors of Peter are all believers. "If we also say," he writes, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, then we also become Peter. . . .for whoever assimilates to Christ becomes the Rock. . . Does Christ give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?"

Again, Origen a mystic in his own right as is St.Augustine, is speaking of the faith Christians have as does Peter of whom Jesus is God. Origen is never speaking here of his interpretation of Mt. 16:18. This is the main point that needs to be revealed here about these Catholic writers and Saints and not take their teachings out of their context and massacre their faith in Peter and his successors in the Popes.

Origen is not saying that the Church is built upon Peter's faith as the Rock, this interpretation never makes sense in the whole of scripture because Peter's faith failed 3 times in his denial before our blessed Lord. So this rock faith fails tremendously, because it is not the Rock Jesus builds his Church upon. "and you are Peter = Kephas = rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church".

If orthodoxy wish to reveal their new protestant view against Jesus written and oral teachings that he built his church upon Peter =Rock, then let them do it from sacred scripture and sacred Tradition not a distortion to ancient writings from Roman Cathoilcs loyal to the scripture and sacred Tradition that Jesus did build his Church upon Peter not on his confession, who later denied Christ 3 times.


[quote]

I can understand your disagreement, considering the Catholic perspective; but the Orthodox have just as much right to quote the Church Fathers as any other Christians. Though, I do appreciate your additions to the quotes of St. Augustine.

God bless them in "quoting" the early church fathers, but don't distort their teachings or manipulate their writings from antiquity to a new protestant view against the Chair of Peter. What never gets mentioned here from the periods of the early church Fathers although they are somewhat silent on the primacy of Peter, but the secular powers of the emperors , pagan, heretics, and Jewish communities from anitquity reveal Peter's Chair and primacy in the Popes. Thus the Popes primacy is already recognized universally from the Church Fathers in practice, and the secular world from antiquity recognize the primacy of Peter in the Popes from their historical records.

These writings you reveal sure deal with the faith of Peter, but they are not dogmatic in understanding and teaching that Jesus built his Church upon Peter's failing faith as rock. Because in other writings these same Saints record a Catholic faith in Peter and his successors in the Popes, both in peace and in trials.

I will yeild to you here, but as a practicing Christian, I cannot yeild to deceptions and misunderstandings of my Catholic faith made public here. They can take stabs and ridicule my faith, by don't decieve or misinterpret my Catholic faith and Catholic Saints who believe unchanged as I do from antiquity.

Peace be with you

Peace be with you

[scottm]

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

scottm,

It does make sense that the Transfiguration would occur, before the passing of the keys. It finally dawned on me that you must be talking about Pentecost/Holy Spirit coming down, as the day the Church was formed, and the Keys were bestowed. Is that what you meant?

No, I wasn't thinking Pentecost at the time, but that's an excellent point. Good call.

I stewed over the "primacy" issue for probably a year before I figured it out. The foreign words confused me. Sui what? Autocepha-heffalump? Huh? Nobody at McDonalds knows that that means. What the issue really is, is whether the President of Canada [or any other country -- pick a country] can walk into New York and start ordering people around like the state governor would. Fire some secretary somewhere and replace him or her with someone else. That sort of thing. Veto a legislative bill. Sign a legislative bill.

And we Americans, even if we're not from New York, say, "Hell no!"
And my hypothetical President of Canada says, "But I'm the President. Therefore, I can."
And we Americans say, "You're not the President of the USA. You're not even from New York. You cannot do that."
And my hypothetical Canadian says, "I'm the President of Canada. My country has precedence over your state. Therefore, I can."

And around and around we go. The key concept is "jurisdiction." Americans understand that the US government has "jurisdiction" over New York. We understand that there are layers of laws and layers of government in this country: city, then county, then state, then federal, each one having control over the layers below it. But we also understand that Canada and France and Mexico and Italy and so on, have no inherent jurisdiction in New York at all. None. Foreign countries have no voice and no power over here except to the extent of a treaty, and a treaty can be broken at any time.

Let's bring this back to the Church question. The See of Rome is one "country," so to speak. The See of Antioch is another, and Constantinople is another, and so on. There were originally five Sees; the Orthodox communion now recognizes 15 I think. The "primacy" issue is whether the See of Rome can step into another See -- pick one -- and start hiring and firing priests and bishops there. It's exactly analogous to my Canadian President walking into New York and taking over the role of State Governor.

Back to the Bible quotes: for the reasons I already gave this type of jurisdiction does not come out of Matt 16. And as I said, it is wholly inconsistent with Matt 18, for it negates the authority of the other eleven apostles. It is also inconsistent with Pentecost, where everyone equally received power from the Holy Spirit. It is inconsistent with the stories in Acts and the extra-biblical histories of the first century, where all of the apostles were running around hither and yon preaching and starting churches independently of one another.

It is also inconsistent with the totality of ECF quotes on the matter and the operation of the Church for the first several hundred years. The Matthew 16 verse was not to them proof that the President of Canada could rule New York State. Everything I've read anywhere, taken as a whole, points to that conclusion, and points to Matt 16 proof-texting on this jurisdiction question being something that arose only at the time of the East/West schism. The original arrangement amongst the bishops was collegial. Each patriarch ruled his own territory and only his own. The ecumencial councils actually divided up the globe into distinct regions so that nobody would step on another person's toes!

[Gabriel of 12]

Peace be with you gurneyhalleck; Can you show me here, where does Augustine reveal Jesus building his Church upon Peter's faith as Rock?

What I see here is Augustine revealing his sacramental priesthood in the person of Peter as all valid priests are "impersona Christi" by Christ filling them with himself the rock of our salvation, but I do not find Augustine teaching Jesus building his Church upon Peter's faith to be the rock. I find your "confession theory" a misquote.

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1
The idea of the Rock being the CONFESSION Peter made and not being Peter himself is definitely well-attested in the early church. Augustine stands out as one of the main proponents of the idea of the confession being the Rock:

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ-- St. Augustine, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

Again a misquote by your false presumption that Jesus is building his Church upon Peters faith, that is not being presented here; What is being presented here is Peter's "FAITH" fails his Lord which was a prophecy made by Jesus himself. "Where's the rock? is in question for the Rock was dead both in Peter and the body of Jesus Christ. But the Rock of our salvation rose from the dead, it is Jesus or Rock who fills Peter who becomes strong Rock "solid", not his faith was rock because it failed tremendously.

I don't need to go into the mystical teaching of Augustine here, for you, because on the surface, there is no teaching from Augustine here that Jesus built his Church upon Peter's "confession of faith" only. Again you misquoted the Saints great mystical teaching with a false presumption that he is teaching the doctrine Jesus built his church on a confession by Peter?

Peace be with you

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where's the rock? Where's the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived--St. Augustine, John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, pp. 95-96.

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12

I respect your journey here, the question I raise here? is not to dispute orthodox opinions, but to question how is it that they can distort a teaching of a Roman Cathoilc Saint to fit their new orthodox protestant views when they (the orthodox are not in communion with Saint Augustines teachings that Peter is the Rock upon whom Jesus built his church) don't respect St. Augustines teachings as authoritative in their new traditions by removing themselves from the Orthodox Church which was in full communion with the Primacy of the Popes. I find this argument very troubling and stereotyping of a Catholic Saint to say the least deceiving.

Again, Origen a mystic in his own right as is St.Augustine, is speaking of the faith Christians have as does Peter of whom Jesus is God. Origen is never speaking here of his interpretation of Mt. 16:18. This is the main point that needs to be revealed here about these Catholic writers and Saints and not take their teachings out of their context and massacre their faith in Peter and his successors in the Popes.

Origen is not saying that the Church is built upon Peter's faith as the Rock, this interpretation never makes sense in the whole of scripture because Peter's faith failed 3 times in his denial before our blessed Lord. So this rock faith fails tremendously, because it is not the Rock Jesus builds his Church upon. "and you are Peter = Kephas = rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church".

If orthodoxy wish to reveal their new protestant view against Jesus written and oral teachings that he built his church upon Peter =Rock, then let them do it from sacred scripture and sacred Tradition not a distortion to ancient writings from Roman Cathoilcs loyal to the scripture and sacred Tradition that Jesus did build his Church upon Peter not on his confession, who later denied Christ 3 times.

God bless them in "quoting" the early church fathers, but don't distort their teachings or manipulate their writings from antiquity to a new protestant view against the Chair of Peter. What never gets mentioned here from the periods of the early church Fathers although they are somewhat silent on the primacy of Peter, but the secular powers of the emperors , pagan, heretics, and Jewish communities from anitquity reveal Peter's Chair and primacy in the Popes. Thus the Popes primacy is already recognized universally from the Church Fathers in practice, and the secular world from antiquity recognize the primacy of Peter in the Popes from their historical records.

These writings you reveal sure deal with the faith of Peter, but they are not dogmatic in understanding and teaching that Jesus built his Church upon Peter's failing faith as rock. Because in other writings these same Saints record a Catholic faith in Peter and his successors in the Popes, both in peace and in trials.

I will yeild to you here, but as a practicing Christian, I cannot yeild to deceptions and misunderstandings of my Catholic faith made public here. They can take stabs and ridicule my faith, by don't decieve or misinterpret my Catholic faith and Catholic Saints who believe unchanged as I do from antiquity.

Peace be with you

Peace be with you

Gabriel of 12,

I respect your position and the passionate defense of your faith. I would not ask you or anyone to yield to anything they see as deception. Realizing these things, I did just post this comment: If non-Orthodox forum members want to post additional quotes, to show context; that's fine. I'm realizing there is no way around this, and I do want to be fair.

I respect the fact that this is a Catholic forum and I am a guest here. I've learned many things from Catholics here at CAF; and have a great respect for Catholicism.

Recently, on a few other threads, the discussion over the primacy of Peter got really out of control and many insults and hurtful things were posted. I just don't want a repeat of that. I'm trying so hard to consider Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy.

The inspiration for this thread is the book entitled, "The Primacy of Peter." I have quoted this book in the role of a student, seeking further input from Orthodox forum members.

I just want to have this one thread dedicated to the Orthodox voice. I do realize this may be asking too much on a Catholic forum. So, post your objections and any additional quotes and resources you think are relevant. In view of this, I do ask that this thread not turn into an argument.

My goal for this thread is to consider the Orthodox view and ask questions, not argue for or against anyone's position.

Anna

[searn77]

Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12

I respect your journey here, the question I raise here? is not to dispute orthodox opinions, but to question how is it that they can distort a teaching of a Roman Cathoilc Saint to fit their new orthodox protestant views when they (the orthodox are not in communion with Saint Augustines teachings that Peter is the Rock upon whom Jesus built his church) don't respect St. Augustines teachings as authoritative in their new traditions by removing themselves from the Orthodox Church which was in full communion with the Primacy of the Popes. I find this argument very troubling and stereotyping of a Catholic Saint to say the least deceiving.





Again, Origen a mystic in his own right as is St.Augustine, is speaking of the faith Christians have as does Peter of whom Jesus is God. Origen is never speaking here of his interpretation of Mt. 16:18. This is the main point that needs to be revealed here about these Catholic writers and Saints and not take their teachings out of their context and massacre their faith in Peter and his successors in the Popes.

Origen is not saying that the Church is built upon Peter's faith as the Rock, this interpretation never makes sense in the whole of scripture because Peter's faith failed 3 times in his denial before our blessed Lord. So this rock faith fails tremendously, because it is not the Rock Jesus builds his Church upon. "and you are Peter = Kephas = rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church".

If orthodoxy wish to reveal their new protestant view against Jesus written and oral teachings that he built his church upon Peter =Rock, then let them do it from sacred scripture and sacred Tradition not a distortion to ancient writings from Roman Cathoilcs loyal to the scripture and sacred Tradition that Jesus did build his Church upon Peter not on his confession, who later denied Christ 3 times.




God bless them in "quoting" the early church fathers, but don't distort their teachings or manipulate their writings from antiquity to a new protestant view against the Chair of Peter. What never gets mentioned here from the periods of the early church Fathers although they are somewhat silent on the primacy of Peter, but the secular powers of the emperors , pagan, heretics, and Jewish communities from anitquity reveal Peter's Chair and primacy in the Popes. Thus the Popes primacy is already recognized universally from the Church Fathers in practice, and the secular world from antiquity recognize the primacy of Peter in the Popes from their historical records.

These writings you reveal sure deal with the faith of Peter, but they are not dogmatic in understanding and teaching that Jesus built his Church upon Peter's failing faith as rock. Because in other writings these same Saints record a Catholic faith in Peter and his successors in the Popes, both in peace and in trials.

I will yeild to you here, but as a practicing Christian, I cannot yeild to deceptions and misunderstandings of my Catholic faith made public here. They can take stabs and ridicule my faith, by don't decieve or misinterpret my Catholic faith and Catholic Saints who believe unchanged as I do from antiquity.

Peace be with you

Peace be with you

No one's created deceptions or misunderstandings about your Catholic faith, or taking stabs and ridiculing your faith. Where are you getting this? If anything you create deceptions and misunderstandings about the Orthodox faith, but I really don't wish to argue with you. This thread is for understanding the Orthodox point of view, not to try and say the Orthodox point of view is protestant and we distort the view of Catholic saints. St. Augustine is a saint in our Church too. And he is known to have retracted his earlier view of Mathew 16 and later believed that the rock was Christ and since Peter confessed it, Peter was called "Rocky". St. Augustine himself said, "Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession." I don't see how that goes against the Orthodox or Catholic point of view but that's just me. And there is no official Orthodox view that I have ever came across that said I had to believe the rock to be Peter, or Peter's confession, or both. It just isn't that important in Orthodoxy, or at least I have never found Orthodox that view this dilemma as important.

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by scottm

No, I wasn't thinking Pentecost at the time, but that's an excellent point. Good call.

I stewed over the "primacy" issue for probably a year before I figured it out. The foreign words confused me. Sui what? Autocepha-heffalump? Huh? Nobody at McDonalds knows that that means. What the issue really is, is whether the President of Canada [or any other country -- pick a country] can walk into New York and start ordering people around like the state governor would. Fire some secretary somewhere and replace him or her with someone else. That sort of thing. Veto a legislative bill. Sign a legislative bill.

And we Americans, even if we're not from New York, say, "Hell no!"
And my hypothetical President of Canada says, "But I'm the President. Therefore, I can."
And we Americans say, "You're not the President of the USA. You're not even from New York. You cannot do that."
And my hypothetical Canadian says, "I'm the President of Canada. My country has precedence over your state. Therefore, I can."

And around and around we go. The key concept is "jurisdiction." Americans understand that the US government has "jurisdiction" over New York. We understand that there are layers of laws and layers of government in this country: city, then county, then state, then federal, each one having control over the layers below it. But we also understand that Canada and France and Mexico and Italy and so on, have no inherent jurisdiction in New York at all. None. Foreign countries have no voice and no power over here except to the extent of a treaty, and a treaty can be broken at any time.

Let's bring this back to the Church question. The See of Rome is one "country," so to speak. The See of Antioch is another, and Constantinople is another, and so on. There were originally five Sees; the Orthodox communion now recognizes 15 I think. The "primacy" issue is whether the See of Rome can step into another See -- pick one -- and start hiring and firing priests and bishops there. It's exactly analogous to my Canadian President walking into New York and taking over the role of State Governor.

Back to the Bible quotes: for the reasons I already gave this type of jurisdiction does not come out of Matt 16. And as I said, it is wholly inconsistent with Matt 18, for it negates the authority of the other eleven apostles. It is also inconsistent with Pentecost, where everyone equally received power from the Holy Spirit. It is inconsistent with the stories in Acts and the extra-biblical histories of the first century, where all of the apostles were running around hither and yon preaching and starting churches independently of one another.

It is also inconsistent with the totality of ECF quotes on the matter and the operation of the Church for the first several hundred years. The Matthew 16 verse was not to them proof that the President of Canada could rule New York State. Everything I've read anywhere, taken as a whole, points to that conclusion, and points to Matt 16 proof-texting on this jurisdiction question being something that arose only at the time of the East/West schism. The original arrangement amongst the bishops was collegial. Each patriarch ruled his own territory and only his own. The ecumencial councils actually divided up the globe into distinct regions so that nobody would step on another person's toes!

scottm,

I really appreciate all you have written here. I agree that the"totality of ECF quotes on the matter and the operation of the Church for the first several hundred years" must be considered. I'm in the study mode, trying to sort through all this. I must admit, it is a rather daunting task--so much history to cover.

The book, "The Primacy of Peter," does mention that Rome took control, and by the time the East realized this had happened, it was too late (I'm paraphrasing-will have to find the exact quote)---which is actually related to your comments.

Any further comments?
Anna

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by searn77

No one's created deceptions or misunderstandings about your Catholic faith, or taking stabs and ridiculing your faith. Where are you getting this? If anything you create deceptions and misunderstandings about the Orthodox faith, but I really don't wish to argue with you. This thread is for understanding the Orthodox point of view, not to try and say the Orthodox point of view is protestant and we distort the view of Catholic saints.

searn77,

I really appreciate your joining the discussion. Indeed, "This thread is for understanding the Orthodox point of view, not to try and say the Orthodox point of view is protestant and we distort the view of Catholic saints."

Originally Posted by searn77

St. Augustine is a saint in our Church too. And he is known to have retracted his earlier view of Mathew 16 and later believed that the rock was Christ and since Peter confessed it, Peter was called "Rocky". St. Augustine himself said, "Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession."

Appreciate the comments on St. Augustine. I don't see how any Church can claim "exclusive rights" to St. Augustine. He wrote what he wrote.

Originally Posted by searn77

I don't see how that goes against the Orthodox or Catholic point of view but that's just me. And there is no official Orthodox view that I have ever came across that said I had to believe the rock to be Peter, or Peter's confession, or both. It just isn't that important in Orthodoxy, or at least I have never found Orthodox that view this dilemma as important.

Would you comment on the Orthodox view of authority (i.e. laying on of hands, Apostolic Succession--Orthodox Ecclesiology):

Thanks,
Anna

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12

Peace be with you gurneyhalleck; Can you show me here, where does Augustine reveal Jesus building his Church upon Peter's faith as Rock?

What I see here is Augustine revealing his sacramental priesthood in the person of Peter as all valid priests are "impersona Christi" by Christ filling them with himself the rock of our salvation, but I do not find Augustine teaching Jesus building his Church upon Peter's faith to be the rock. I find your "confession theory" a misquote.

Again a misquote by your false presumption that Jesus is building his Church upon Peters faith, that is not being presented here; What is being presented here is Peter's "FAITH" fails his Lord which was a prophecy made by Jesus himself. "Where's the rock? is in question for the Rock was dead both in Peter and the body of Jesus Christ. But the Rock of our salvation rose from the dead, it is Jesus or Rock who fills Peter who becomes strong Rock "solid", not his faith was rock because it failed tremendously.

I don't need to go into the mystical teaching of Augustine here, for you, because on the surface, there is no teaching from Augustine here that Jesus built his Church upon Peter's "confession of faith" only. Again you misquoted the Saints great mystical teaching with a false presumption that he is teaching the doctrine Jesus built his church on a confession by Peter?

Peace be with you

Gabriel of 12,

There is no big surprise here that Catholics and Orthodox disagree regarding Peter/Rock/Faith, etc. If there was agreement, the two would not be separate.

Again, you are free to post your objections, but I don't want this thread to turn into an argument over whose interpretation is right. I want to hear the Orthodox voice and ask questions.

Anna

[scottm]

What searn77 just said is my understanding too, but more to the point the RC's and EO's are almost always using different definitions for "primacy."

For the RC's it sure seems to mean "Benedict the 14th can walk into any church in the whole world any time he wants, and fire the priest, and fire the bishop, and appoint their replacements." We all have to bow down to the surpremacy of the Chair of Peter, right? We all have to be under Peter, right? The Pope has universal plenary authority, right? That how it always sounds to my ears.

For the EO's, primacy has always meant being a servant leader. The Patriarch of Rome is "head" of the church in the sense of being the guy who pulls everyone together. He is pastor to the patriarchs. He is the Church's designated spokesman to the world. It's his job to serve as chairman of ecumenical councils. Each patriarch would have sole authority over his own jurisdiction, but Rome would be the first choice for a mediator if/when a dispute arises between patriarchs. Any patriarch can and would ask advice of other patriarch's, but Rome's advice would carry more weight because of its role as "pastor to the pastors."

That's my understanding anyway, based upon my own research. Taken in its totality this EO conception of the Pope is fully consistent with all of the Early Church Father quotes selected by Roman Catholics.

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the vantage point that Anna and I have approached this quest is from an intellectually honest, fair, just-the-facts-ma'am point of view. I try to do like a lawyer and look at both sides and try to argue them. If I can argue one completely, it must have a divine and consistent, historically-accurate, and theologically-sound premise and set of facts behind it.

Honestly both sides of the Catholic-Orthodox debates have their shortcomings and usually neither wishes to admit error or budge. Perhaps that is what I love most about the lowly good ole' Anglicans. They never claim perfection, and admit their failings and stumbling blocks.

In many Orthodox posts, we see an absence of appreciation for the papacy. I often find it ironic that, without the papacy, Orthodoxy would most likely BE iconoclastic today! The iconography we see that just covers the Orthodox world was in jeopardy and it was the pope who stood up most loudly against iconoclasm. We don't hear that much and when some Orthodox do hear that they get upset.

Conversely many Catholics like to give more credit to the papacy at times than is due and they think popes led the charge or finalized it every time against heresies. We often forget men like Athanasius who was ALONE against the Arian world for so long. We forget that it was often an Augustine and not a pope, who went after a heresy full-on.

I think it gets down to ecclesiology. Catholics look at the UNIVERSAL picture. They look at the WORLD stage when they think of Ekklesia. When the Orthodox here Ekklesia they think of each local diocese. The entirety of Christ, the Bride of Christ, is contained fully and intimately and powerfully in each diocese completely, totally, utterly. They don't look as much at the global aspect and the need for a universal global shepherd when their patriarchs regionally do so and bishops locally do so.

And many Anglicans are falling into the Catholic view of GLOBALISM and universalism, not diocesan locality in the totality of Christ's Bride, the Church. Anglicans are getting uneasy at the chaos overseas or between TEC and Canterbury, what have you. They don't like that everything doesn't fall into place so they're bailing for the global market.

The scariest concept for Orthodox and Catholic Christians is this: what if Christ Our Lord exists in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc. and He is present and manifest and changing lives not through just one vehicle.....everyone wants the monopoly.

Sometimes I wonder if the obsession with Church polity (which I admit I have) and which Church is the "truest" isn't a diabolically-given stumbling block, stigmatism of the soul so to speak, to keep us from seeing the Love and Mercy and Gospel of Christ but rather an inward obsession with our being part of the right branch of the tree. Maybe this is all more counter-productive to our search for Christ than it is fruitful.

I digress. Now I'll get ready to get pummeled by all parties LOL!!

[Gabriel of 12]

In respect to your OP, I see no interest in engaging of opinions from orthodoxy. I would respect those opinions as they hold to the writings of the early church fathers in their context, audience the writings or teachings are addressing.

For the record the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus built his Church on both from the confession faith of (Peter) Simon Bar Jona and Peter himself and the Apostles. Taking this Catholic teaching and understanding the early church fathers writings and teachings make perfect sense, remove one of these aspects of biblical revelations the writings of the early church fathers begin to lose their interpretation.

Peace be with you

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12

In respect to your OP, I see no interest in engaging of opinions from orthodoxy. I would respect those opinions as they hold to the writings of the early church fathers in their context, audience the writings or teachings are addressing.

For the record the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus built his Church on both from the confession faith of (Peter) Simon Bar Jona and Peter himself and the Apostles. Taking this Catholic teaching and understanding the early church fathers writings and teachings make perfect sense, remove one of these aspects of biblical revelations the writings of the early church fathers begin to lose their interpretation.

Peace be with you

Gabriel,

I do understand and respect your position.

Anna

[Anna Scott]

Originally Posted by scottm

What searn77 just said is my understanding too, but more to the point the RC's and EO's are almost always using different definitions for "primacy."

For the RC's it sure seems to mean "Benedict the 14th can walk into any church in the whole world any time he wants, and fire the priest, and fire the bishop, and appoint their replacements." We all have to bow down to the surpremacy of the Chair of Peter, right? We all have to be under Peter, right? The Pope has universal plenary authority, right? That how it always sounds to my ears.

For the EO's, primacy has always meant being a servant leader. The Patriarch of Rome is "head" of the church in the sense of being the guy who pulls everyone together. He is pastor to the patriarchs. He is the Church's designated spokesman to the world. It's his job to serve as chairman of ecumenical councils. Each patriarch would have sole authority over his own jurisdiction, but Rome would be the first choice for a mediator if/when a dispute arises between patriarchs. Any patriarch can and would ask advice of other patriarch's, but Rome's advice would carry more weight because of its role as "pastor to the pastors."

That's my understanding anyway, based upon my own research. Taken in its totality this EO conception of the Pope is fully consistent with all of the Early Church Father quotes selected by Roman Catholics.

scottm,

Thanks for the clarification of the Orthodox view of the "Patriarch of Rome."

What do you think about the following quote regarding the "right" of the Pope developing without the Eastern Church realizing it, before it was too late to stop? I was really surprised when I read this.

(Emphasis is mine.)
"Historians have more than once described the disastrous effect of the Crusades upon the relations between Christians of the East and West. The mutual accusations turned into a real uprising of hatred after the capture of Constantinople by the Westerners in 1204. As is known, Innocent III began by solemnly protesting against the violence of the Crusaders, but finally he decided to profit from the given situation and to act in the same way in which his predecessors had acted in other eastern territories reconquered from the Moslems. He appointed a Latin Patriarch to Constantinople. This action appeared to the whole Christian East not only as a religious sanction of conquest, but as a sort of theological justification of aggression. The election of a Latin Emperor in Byzantium could still be interpreted as being in conformity with the laws of war, but by virtue of what right or custom was the Patriarch of the West appointing his own candidate, the Venetian Thomas Morosini to the See of St. John Chrysostom?

In all the anti-Latin documents of that period we see mention of this so-called "right" of the Pope, a right of which the Eastern Church had no knowledge. All of a sudden the East became more fully aware of an ecclesiological development which had taken place in the West and which it was much too late to stop"." ("The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor, Chapter 3, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology, John Meyendorff, Page 77)

Other comments from Orthodox forum members?

Thanks,
Anna