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

As I was reading through Acts I was struck by the fact that Peter seems to make decisions on his own without the 'consent' of the other Apostles. For instance, he receives the vision from the Lord of the great sheet with unclean animals upon it meaning that the unclean is no long off-limits. Peter baptizes Cornelius' household and eats at table with Gentiles. After Peter's vision and subsequent actions, Gentiles are admitted fully into the people of God. I don't remember reading that Peter first consulted the other Apostles regarding this drastic and bold move. Is this not a biblical justification for the Pope to make decisions on his own without consulting eastern Patriarchs? I know there is the extra-biblical Tradition in the Christian church of all Patriarchs being equal, but it would appear that this was a later development, at least after Peter was killed.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Ryan

Oh really? How would you explain it? Here is a story that deals directly with Peter making a major decision without the other Apostles. I have heard of other things plucked from the shadows of scripture and held as 'rules'. Such as, celibacy for monks. Where in scripture did this come from? Paul saying it is better to be a eunich (sp)? How about the See of Constantiople? This is extra-biblical. If anything it fell after a 1000 years pretty much as Jerusalem fell 1000 years after David. Rome, however, is still standing and thriving. Rome was where the Gospel was heading and where it pitched camp, at least according to Scripture.

Brothers ans Sisters:

Before this gets out of hand, let's remember that not everything that happened in the early Church or everything that Jesus said and taught is contained in Sacred Scripture.

And let's remember charity before the knives come out over papal jurisdiction, a perpetual flash point.

In Christ,

BOB

Well I for one would like to bring up the greek text of John 21.
While not an expert, does not the text use a technical word to describe Peter's role in the post resurrection Church - He is to (boske) feed both the lambs and the sheep and he is to (poimoine) rule the Church. He is to also strengthen the other Apostles. That sounds like to me more than a primacy of honor.
Open for discussions ( civil) only please!
Stephanos I

But it was James, not Peter, who led the Council at Jerusalem. This could wind up being an interesting discussion, but as one of non Roman persuasion, it appears to have been brought up in a rather triumphalistic fashion. If we can discuss this like adults, without polemics, I am with you all the way Father, although, obviously, we will disagree!

Alexandr

However it was Peter and not James that made the binding decision no? Peter was also the one that addressed the council and James merely ratified what Peter had proclaimed.
Acts 15:13-35
Stephanos I
And Yes I agree with you lets not get triumphalistic.
But that being said let us also not avoid difficult questions either.

I agree Father! But as you said, Bishop A, James, ratified what Bishop B, Peter put forth. It looks synodal to me.

Alexandr

I am not saying that the Church is not run after a synod model and a model of Oecumenical Councils but that the Bishop of Rome has the right and the duty of implementing the decisions of a synod and calling a synod to task when it is out of line. As for instance Pope Leo the Great.
Stephanos I
His position is to maintain the unity of the Church among the other Sees throughout the world.

Theologus the Pope might enjoy this right as his position in the Pentarchy but perhaps Christian love dictates that he does so in a way that listens first and then acts.
Stephanos I
Which I am sure most of the Popes at least of recent times do!

Very quickly we have reached the point where we have 2 diametrically opposed views. (Ain't it always the way?) I would put forth that the synod of bishops, not one individual would implement synodal decisions and take to task any errant bishop. What if the bishop of Rome fell into heresy?

Alexandr

Well then again that is the point at which we differ!
When the Bishop of Rome speaks on matters of faith and morals by an "ex cathedra" statement he is guaranteed the charism of infallibility.
Stephanos I
And from very early on it has been maintained that the the Roman Church has never erred. (Doesnt that statement even come from an Easter Father?

I suggest you to read the epistles of patriarchs of the Holy Orthodox Church to roman pope from 1848 and 1895.
You say that Peter didn't ask any kind of approval from others for Cornelius conversion. I haven't read in the Bible that the others did (before that there is conversion of man from Ethiopia by apostle Phillip). Even Lord said that Gospel must be proclaimed among all nations.
If you read the epistle to the Galatians written by apostle Paul, you can see that apostle Paul opposed to Peter directly.
What you made of papacy during the century has nothing to do with Church. Even if pope should as you say ''strenghten us in faith'', how he can do that if he doesn't profess the orthodox faith.

We alone don't say that...the Ecumenical Patriarch said it too.

Dear Friends,

The point is that both West and East agree on the exalted position of St Peter in the early Church as the "Corphaeus" etc.

That issue is separate from the successors of Peter. Who are they? Are they ONLY the bishops of Rome? And, if so, why? Did he not ordain the first bishop of Antioch? And also those of many, many towns and villages throughout the East?

Although he and the other Apostles had the powers of bishops, he was not a bishop himself - he would have had to stay in one place in order to be that.

Alexandria too, having been founded by St Peter's disciple, St Mark, was considered "Peter's See."

And many agree that the exercise of the papal office needs reform.

The role and office of the pope in the West developed in response to the historical context of the West. As such, some say the papal powers were really extraordinary "patriarchal" powers that the pope was obliged to assume for various reasons (much like the powers that EO patriarchs have assumed that differ markedly in character from the authority wielded by other Orthodox ecclesial primates).

Papal supremacy defined as Western patriarchal supremacy is fine . . . for the RC Church.

Rome has not moved one iota on the issue of how the pope can and should exercise authority over other Churches in union with it - also how the pope would the great Petrine Minister in the event of a reunified Christendom.

Alex