The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
museofhistory, tommycheckmate, Michael_P, Deirdre Glasheen, JohnFromRuthenia
5,788 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
3 members (JohnFromRuthenia, 2 invisible), 97 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,078
Posts414,168
Members5,788
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 11 1 2 8 9 10 11
#55178 11/10/03 04:33 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Saintclare,

O.K. - I've no problem with St Peter!

The question is how can the RC Church move forward to a more "servant" model of ecclesial stewardship on the basis of Peter the Apostle and away from autocratic notions based on medieval models.

Alex

#55179 11/10/03 06:17 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Dear: SaintClare,

My conclusion and decision to embrace Orthodoxy comes from some of the western fathers here is the quote.

Quote
Ambrose of Milan († 397) speaks indeed in very high terms of the Roman church, and concedes to its bishops a religious magistracy like the political power of the emperors of pagan Rome;557 yet he calls the primacy of Peter only a "primacy of confession, not of honor; of faith, not of rank,"558 and places the apostle Paul on an equality with Peter.559 Of any dependence of Ambrose, or of the bishops of Milan in general during the first six centuries, on the jurisdiction of Rome, no trace is to be found.

Jerome († 419), the most learned commentator among the Latin fathers, vacillates in his explanation of the petra; now, like Augustine, referring it to Christ,560 now to Peter and his confession.561 In his commentary on Matt. xvi., he combines the two interpretations thus: "As Christ gave light to the apostles, so that they were called, after him, the light of the world, and as they received other designations from the Lord; so Simon, because he believed on the rock, Christ, received the name Peter, and in accordance with the figure of the rock, it is justly said to him: 'I will build my church upon thee (super te),' " He recognizes in the Roman bishop the successor of Peter, but advocates elsewhere the equal rights of the bishops,562 and in fact derives even the episcopal office, not from direct divine institution, but from the usage of the church and from the presidency in the presbyterium.563 He can therefore be cited as a witness, at most, for a primacy of honor, not for a supremacy of jurisdiction. Beyond this even the strongest passage of his writings, in a letter to his friend, Pope Damasus (a.d. 376), does not go: "Away with the ambition of the Roman head; I speak with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of the cross. Following no other head than Christ, I am joined in the communion of faith with thy holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. On that rock I know the church to be built."564 Subsequently this father, who himself had an eye on the papal chair, fell out with the Roman clergy, and retired to the ascetic and literary solitude of Bethlehem, where he served the church by his pen far better than he would have done as the successor of Damasus.

Augustine († 430), the greatest theological authority of the Latin church, at first referred the words, "On this rock I will build my church," to the person of Peter, but afterward expressly retracted this interpretation, and considered the petra to be Christ, on the ground of a distinction between petra (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῃ̑ πέτρᾳ) and Petrus (σὺ εἱ̑ Πέτρος); a distinction which Jerome also makes, though with the intimation that it is not properly applicable to the Hebrew and Syriac Cephas.565 "I have somewhere said of St. Peter" thus Augustine corrects himself in his Retractations at the close of his life566—"that the church is built upon him as the rock; a thought which is sung by many in the verses of St. Ambrose:


'Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae

Canente, culpam diluit.'567


(The Rock of the church himself

In the cock-crowing atones his guilt.)


But I know that I have since frequently said, that the word of the Lord, 'Thou art Petrus, and on this petra I will build my church,' must be understood of him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the living God; and Peter, so named after this rock, represents the person of the church, which is founded on this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him: 'Thou art a rock' (petra), but, 'Thou art Peter' (Petrus); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon received the name of Peter.
Quote
History of the Christian Church Vol III
You can find all the quotes supporting Orthodoxy from www.ccel.org [ccel.org] type in the search box "Papal Authority"

In Christ+
Daniel

#55180 11/10/03 06:33 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Daniel,

I would also have a look at Fr. John Meyendorff and his explanation of the Petrine Primacy.

That the Bishop of Rome exercised such a Primacy in the first thousand years of the undivided Church - no one disputes that.

That this Primacy was related to Peter in Rome, that he was martyred there with St Paul, that Rome was the centre of the veneration of the relics of the Chief Apostles - this even Orthodox liturgical prayers proclaim.

The issue over Peter and Rome is not Peter's confession of faith and how one is to understand it (on another level, each one of us can be said to be "Peter" when we even say the Jesus Prayer).

The issue is whether you believe that the Church of Rome has maintained the Apostolic faith unbroken since the first millenium of the Church.

If you can honestly say that you believe the Pope of Rome to be an heretic over the filioque etc. - then there is no question but that you are headed toward Orthodoxy.

But if the Pope of Rome is not, in your view, a view that should be nourished by reading and especially by prayer, an heretic then, as Meyendorff quotes an Orthodox theologian as saying: "let him (the pope) enjoy the privileges of Peter."

I see the Filioque and other issues as being part of the Western heritage of faith and another way of expressing what the East believes.

And whatever difficult issues remain to be resolved, I just can't imagine them to be such as to justify the separation of Churches.

In short, when the Churches finally do unite, in accordance with God's Will, the place of the Pope of Rome will continue to be one of "First."

Those of us in communion with Rome are already at that final stage.

God bless you on your journey, Friend, and remember, whatever you choose, we are here to support you in your faith commitment and walk with God.

Alex

#55181 11/10/03 06:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 132
M
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 132
Hi Daniel,

My arguement is based strictly on the Aramaic and Greek grammatical structure of Mt 16:18, amd the conclusion is that it is impossible for Jesus to have been referring to anything else but Peter himself. Please rea it when you get a chance (it's in the Focus on Scripture folder).

Thanks,

Karen


Slava Isusu Christu!

Karen
#55182 11/10/03 06:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 657
For an Orthodox Catholic take on 'Peter & the Rock' access -

http://aggreen.net/peter/st_peter.html

---------

______________________________

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/10/story_1016_1.html

Q. How do you interpret Jesus' words to Peter about being the "rock"
of the Church? Does the Blessed Theophylact contradict Orthodox
teaching when he writes: "The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that
the Church will be built on him?" Do the Orthodox see the Pope as the
world's Christian leader?
___________________________________

The verse to which you refer is one of the most controversial in the
entire Bible: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
Church" (Mt 16:18). Peter in Aramaic is Cephas, meaning "Rock"
or "Rocky," a play on words by Jesus. Roman Catholics see this verse
as applying to Peter himself and passing on the privilege to all the
popes in history. Many centuries later, popes began to claim not only
universal authority over the whole Church but also infallibility when
speaking officially ("ex cathedra") on matters of faith and morals.
In contrast, Protestants have insisted that Jesus' words applied only
to Peter's confession of faith. They would say that every Christian
can make a similar confession, and this has nothing to do with
privileges accrued to Popes centuries later. It seems that in their
mutual antagonisms and search for ultimate authority Protestants
looked to the Bible as an infallible book, whereas the Roman
Catholics found it in an infallible Pope.

The Eastern Orthodox tradition, developing apart from Western
controversies, offers a "golden mean" between the two extremes.
Orthodox theologians mainly interpret Jesus' words as referring to
Peter's confession of faith, but they also attribute special
privileges to Peter and his successors. The popes, we say, serve as
bishops of the greatest of all Christian centers--Rome.

Neilos Kabasilas, Archbishop of Thessalonike (14th century),
writes: "As long as the pope observes due order and remains in the
truth, he preserves the first place which belongs to him by right; he
is the [earthly] head of the Church and supreme pontiff; the
successor of Peter and of all the apostles." This rhetorically
generous and weighty statement goes along with two assumptions: (a)
that the true head, rock, and foundation of the Church is Christ
himself; and (b) that the Popes have not quite kept "due order" nor
have "remained in the truth," since they first claimed a universal
monarchy over the Church, and then erroneously covered it with the
mantle of infallibility.

When Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria (11th century) implies in his
commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus is speaking about
Peter himself, not only Peter's faith, it is within the Orthodox
tradition. But Theophylact's very next sentence addresses the essence
of the matter: "Since Peter confessed him as Son of God, the Lord
says, 'this confession which you have made shall be the foundation of
those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house
of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation.'"

The Apostle Peter was Jesus' chief disciple. After the resurrection,
Jesus honored him with a special commission with the triple
charge "Feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17). Peter was clearly the leader
of the earliest Church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:14; 15:7), however, he
was neither the only nor the absolute leader (Gal. 2:9). If the Pope
would truly follow the example of Peter and would share leadership
with his fellow bishops according to the precedent of the first
Christian Council (Acts 15), then the Orthodox (and many other
Christians besides) could once again accord the Pope full honors as
the world's Christian leader signifying the Church's universal unity
in Christ.
-----------

OrthoMan

#55183 11/10/03 07:03 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,184
Likes: 5
Dear Orthoman,

You took the words right out of my library!

Alex

#55184 11/10/03 07:47 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Dear: SaintClare,

Glory To Jesus Christ!

I used to be a Catholic Apologist, like really into Catholic Apologetics. I am very familiar with the Aramaic and Greek, translation of Peters Confession. I used to believe exactly what you do in regards to this issue. But the fact of the matter is that even the Western Fathers such as Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose, who I do believe that Peters Confession is the Rock of the Church and that all bishops are equal not one has more authority over the other. So I do know were you are coming from.

In Christ+
Daniel

#55185 11/10/03 07:50 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Id like to add that even in St. John Chrysostom whos liturgy we use, in his homily

St. John Chrysostom 53/54 Homily on Matthew
He says Peters Confession is the Rock. I cant live and believe in a teaching and live my spirituality with in this saints liturgy and believe in what he did not. God Bless

In Christ+
Daniel

#55186 11/10/03 07:56 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Dear: Alex,

Slava Isusu Christu!

My understanding is that in the Catholic Interpretation of Peters Confession, if peter was
the Rock of the Church, St. Peters Successor would have universal jurisdiction and would indeed be a "Universal Pope".

Since the Western Church Fathers agree that Peters Confession is the Rock, it would seem that he is not held in such a High Authority as the papacy claims today. If they did not have the authority they claim, then all of their papal doctrines would be false correct?

If am wrong in my understanding please correct me.
If I am wrong what is the true significance of Peter being the Rock & Peters Confession being the Rock?

Another byzantine catholic friend of mind is going to lend me her copy of "Primacy of Peter" on thursday. It looks good.

In Christ+
Daniel

#55187 11/11/03 12:11 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

The term "Blessed" in Orthodoxy could have three different meanings.

It could mean the same as "Venerable" does in the West...

The term "Blessed" could also mean a category of Saint whose sanctity was unknown to the public...

Finally, this term is sometimes used as a form of "diminished canonization" ...
Alex,

I would like to add to these categories what seems to me the most common, that of applying "Blessed" to the Fools-for-Christ. St. Xenia of Petersburg comes to mind immediately.

Tony

#55188 11/11/03 01:05 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 196
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 196
Christ is in our midst!


This thread is awesome, I must say. Everyone is being so polite and listening to each others viewpoints. Keep up the good work all, everone has something to say.

Daniel, send me an email here at the forum, I would like to talk to you.


Blessings,
Michael

#55189 11/11/03 01:15 AM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 395
I have sent you a private e-mail

In Christ+
Daniel

#55190 11/11/03 01:24 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 196
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 196
Glory to Jesus Christ!


Daniel, the book The primacy of peter is awesome.
Lots of good reading. let me know what you think.

Michael

#55191 11/11/03 01:44 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204
Quote
Originally posted by theophan:
Justin:

If my memory serves me, Venerable Bede was not canonized until this past century. He was not considered a saint but merely "on the way," awaiting documented miracles to complete the canonization process.

If I'm not mistaken, the streamlining of the process may have been what moved St. Bede from Venerable to Saint. I believe that St. Bede's previous status was equivalent to that of Mother Theresa of Calcutta who was recently proclaimed "Blessed."

In Christ,

BOB
Just like to correct. St. Bede the Venerable is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. It is just common for the Roman Church to use Venerable. In the Liturgy of the Hours, his feast is celebrated.

#55192 11/11/03 01:57 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 204
Quote
Originally posted by ByzantineAscetic:
Dear: SaintClare,

Glory To Jesus Christ!

I used to be a Catholic Apologist, like really into Catholic Apologetics. I am very familiar with the Aramaic and Greek, translation of Peters Confession. I used to believe exactly what you do in regards to this issue. But the fact of the matter is that even the Western Fathers such as Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose, who I do believe that Peters Confession is the Rock of the Church and that all bishops are equal not one has more authority over the other. So I do know were you are coming from.

In Christ+
Daniel
Dear Daniel,
I believe that the Western Fathers has two beliefs regarding the "rock" in Matthew. Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose sometimes refer to the rock as Peter himself and sometimes to his confession. There are also Eastern Fathers refer to the rock interchangeably.

The question would be, if the Rock in the Matthean passage refers to the Confession of Peter, is this confession inseparable to the person of Peter? Isn't Peter's confession dependent on the person of Peter? cool

There are Protestant scholars who supports the view that the Matthean passage favors more the interpretation that the Rock is Peter himself rather than his confession.

elexeie

Page 10 of 11 1 2 8 9 10 11

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5