www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Peter the Rock

I must be off to a business meeting and will check in later today. However, one quick comment seems to be in order. For those who insist upon the necessity of schism or even insist that "we're right and they're wrong" you seem to miss the point of my post. I'm not arguing agains the very obvious historical separation. What I'm arguing is that the historical consequences of that separation can be repaired if and only if we all are willing to go back to the basics. I have listed what I perceive to be the basics. Everything else can be negotiated if and only if we sit down together.

Could we focus upon that?

dan l

I would like to raise a possibility for helping the process of mutual understanding. If as Dan said the deeds os JP II have done much to heal the breach. the statement on filoque, I know of a group the is doind its part to help. At my annual retreat at Gethenemy Monastery in Kentucky(Trappist-Latin Rite0 I noticed the puplications of th;e Russian Orthodax seminary press Quarterly. Being supprised, I asked the guest chaplain about it. H e said that since a number of RO priests come their for retr;eat, they decided to carry the publications so they could sturdy if theey wished. The Trappists not only believe BUT PRACTICE the theory that the fisst step to understanding is for monks of different professions to pra;y together and to join in ecuminical conferences. The path to unity may be travelled fster ;by praying together than by arguing over petty details, Just a thought. Cliff

All praise to Jesus Christ.

Cliff that is an excellent idea.

Dan L

Dear Dan,

Now this is bottom up reconcilliation par excellance! I'm all for this. Infact, my family and I are actually members of both an Orthodox Church and a Melkite Greek Catholic Church. The beauty of this is that these two Churches in our local area actually intermingle. For instance: on the feast of the Theophany and Nativity (celebrated together on 1-6 in the Armenian Tradition), the Melkite Bishop Nicholas Samra gave the homily at our Armenian Orthodox Church! And what a homily it was! We could do nothing but rejoice in the concord being manifested between our two Churches. I affirm your commitment (and others like you) to such ecumenical endeavors.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Undoubtedly, for the Orthodox, the doctrine of Papal infallibility is the major obstacle to re-unification. Observing the problem from an exclusively Latin viewpoint, I can't see the Papacy ever giving up the doctrine. In the Latin Church (and I'am speaking for the West only) it is a commonly held belief that Rome is under special Divine protection, that hasen't necessarily been extended (for whatever reason) to Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople. Many Latins see a historical confirmation of Papal Supremacy in the fact that Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were overrun my the Moslems in the 7th century AD, and of course Constantinople in 1453. That belief has only been reinforced by the further by a long subjugation of a large part of the Orthodox world by both Islam and Communism.

Again brothers, I'am only giving you a Latin perspective on the problem, and I'am aware that this runs contrary to the teachings of your respective churches.

Again I would like to bring up the Matthean text
Matt 16:19 leaving aside who the Rock is lets go on to the issue of the keys of the kingdom of heaven " doso soi tas kleidas tes Basileias " nowhere in the NT are the keys given to the Apostles but to Peter alone.
the Greek text is clear "soi" is possesive singular for you.
What is the OT background for this idea of the "keys of the kingdom.?

Stephanos I

Dan, Thanks for your comment. Itold the Chaplain t;hat I was baptized in the Bysantine rite in Cleveland, and was searching for home in the East' I will settle ineither of the two Catholic BR Churches in ;the Clevelnd Area aor the Orthodox. The Chaplain added that the monks wre thinking of addingan Eastern chapel so ;t;hat visiting Orthodox jpriests would have familiar surrondigs to perform the Divine Liturgy. He started talking about vestments th;at they wre looking into ;and whether the brothers could assist as servers. I don't thisk that would be a problem for serving and a;ssisting as EC priest. I will discuss it forther to see what is happening when i go thre this fall. He in fact found me the phone number and address of one of the EC bishops in (Parma) Cleveland Area. I feel that the Lord is leading me in this direction.
Cliff

Can you ever see a day when this dogma is seen by the West as making sense for the West but has little or no application to the East? Father Loya is a guest speaker at my Theology classes at the University of St. Francis. He tries to show how differently the West and East think but that these differences should not separate us. E.g., he helps the class see that the West tends to conceive, though they don't always act, upon a centralized system of authority. The East forms communities of conciliarity.

If each can simply find a way to let the other live with this difference it would seem that recommunion is possible.

I take seriously Arturo's observation that the bishop overseas liturgy, and nothing else. But isn't this another way of saying that the East did not need to combine temporal and sacred authority since it had the luxery of an empire. The West had no such luxery but needed the pope to be a temporal as well as religious leader. Would the East have developed differently if it had lacked an emperor early on in its development? Would the West have developed differently if they had had a viable emperor throughout the Middle Ages? Should this be enough to deny the other communion?

As far as the West is concerned I don't know quite how to interpret the infallibility issue. I know that we are in communion with Rome. I know that is supposed to mean that we are in agreement with all declared dogmas. However, this one stretches credulity in my opinion.

Can the councils of the West since the eleventh century be renegotiated? Can they be accepted for the West but not for the East? Crazier things have happened.

Let's look at this another way. Rome was a backwater town for centuries after it had been overrun by the Visigoths. In fact its decline began when the center of the Empire was moved to Constantinople. I should think a case could be made for God's protection of the latter, and not so much the former. Should the fact that the Crusaders harmed Constantinople and helped to cause it to be too week to sustain itself be a cause of celebration that God somehow has blessed Rome above the other cities?

Dan L

Dear Dan,

It seems to me that your post was relying on historic and current information to draw your conclusion that no schism exists from your perspective. Many modern scholars and churchmen (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) don't seem to share your opinion. To state that those that are obedient to the teachings of the Orthodox Church and her hierarchs who to date do not accept Papal Infallibility and numerous other developments that have occurred within the Roman Catholic Church "remain in that state of self imposed exile are technically "separated brethren"." is an opinion that has many ramifications for both east and west. Today Orthodox Patriarchs seem to think there is current schism, so does Rome and that matter is being addressed again today as it has on many occasions over the last 1000-year non-existent schism. How silly for both east and west it must be these days to address an issue and subject matter that does not exist. Your (5.) referenced below. I must have misunderstood the meaning of your post that concluded that no schism exists since that�s what you said and provided your reasoning for that conclusion. From the words and the tone of what you wrote I didn�t pick up on the clarifying new statement (What I'm arguing is that the historical consequences of that separation can be repaired if and only if we all are willing to go back to the basics.)

Thank you for making your point clearer to me because it is a very charitable statement and certainly the sort of attitude that is conducive to mutual understanding.

5. Since there is no schism existing today there is no need for a consensus of Patriarchs to heal a schism that does not exist. Those who will not recognize communion between the East and the West have really separated themselves from both Orthodoxy and from Catholicism. Those who remain in that state of self imposed exile are technically "separated brethren"."

4. The issue of the "filioque" is now a non-issue since Pope John Paul II agrees with the Orthodox that it is never necessary to be used.

If you don't say the "filioque" or feel that it is never necessary to be used, but you have the mountains of centuries of theology endorsing the filioque, does not remove the matter from the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. I suppose if the Pope or Roman Catholic Church produced an infallible statement saying that the "filioque" theology is incorrect and no longer endorsed by Rome then it would be a non-issue for the Orthodox Church and a rather large issue for the Roman Catholic Church.

I don�t have the time now to ask about your other points; perhaps it is not necessary or perhaps latter.

Dear Ray,

I think the world being flat and the scholarly papers in support of that notion is understated as insignificant compared to eternal damnation or salvation. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and since there have been spiritual and Holy Saints that understood that a schism exists and the Church and our Hierarchs have told us that one does I don�t think it is accurate to equate such with worldly matters. Could you tell me what your understanding is of the Church triumphant from the church militant?

Dear Father Stephanos,

So I�m clear here, are you saying that the �keys of the kingdom� are given to Peter alone and hence the Orthodox do not have the keys? Hence the importance of unity with Rome?

Is the understanding below of the explanation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact and others who shared his understanding correct?

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens. He spoke as God, with authority, "I will give unto thee." For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By "keys" understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind, Even though the words "I will give unto thee" were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23) The verb in Greek for "ye remit", aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only. Had the authority been granted to Peter alone, the text would read, "whose soever sins thou remittest", but since "ye" is plural, we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles. Also, the words "I will give" indicate a future time, namely after the resurrection. The actual granting of the authority to remit sins takes place on the occasion described in Jn. 20:23, when, after the resurrection, the Lord breaths on all the assembled disciples. "The heavens" also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in aquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins.

I would appreciate very much your explanation of the differences and how and why you might find the Blessed Theophylact to be in error or misunderstood and how the Roman Catholic Church and theologians would or should currently interpret similair text?

Thanks.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Stephanos...


I may have missed something in this thread because I have not read every post. So I may be answering something that you already know about and you were simply trying to remind someone else of it.

The Keys of the Kingdom�

In the Davidic form of government� the King (David) has a Queen called the Queen Mother. The Queen is not the Kings wife it is the King�s mother.

The King may have several �wives� and by these have several sons however nephews were also called sons. So the �son� of the King could be either a direct son fathered by the king himself with one of his many wives or could actually be a son of one of his brothers or sisters.

From among the �sons� (which we can think of in terms of a prince) the King comprised his �cabinet�. These sons are Ministers. We can think of them as princes fulfilling the office of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of this and that. From among these princes, sons, Ministers of affaires - the King would appoint one to be his Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister was also a Minister like all other appointed sons - the PM acted a bit differently in that he had the power to act in the King�s place. If the PM declared that he was speaking for the King then all other ministers must accept his words as if the King himself had said them.

The Keys� originally these keys were the keys to the Kings private chambers. The Prime Minister alone was given the privilege to enter into the Kings chambers - at will. For example - all others must receive the Kings direct permission before entering (the visitor would be announced and the bodyguards must wait for the King to speaks his approval for the visitor to enter) - while it was courtesy that the Prime Minister would also be announced and wait for the Kings reply the PM had the authority to use the key he had been given - to enter at anytime - without asking. All the PM need do was command �Open the door for me� and the bodyguards would open the door without hesitation.

In public functions the PM would also act for the king. It is very much as the Vice President acts for the President.

Back to the keys. In as much as the King had the divine right to command the locking or unlocking of the Kingdom (have the city gates locked or unlocked, the food storehouses locked or unlocked, etc..) and other matters which are metaphorical to this - the Keys given to the Prime Minster also symbolized this authority. This is what is symbolic about giving the �Key of the City� to some visiting dignitary (and honorary gesture with no real authority).

So the Keys to the Kingdom represented the this relationship with the King, this Primary Ministerial position, and the authority to speak for the King.

The actual Keys developed into a silken sash that was worn by the Prime Ministers - belt to shoulder - upon which gold or silver keys were pinned as and emblem.

The Prime Minister (as I have said) was one of the Ministers (princes) appointed out of all other Ministers. A Son appointed out of all other sons. A Prince of the House of David appointed out of all other princes.

In most cases - the Prime Minister was also the Son of David. Meaning the next in line to be king. He was also the first fruits or first-born (according to the Hebrew play on words). Not the first by way of time but by way of perfections. One must think of winning �first place�. He was the son which was most like the mind of the father.

As I say, most times the PM was also the Son of David (next in line) but not always. For example - if the king appointed Bathesha to be the most favored wife and appointed her son to be the next King - at age 10 Solomon would not yet have the experience to fill the Prime Minister role - so that role would be filled by another (preferably not family but a military commander) until the appointed son was old enough to do the job. If that was the case - appointing a family member (another prince) was not advisable because it was too easy for the temporary son to arrange a coup and claim that he had been the real appointed Son of David and not the younger prince. So the temporary appointment out of the family was a measure to protect the life of the prince until such time as he could assume the position.

I believe that the Prime Minister's authroty over the other Minsiters - was not direct - hense he was a 'minister like other ministers'. His authority over them was through the King. In other words he did not command the other ministers directly but might have other minsiters act in such and such a way by agreement of the King. Of course, when 'speaking for the King' all other misisters must obey as if the King himself had made the pronouncement. But 'speaking for the King' was not taken lightly and if dome out of deceit it was clear that the King could make a new appointment of Prime Minster at any time (I think in praticallity the King would arrange for the son to be likked so as not to admit he made a bad choice). This form os government was very common in Semetic areas and similar to Egypt and Mesoptamia.

So when Jesus said "Keys to the Kingdom" no one listening needed and explaination of what that meant.

This is how I understand it.

-Ray

Dear Dan'

"Your Quote"

That belief has only been reinforced by the further by a long subjugation of a large part of the Orthodox world by both Islam and Communism.

That's a real sad commentary or notion from my perspective. If that is really what they believe than that really explains a lot to me and I�m sorry to hear it. In fact, the more I hear the more terrible the whole matter seems. All I can do is pray and hope that Gods will is done and those he has permitted to address these matters realize the importance and results of their actions.

Did this "subjugation" alter or affect the sound theology and doctrines of the Orthodox Church and cause the Church to irrevocably change its teachings? I think the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches both understand that
the Orthodox Church has maintained her traditions and teachings in spite of the brutal assaults of the evil one and the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. Many saints had been assaulted by the evil one so it comes as no surprise that the church would also come under attack. The most important thing I think and this applies to east and west alike are not just the physical attacks but assaults regarding the theology, teachings and traditions of the church.

If I'm conveying something incorrectly or understanding something incorrectly, please let me know so I can at least try to understand things better.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Lawrence wrote:

Many Latins see a historical confirmation of Papal Supremacy in the fact that Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were overrun my the Moslems in the 7th century AD, and of course Constantinople in 1453. That belief has only been reinforced by the further by a long subjugation of a large part of the Orthodox world by both Islam and Communism.

reply:
Sounds rather Evangelical-Protestant to me. In fact, this sounds very much akin to the "prosperity gospel" Jim and Tammy Baker were formerly -and that Robert Tilton is currently- operating under (e.g. "God wants to bless you with financial success and prosperity"). I don't know what God these people are following but its not the one who said "take up your cross and follow me" or "if they persecuted me they will persecute you" or "he who is last will be first." I laugh in the general direction of those who site architectural, intellectual, artistic, and monetary achievements and progress as a sign that they are the "true Church" and have the "true faith." On second thought, I feel sorry for them.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Matthew,

For my point it does not matter what Patriarch's and theologians think about what you have posted. The only points that are relevant to the points I have made is the following:

1. Did the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Rome Excommunicate each other?

2. Did any other Patriarchs excommunicate the other?

3. Did the two Patriarchs lift the ban on the other?

4. Has Orthodoxy held any council which excommunicated the Catholic Church?

5. Does Orthodoxy officially recognize Peter as the Rock? Does most of Orthodoxy recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor to Peter?

I think we know the answer to the questions, at least no one has disagreed with what I've suggested. I don't know for certain that there have been no Orthodox councils that have excommunicated the Catholic Church but if there has been any one would think that some Orthodox poster either here or on the Orthodox forum on which I post would have contributed that knowledge.

The only logical conclusion is that technically neither Church is in schism from the other despite the fact that to one degree or another each has treated the other as though it is schismatic.

If it is true that neither is technically is schism then it's well past time that both sit down with each other and hammer out the other issue over which there is disagreement. It is high time that both sides stop the less than charitable behavior toward the other.

Let's have theologians on both sides getting busy toward reunion. Let's have bishops and patriarchs from both sides sitting down with each other. Let's have monastics from both sides praying as if there is no tomorrow.

Someone characterized the situation as two parents not getting along and the child trying to get both of his parents whom he loves to stop squabbling. I think it might be that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are the squabbling children and their parents (Eastern Catholics) are trying to get them to behave.

Whichever the case my commitment is to give much of the rest of my life to this endeavor. I can't imagine a more compelling and exhilerating cause, no matter what the outcome.

Dan Lauffer

Brian,

Am I assuming correctly that you have read my post on how we are working together with both Orthodox and RC's at the parish level? If that is correct you also read my request that you show us all what your parish is doing to move recommunion along. You haven't responded. I hope that doesn't mean that you don't care about the rest of Christianity or that at any means your parish has done nothing.

Hiding behind some pretense of offense without posting a positive response seems rather cowardly. If I'm talking past you, please forgive me. At least I'm trying. How about you?

Dan L

Dear Dan,

I like where you are going with all of this. It reminds me of something a Roman Catholic friend said to me once:

"Catholics and Orthodox may one day wake up to find that, unbeknownst to them, they have fallen back into communion with one another."
(or something to that effect)

I think it will take a great persecution for this to really happen. I hope I'm wrong but there are already precendents in the Near East. There Orthodox and Catholic Christians of Syrian Tradition are producing common catechism programs together and sharing Churches. They are co-operating partly to prevent their own extinction in that region.

Keep up the good work,
Ghazar

p.s. Why don't you stop picking on Brian :p