www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Christ's directive? Just explain it away.

Jesus said: �YOU are PETER, and on this rock I will build My church.�
How do the Orthodox wiggle out of Christ�s direct and unequivocal directive?

If I were a fly on the wall, I would have loved to listen to the snickering and ruminations of the other 11 Apostles as Our Lord spoke those words to Peter, no one else, just Peter.
Somehow, however, I think it would sound very similar to the Patriarchs/Bishops in the Orthodox Church.
In short; how can the successor of Peter, The Vicar of Christ, the Prime Apostle, chosen to be so by Christ Himself, be, as they (Orthodox) insist: �one among equals?"
As we read in the Acts: "...even people wanted to be in Peter's shadow, because it healed them as he passed them...."

I call it arrogance, pride, protectionism, CY"B", fiefdom-ism, and a plain unwillingness to accept the clear words of Christ as he formed His Church. Don't they (Orthodox) think that Our Lord knew what He was doing?
That too many chiefs, and not enough Indians, would not be a good idea? That one person had to be the "Final Word" in disputes in His Church while He (Christ) was not running things?
Of course with that line of thinking (one among equals), they (Orthodox)can be lumped in with the Protestants who say �The Rock� thing is only a metaphor, like the words "this IS my body.....this IS my blood. Do the Orthodox believe those words were just "metaphors" too?
Now who�s really �pro-test-tating?�


JMVFTTP

Dear Third Pew,

We Orthodox believe that the Pope is FIRST among equals and has primacy. That is historically how the first millenium church ran.

After the schism, the two estranged sides developed differently (like Papal supremacy) due to historical conditions. That is something we all must acknowledge, as evolving is indeed inevitable. That is something we must pray can be worked out to the satisfaction of both sides of the cultural divide.

We all need each other. I firmly believe this. I trust in the movement of the Holy Spirit and in prayer. The jurisdictions under the Ecumenical Patriarch, such as my Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, are working towards this goal. Others, however, are stubbornly resistant, like the Antiochians.

It takes a long time to divorce, and even a longer time to make up. It WILL happen, and I say that with all assuredness because I believe that this holy saint, Pope John Paul II, of thrice blessed memory, has set the foundations, and that his prayers in heaven, coupled with the prayers of the faithful will prompt the Holy Spirit to do that which is pleasing to God.

God works in mysterious ways, and those ways are only known to Him. In the meantime, we must build bridges of love, understanding, and peace.

May it be so.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice,
Sorry, In my haste, I meant to say "First" among equals. I still believe the Orthodox heirarchy think "one" among equals fits them better, however.
TP
PS: I enjoy your thoughtful posts on the Forum!

We Orthodox don't "wiggle out" of this one; we don't view it as a metaphor, either. The Orthodox POV is that the "rock" is Peter's confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

I could turn your logic around and ask how Catholics wiggle out of Christ's unequivocal words that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26), but I am not that mean.

Dave

I dont intend to say much on this thread because I've already said all I want about it on other threads on this site and it will get us nowhere. From what I've read of the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers (displayed in my starter to the thread 'Ut unum sint' in the East-West section) the idea that the ancient See of Rome was merely regarded as first amongst equals is not justifiable. St Ignatius of Antioch and St Irenaeus make this clear long before the Ecuemnical Councils were embryonic.

Moreover, I dont think one can justify the fact that the rock is Peter's faith. Given that Jesus would have said Kephas speaking in Aramaic, which is the name Peter bore for the rest of his life. Added to that the name change isnt even the most important part. Its the giving of the keys of the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose that is really crucial to the Primacy of the Popes. A name change could be interpreted as honorific but compare Isa 22:19-23 and Matt 16:13-20 and you'll see that the Son of David giving his keys to St Peter is far more significant than calling him Kephas.

That being said this argument like many others on this website wont get us anywhere. These threads only end up going in circles and simply reflect that hope for union between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches is humanly impossible. I stress humanly because its my humble opinion that it would take a miracle of God to bring it about.

I think one of the greatest legacies of Pope John Paul II was his approach to the East. He did not engage it as an angry parent, scolding and wagging his finger. He approached as a brother and an equal, cognizant of the shortcomings of the past of his own church and in so doing eliciting the same sort of reflection on the part of those outside of his church. There's probably a lesson for all us there.

????

How can you say that Christ calling Peter the Rock on which He would build His Church is simply Peter's profession of faith?
Pretzel logic I think.
Sound to me more like Christ naming/calling/appointing/installing/wishing/declaring Peter to be in charge while until He returns.
I'm only serious, not mean!

I think the tone of your question is belligerent. I think the substance of your question has been respectfully asked and respectfully answered in other posts and threads. And, it was respectfully answered in this thread too. Hence, the real question is how the Church of Jesus Christ shall be reunited, and the real answer was in the patient kindness of responses to your question despite your belligerence.

--John

Dear Thirdpew, CHRIST IS RISEN! One question only: Do you really think that your post reflects the tone and attitude of His Holiness, the late Pope John Paul the Great??? Answer: Errr...awww...well, no, I guess it really doesn't, does it?

I'm seeing quite enough arrogance from my own side (the Orthodox) these days. I don't really think that anyone will be brought closer to unity with this attitude of triumphalism (which is how you are coming off here). Rather we should concentrate on the example of humility and charity that the Holy Father has shown us for the past 26+ years---that my dear brother and sisters will bring about the Lord's desire, 'that all be one as the Father and I are One.' I'll even go a step further and suggest that THE reason why we're still separate 'lungs' of the same Church is this attitude of triumphalism. It is in the end, a sin against unity...period. May the Lord for forgive us all!

And to think that we're suppose to be trying to take the Holy Father's teaching to heart---especially during these days! Lord have mercy!

In the Risen Lord,
+Fr. Gregory

I can understand that VC II completed VC I on the view of the Papacy. However, it is very difficult to square the infallibility dogma with "First among Equals".

Yet if Supremacy is a stumbling block that may need further examination by the entire Church the lack of any real connection with Peter is a rather large stubling block that the Orthodox have that must be reexamined.

Dan L

The reason I am Eastern is because worship is a joy and the liturgy is Divine.

The reason I did not Dox because despite the rhetoric they really have no connection to Peter.

Dan L

Actually Third Pew,
It is entirely logical to see it as Peter's Confession of Faith if you have a good knowledge of the Fathers. That being said, I also agree that it was more than Peter's Confession. It was also the person of Peter that was singled out above the others, but still in a communio or koinonia with the others. That is an area that I think Orthodox refuse to look at. And there is ample evidence of the authority of the Pope in disputes within other Sees.
I do not mean to provoke an arguement with my dearest Orthodox brothers and sisters, but maybe well all need to honestly and humbly look at those points in charitable dialogue.
Stephanos I

Thirdpew,

Why don't you go back to the "why married priests won't solve the vocation shortage?" thread and respond since Fr. Thomas, an Orthodox priest, has been kind enough to answer your statements and questions there?

As far as the confession of St. Peter, many of the Church Fathers taught that it was St. Peter's confession that was the Rock. Some taught it was both the confession and St. Peter.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The problem is pride... It was the first sin, the one that Satan embraced in heaven when he thought that he could do things better than God. He then helped impregnate the sin of pridefulness in humanity.

Lord knows there is enough of this sin to go around. 1054 happened because both WEST and EAST got their vestments in a bunch and took their toys and went home.

There is enough blame to go around on the split, now what do we do to bring about the union that Christ prayed for? That is the question.

My belief, is that John Paul II is at the feet of the Lord asking him to heal the split.

John Gibson

I agree wholeheartedly with John's post.
Pride...some people are full of it.
Sorry for not being more "PC" to all those chastizers out there. A clever way to obvuscate the issue.
BTW, I don't care if married priests are allowed. I'm all for choice. I just don't think it will solve the vocation crisis OK?
JMVFTTP