www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Where's the Catholic Church?

Joe,
You can find it in Matthew 16:18 and I dont see where finding it in the NT is relevant to the discussion. Unles you are one who supports "sola scriptura".

Where does one find the term trinity or homousia in the NT. The point is you don't, but you do find the thought.

It has been the teaching of the eraly fathers from the begining of Christianity. Now there are some who want to deny that but the reality is that that ideology is there. Study, search it out.


It is not just the teaching of the West as "if" it were trying to usurp power over the East. It is also a teaching of the Eastern Fathers. It is the unanimos teaching of the Fathers of the Church.

Irenaeus already recognizes it in 180 AD.
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church of Rome, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere."

"He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair (the Sedes of Rome where Peter sat) 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 (Apostles and founders of Churches) but a primacy is given to Peter,whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all 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 deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

"Ubi Petrus est, Ibi Ecclesia est!" by all means.
Fr Stephanos



[This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 08-25-2001).]

One will look in vain for a consensus of opinion among the Greek Fathers in reference to Peter's place and that of his successors and their authority within the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. That such a consensus exists is a myth.

Ultimately, most Orthodox saints and theologians adopted the theological dictum of St.John Chrysostom, in reference to Peter:

"'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church,' that is on the faith of his confession.'"--Hom. 54,3 "On Matthew."

And that is why, for the Orthodox, a common orthodox profession of faith takes precedence over hierarchical personalities and their claims of authority and jurisdiction.

For further reference:

The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir's Press); edited by Father John Meyendorff (Memory Eternal).

Bill



[This message has been edited by bill tomoka (edited 08-25-2001).]

[He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair (the Sedes of Rome where Peter sat) 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 (Apostles and founders of Churches) but a primacy is given to Peter,whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.]

That is not what either Christ or Scripture says -

Matthew 19:28-30 "So Jesus said to them, 'Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me
will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel....But many who are first will be last, and the last first.' "

Here Christ promises the twelve apostles, twelve thrones, to
judge the tribes of Israel. He does not set one above the other, or indicate that one of those thrones will be of higher authority. Indeed, it is again clear that all of the apostles are equal
partners.

Let's also look at what the scriptures don't say. In all of the letters of the apostles, not once is the supreme head, the "Vicar of Christ", the Bishop of Bishops mentioned. Not ONCE.
If this primacy had existed, if, in one word, the Church had in its body a supreme head infallible in teaching, would the Apostles have forgotten to mention it? No, there would have
been long letters on this all important subject. The absence of any writings by the apostles is on par with the constitution of the United States forgetting to mention the office of
President.

The Apostles so clearly worked together as equals throughout Acts.

Acts 15:1-41 A "sharp dispute and debate" breaks out between Peter and Barnabas so it is decided that an Ecumenical Council is to be assembled at Jerusalem to decide if Gentile
converts must keep the Law of Moses. Who would have called together this council If St. Peter had been the chief authority? St. Peter. Who would have presided at it? St. Peter. Who
would have promulgated the canons? St. Peter. Well, nothing of this occurred. The apostle assisted at the council as all the others did, yet it was not he who presided, but St. James.
Indeed, this scripture shows Peter had no authority to decide this matter unilaterally and depended on the opinion of the other Apostles to decide it through council. Peter certainly
enjoyed no special privileges.

Other quotes of Scripture that indicate that Peter had no authorative position -

Matthew 23:1-12 "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples. The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are the authorized interpreters of Moses' Law. So you
must obey and follow everything they tell you to do. Do not, however, imitate their actions, because they do not practice what they preach. They tie onto
people's backs loads that are heavy and hard to carry, yet they are not even willing to lift a finger to help them carry their loads. They do everything so that people will
see them. Look at the straps with Scripture verses on them which they wear on their foreheads and arms, and notice how large they are! Notice also how long are the tassels on
their cloaks! They love the best seats at feasts and the reserved places in the synagogues: they love to be greeted with respect in the market places and to have people call them
'Teacher'. You must not be called 'Teacher' because you are all brothers of one another and have only one Teacher. And you must not call
anyone here on earth 'Father' (lit: Master) because you have only one Father in heaven. Nor should you be called 'Leader', because your one
and only Leader is the Messiah. The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever makes himself great will be humbled, and whoever
humbles himself will be made great."

I Corinthians 3:11 "For God has already placed Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation, and no other foundation can be laid."

Galatians 2:11-14 "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with
the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The
other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to
Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?' "

Here we see Peter is not infallible and Paul takes it upon himself to correct him.

2 Corinthians 11:5-6 "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent Apostles. Even though I am untrained in speech, I am not in knowledge. But we have been
thoroughly manifested in you in all things."

Here what Paul says is plainly obvious.

Ephesians 2:19-22 "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him
you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

C'mon Bob.

I'm no more a proponent of papal infallibility than you, but proof texting scripture is silly. Do Roman Catholic theologians never read those verses you cited????

anastasios

"Having recognized a certain analogy...between the relations of Peter with the other disciples of Christ, on the one hand, and the relations of the church of the Romans with the other patriarchal sees, on the other hand, we must examine whether Peter implied and held in himself the other disciples of Christ and whether the choir of the disciples was subdued to him, obeyed him as a chief and a master, leaving thus to the Roman Church a similar universal primacy. But listening to the words of the Gospel, our embarrasment is clearly dissolved."--Written by the exiled Patriarch of Constantinople, John Camateros, to the Pope of Rome after Cameteros was forced to abandon his patriarchal throne by the Crusaders and a Latin Patriarch (with the permission of the pope) was imposed by force of arms upon the Orthodox Greeks.

Cameteros went on to explain to the Bishop of Rome his "Byzantine" position:

"We agree to honor Peter as the first disciple of Christ, to honor him more than the others and to venerate him as possessing precedence; we recognize the Church of Rome as the first in rank and honor among equal sister churches...but we have not been taught to recognize in it the mother of other churches or to venerate it as embracing all other churches."

.....and from an ancient Greek hierarch whose name is known only to God, we can add:

"We recognize Peter as coryphaeus, in conformity with a necessary order. But Peter, not the Pope. For in the past the Pope was the first among us, when his thought and mind were in agreement with ours. Let the identity of his faith be reestablished and then let him receive the primacy."

Bill

Anastasios,
You are right and even Sacred Scripute can be misquoted and manipulated. And I am sure on both sides.
Take for instance Galatians 2:11-14
To use this as and anti infallible text is less than applaudable for anyone who is serious about discussing the question of the role of the Papacy in the Universal Church.

Does the definition of Infalliblity exclude a Pope from making a mistake? No, anyone, including a Pope can sin and commit errors in all sorts of matters, including personal conduct. (Which it certainly was here in Galatians and not a matter of teaching doctrine.)
The doctrine of infalliblity rather states that when a Pope (as head of the Church on earth, that is in communion with the entire Church from the time of the Apostles until the present) as successor of St Peter speaks to the entire Church, either alone or with the bishops in communion of the college of bishops or in a council, on doctrinal matters of faith and morals, he cannot err.Ultimately it is not a trust in any human power or authority but in the Holy Spirit who will not let the Church of Christ fall into error.

And to insist that every doctrine be found in Sacred Scripture is an error of the Protestant and their view of Sola Scriptura!

Doctrine is found in the Chruch ,in Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Liturgy of the Church. Anyone who claims to be Orthodox must certainly know that!

And besides that, Sacred Scripture does give an emminent place of authority ( or maybe we better use "a charism of teaching"to Peter.
Our Lord says to Peter alone: Three times he enjoins on Peter his Apostolic Office of Teacher of all the faithful. (John 21:15 ff)

"Simon, Simon! Indeed Satan has asked for you that he may sift you as wheat. But I HAVE PRAYED FOR YOU THAT YOUR FAITH SHOULD NOT FAIL; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your bretheren."

Know I dont know about you but I can certainly see in that text at least an implicit guarantee by the Lord Jesus Himself that Peters faith will not fail.

As to make inference that Peter's headship is not mentioned once in Sacred Scripture is to blatanly ignore Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:31 and John 21:15 ff and the over 129 times that Scriptures place Peter as first of the Aostles.

Actually to use Acts 15 as a proof text that Peter does not have Primacy stands in opposition to the text. Lets take a close look. There is no passage in the New Testament which exhibits St Peters supremacy in the Church more fully than this.

Why does the assembly fall silent before Paul and Barnabas speak? Because it is contemplating the momentous words that Peter had just spoken:
A careful examination of the position of St Peter indicates which of the two he or St James had the superior authority, thereby elucidating the principal matter under discussion. It is his speech which decides the course of action to be adopted, and when he gives his reasons he makes it clear that the course has been indicated to him by God.
This speech puts an end to the dicusssion.

All that remains is for James to stand up and gives his assent to the faith.

"And should anyone say,'Why then did James receive the Throne of Jerusalem?; this is my answer : that He appointed this man Peter not teacher of that throne, but of the whole habitable world."

And most certianly for those who wish to read the Holy Fathers Of the East and the West rather than perpetuate a myth that they do not speak about a Preeminent Authoirty of Peter and his successors in the Bishop of Rome they need only research the topic.
I will include but one example from our Father Among the Saints, John Chrysostom:

"The Apostles do not see their own affairs, but those of others, all together and each seperately. Peter the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world. the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ; for he says 'Peter, lovest thou me more than these? I speak his praises that you may lean that he loves Christ, for the care of the slaves is the greatest proof of love to the Lord. 'If thou lovest me,' he says, 'feed my sheep.' Let us see whether he has the primacy as a shepherd."

Fr Stephanos

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 08-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 08-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 08-26-2001).]