St Peter, the 'keys' and the See of Rome [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Justin

09-09-2003, 07:24 PM

The Fathers seem to see the "rock" here to refer to three things: Peter, Peter's faith (or "divinely revealed truth"), and Jesus Christ. Here's some quotes...

"...all the sects are truly 'gates of hell,' but 'They will not prevail against the rock,' that is, the truth." - Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Pneumatomachi, 3, 74

"The first of the Apostles, that firm rock upon which the church of God is built, so that the gates of hell, that is to say the heresies and heresiarchs, will not prevail against it. " - Epiphanius, Ancoratus 9, 6

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer" - Augustine (Quoted in: John Rotelle, "The Works of Saint Augustine" (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), p. 327

"Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' But his confession of faith conquered hell." - Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 4.32-5.35

"Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you" - Ambrose, Commentary in Luke, 6, 98

"It is that same Peter to whom He said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.' Therefore, where Peter is, there the Church is, there death is not, but life eternal. And therefore did He add, 'and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,' (or him). Blessed Peter, against whom 'the gates of hell prevailed not,' the gate of heaven closed not; but who, on the contrary, destroyed the porches of hell, and opened the heavenly vestibules; wherefore, though placed on earth, he opened heaven and closed hell." - Ambrose, Commentary on Psalm 40*

"A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles...whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?...And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built...that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her." - Hilary of Poitiers, On The Trinity, 6, 36-37 (and 2, 23)

"For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord" - Cassiodorus, Expositions in the Psalms, Psalm 45

"In Thy saints, who in every age have been well pleasing to Thee, is truly Thy faith; for Thou hast founded the world on Thy faith, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Athanasius, Commentary on Psalm 11

"Thus far we have spoken of priestly origins in the Old Testament. But in the New Testament after Christ the priestly order arises from Peter; for to him the first priestly office in the Church of Christ was given. Thus the Lord says to him: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and I shall give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.' So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of honor and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles." - Isidore of Seville, The Church, 2, 5

"Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates" - Cyprian, Epistle 33

______________

A list of quotes is, of course, only a beginning and not really theology, but there some are FWIW. When you look to lists of quotes only, things can sometimes get confusing; however, when you look at historical examples, it becomes abundantly clear how the east viewed the west, Peter, and the papacy. Gregory the Theologian for instance, who would hardly have held to the idea that one had to be in communion with the see of Peter to be Orthodox (since he wasn't in communion with Rome! and if anything, Rome fought against him, not for him). Yet, Saint Gregory could call Saint Peter "the unbreakable rock" and "the one allotted the key" (On God and Man: The Theological Poetry of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, p. 108 [In Praise of Virginity, 489]).

So, if one only had the quote to go on, one might be able to read into Saint Gregory's words the modern papal claims. However, when examining the life and other words of Gregory (and the actions of the east in general in this period--such as the 2nd ecumenical council, which passed canons which Rome rejected but which the entire east affirmed in spite of Rome's protest) it becomes clear that reading some type of (Roman version of) Papal supremacy into the words of St. Gregory is purely eisgesis, and to claim that he was a supporter of "the Catholic Church" (as they picture it) is wholly anachronistic.

Justin

* Though Ambrose here speaks of Peter, we should not be misled by this language. The Orthodox Church also speaks of the Theotokos in similar language: "Rejoice, only gate through which the Word alone has passed. Lady, by your childbearing, you have broken the bars and gates of hell." (Triodion, Fifth Week of Lent, Saturday Matins, Praises of the Theotokos, The Canon, Tone Four, Canticle Three) Ambrose was making a point, and it is wholly anachronistic to read a precise doctrinal belief such as petrine supremacy (as the Catholics hold) into the quote.

John Wilson

11-09-2003, 09:01 AM

Dear Richard,

you can find the book online at T.R. Valentine's website. Click on this link (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/essays.html) and scroll down near the bottom of the page under the section "Books". I recommend reading "Some comments regarding this work"

John.

Daniel Jeandet

11-09-2003, 12:48 PM

Another side to the story is the fuller interpretation given to this part of Scripture by the Holy Fathers of our True and Saving Faith.

After the confession of Christs Divinity by Saint Peter, Christ and the apostles then go away for some time and this period of quiet is followed right after by the Transfiguration.

St Greogry Palamas speaks of this sequence of events as being symbolic of the Christian life. First we confess Christ as God, (Peters confession, the rock on which the subsequent phase is built) and then we follow the path of his commandments in a life of stillness and hesychastic prayer (the time of quiet immediatly following Peters confession), this is followed by the vision of God, Theoria of varying degrees according to our struggles (the Transfiguration witnessed by the apostles after establishing their faith on the rock of Christs divinity and the time of transformation inbetween). These events are all linked. Christs disciples up to this time had undergone purification in thier journey with the Master as he lived with them and taught them of the mysteries of the Kingdom, given to the multitudes as parables. This brought them to a phase of illumination, the True knowledge of Christs Divinity, not just by hearing, and led them through illumination to Glorification, their witnessing of Christs Transfiguration.

I just wrote that from memory. Its not a great explanation. See the book "St Gregory Palamas as a hagiorite" for a better one.

Richard McBride

11-09-2003, 09:33 PM

Beloved of the Lord John W

Thank you for that URL of Valentine's. I am amazed to see "The Papacy" on the net -- and he has other interesting works as well. Do you think this is the last place to find "The Papacy" in print?

richard mcb

Marie-Duquette

12-09-2003, 04:14 PM

Gratitude to R.McBride, J Kissel, R. Leigh, John Wilson, Daniel J. and Monachos for the wealth of insight shared with me concerning my question about Peter, the Rock. My work is certainly cut out for me for a while, hoping that the Holy Spirit will enlighten me, guide me as I pursue this "lectio divina" for the Glory of God!

Blessings to all,

Marie Duquette

Byzcath1

25-10-2003, 11:39 PM

I was wondering if in any buddy could referance to my some writings of the early church fathers that would support the Orthodox View of the Papcacy. Also what is the Orthodox Scriptural Support for their claim of Infalibility by ecumenical council.

In Christ+
Daniel

Richard Leigh

26-10-2003, 02:34 AM

Dear Daniel,

Sorry I can't take care of the first part of your quesion right now (but I wouldn't be surprised if material concerning the so-called Photian Schism would be a helpful place to start), and of course a true Orthodox will be able to give you a better answer than I, but until then let me be the one to start by saying I think the Orthodox will tell you that they don't have and never really considered needing Scriptural support for the infallibility of the Church, and would caution you that a Council is only Ecumenical when the whole church has recognized that it teaches what she has always believed. Sometimes this takes a while. (Also, I know the late Fr. John Romanidese taught [teaches on his website romanity.org] that Ecumenicity was a function of having been convened by the emperor of the (real) Roman Empire (AKA, but he would say, "wrongly", Byzantium). Be that as it may, the Church as bride and body of Christ is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. No one individual can speak for her, collectively she speaks together as bride and always recognizes the Truth, since she is animated by the Spirit of Truth. Thus, the Scritures were written by the Church by specific OT and NT saints and collectively recognized [much was written by other spirits, but God's word is recognized for what it is] by the self same Church.

Sooner or later someone will point out that Scriptural support is not necessay for those very reasons, but this does not mean that they don't consider themselves subject to what God says in Scripture, properly interpreted. It is even possible to assert that nothing that comes out of a truly Ecumenical council contravenes Scripture and is thus Scriptural.

Yours,

Richard

Byzcath1

02-11-2003, 05:37 AM

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], 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 [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

How would Orthodoxy Responed to this?

In Christ+
Daniel

M.C. Steenberg

02-11-2003, 07:01 PM

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for your recent message regarding St Cyprian's comments on the primacy of St Peter among the communion of the Apostles. The most basic response to your question at the end of the quotation, which was 'How would Orthodoxy Responed to this?', is that the Orthodox Church has always professed, and indeed still professes, that the episcopal seat of St Peter is the first among those of the great sees. This must be clarified immediately to read first among equals of the successors to the holy Apostles, for the Church's 'collegiality' does not ascribe more 'spiritual authority' (or such) to any one bishop over another. The successors of the Apostles are the successors to the Apostles, equal as respects the charism of the apostolate and authority in 'rightly defining the Word of God's truth'. They are, nonetheless, accorded an organised hierarchy of honour and organisational authority, precisely as the Lord organised the ranks of the original twelve Apostles. Thus amongst these equals there is a 'first', not inasmuch as canonical or spiritual authority are concerned, but as respects organisation, unity, and patrimony.

In this 'hierarchy of the hierarchs', the bishop of Rome, the descendent of St Peter, is as noted above ranked first of all. However, because this organisation of bishops also professes that none is doctrinally flawless or inerrant, it is possible for one or another - or even whole successions of bishops - to fall into error or heresy. This is precisely the situation that the Church would and does proclaim with regard to the see of St Peter. While it rightly would hold first place among the sees of the Church, the departure from the Orthodox Faith by its patrimony means that this position shifts to the next in the hierarchy - namely, Constantinople.

I hope this helps to answer your question. Please note that I do not wish there to develop in this thread a 'Catholic vs. Orthodox' discussion of the sort that often arises in response to such questions; but if there is continued question over how the Church interprets St Cyprian's (or another patristic author's) words, let us do then continue.

INXC, Matthew

dianne marie debs

02-11-2003, 07:44 PM

In Our Lord Jesus,

During my years of studying the Orthodox faith and theology and also having the blessing to have constant meetings with some highly scholar Fathers, I have come to an understanding that these words didn't actually mean “material” bases for the church; but rather a spiritual strength bases.

Peter was one of disciples who stayed close to Our Lord, John being another. These, with James were chosen to be present at the Transfiguration of Jesus. They were allowed to see a glimpse, sort to say, of heaven.

So why then did Jesus say Peter was the rock? Possible because he was older or more experienced? Because his faith love for Our Lord was so strong?

However, I believe the Holy Scriptures can not be read word for word, as many do.
Peter established the Church of Jesus, the Church of Love.Peter was an example of true faith and love.

There were 5 main churches created. Yes, Rome being looked upon as number one; but number one equal to the others. In the early years; Rome could not make decisions without the consent of the others.

The Church was built on a rock, yes. But it was the ROCK of FAITH in which Our Lord was speaking.

While I was writing, I received the edition from our well scholar moderator, Matthew. Thank you for the clarity of the topic.

Let us go to the scriptures and seek SALVATION.
Contemplate the Rock of Faith and rejoice! May all of us be able to achieve such love and faith for Jesus. Amen.
A humble servant,
Dianne

Cyril Guerette

02-11-2003, 08:07 PM

Exuse my ignorance ... how does this "being first among equals" actually play out? Perhaps looking at the current role of Constantinople would answer my question. Does this higher honour have any practical application or is it simply titular?

Another question, these 5 most important sees were identified at what time in Church history? Were they later added to? Why or why not?

Again, sorry for my ignorance, this question has been in my mind for some time.

Richard Leigh

02-11-2003, 11:00 PM

Dear Dianne,

It looks obvious to me that Simon was surnamed Peter (Kephas, really, "the Rock") when he answered Jesus' question to all of the disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" by speaking forth the Father given words "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" Since Jesus is the Rock "which followed our forefathers in the wilderness, from whence sprang the spiritual drink", and that confession of the Rock (i.e., Who Jesus IS) corresponds to it (Him), its first proclaimer gets the name. It seems naturally to have fallen to Simon as the most talkative of the lot. He was also given the promise of procaiming that to Jerusalem and all of Judea, to Samaria and the ends of the earth. This was accomplished on the first Christian Pentecost, the visitation and confirmation of Phillip's work in Samaria, and The household of the Centurian in Caesaria, "opening" the door of Heaven to them all.

Dear Cyrill,

The first see [seat] was Jerusalem. James the Lord's brother was its first bishop, leaving Peter the opportunity for travel. The second was Antioch (where we were first called Christian), and as I understand it, Peter was its first "Bishop." I would suppose that Alexandria comes next (the church is not mentioned there in Scripture, but it is where Apollos was from, and there had apparently been a lively offshoot of John the Baptizer's followers there, as well as a loarge Jewish community. Fourth will be Rome (another palace there was a large Jewish community), its centrallity lying in the fact that it was the capitol of Empire (anyone that went anywhere from home was sure to pass through Rome, all roads led there, after all).

Constantinople comes in fifth, and this was at a time when the capitol of Empire had moved there. By then I believe Jerusalem had fallen off the map (at least for a time).

Richard

Fr Averky

03-11-2003, 03:44 AM

Dear Friends,

In the old Tridentine (Latin) Mass, five early popes were commemorated; Linus, Cletus, Sixtus, Cornelius, and I believe Cyprian. There are those historians who contend that Linus was already the bishop in Rome when the Apostle Peter arrived, but in time, he was to be listed as the first Pope and bishop of Rome, where he was Martyred. For quite some time the Pope was actualy referred to as "The Vicar of St. Peter." I am sure that most of us who are older have read the book entitled "Quo Vadis." It is an historical novel based on St. Peter and how as the persecution of Christians increased in the city of Rome, and becoming faint of heart, he hsstened to run away lest he caught. As he is almost to the city limits, a tall man suddenly appears and says to him, "Quo vadis, Domine," Where are you going, sir?" Peter realizes that is Christ who has spoken to him, and filled with renewed courage, he turns back to certain death. A very interesting book, one which inspired me to desire to serve God in His Church. Daniel, I would suggest that you read it.

In the Holy Gospel of St. Matthew, just after Christ had spoken about the "rock" of Peter's confession and that upon his confession would be the foundation of His Church,"He then warns His disciples to tell no one that He is the Messiah."

The narrative continues:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" He said. "This shall never happen to you!"

Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, you do not have in mind the concerns of God,, but merely human concerns. (Matt. 16:20-24 ) TNIV

This is yet another incident of St.Peter's somewhat weak character. Perhaps he was the oldest, but we see his faltering when the disciples see Jesus Christ walking on the water, and St. Peter in his boldness ask the Saviour to bid him to walk out on the water and meet Him. Christ does so, but when he loses sight of the Lord when a large wave rises between them, he panics and cries out for the Lord to save him, which He does, but rebukes him for his lack of faith. The most notable incident is when the Saviour tells St. Peter that he will deny Him three times before the cock crows. As usual, getting flustered and defensive, he sputters his objection, but Christ's words come true. In the Garden of Gethsemane, when He is being arrested, St. Peter without thinking of possible consequences, draws his sword and cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest, and our Lord rebukes him for his lack of caution.

I would not think that St. Peter, faithful as he might have been, would not have been singularly chosen to be the head of the Church in light of rather clearly perceived instability. Christ also mentions that there will be twelve thrones, not one, on the day of Judgement. This also seems to indicate that not just one person will be present, but all twelve Apostles in equal rank.

I say this because if Christ would have picked just one of the disciples to be the "head" of his church, I personally think it would have been St. John the Evangelist, for even though he was the youngest, he was the one whom our Saviour loved. He was constant in his faith, and it was given to him that he would not die. Yet we know that when the sons of Zebedee, James and John asked to sit at His side, one on the right and the other on the left, He said to them "You do know know what you are asking."

Then the Gospel continues:

Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." (Mark 10: 39-40) TNIV

In the Gospels we see that as He mentions many times, Our Lord did not do anything by His own will, but by that of His Father in heaven. He says nothing of the sort to St. Peter, and one would think that He would have. In icons of the Last Judegement, the Mother of God is on the right of Jesus Christ, and St. John the Baptist is on His left, and that makes much more sense.

Looking at St. Peter from this particular perspective convinces me that although he was fiercely loyal to Jesus Christ, he was a bit of a bumbler at times and was excitable and unstable, and he faltered all too easily. This is just my poor view, and I happily stand corrected.

Richard Leigh and Cyrill, what do your respective Churches say about the phrase, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church?" I would be interested, because I do not think I have ever heard the interpretation those words as seen by Protestants.

Respectfully yours,

Fr. A.

Moses Anthony

03-11-2003, 05:19 AM

Dear Daniel,
You asked, "...how would the Orthodox respondto this?"
The classic answer is in what determines the majority of dogmas and creeds, interpretation. In this case it's the interpretation of one specific word. When Jesus said "...upon this stone...", did He say petras, or petra. Was He speaking of the rock interpreted in the name Peter. Or, was He speaking about the Rock in the confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Logical reasoning says that if the Church is truly the body of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, then one would interpret Jesus as saying that He would build His Church upon the Rock of the Caesarean confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
If however on the other hand, one believes that the Body of Christ is built upon the primacy of the Apostle Peter, then the interpretation goes the other direction. One would have to however ignore the obvious scriptual passages in which Peter is subject to the authority of the other apostles, even Paul.
That's how I would answer!

the unworthy servant

Effie Ganatsios

03-11-2003, 07:42 AM

Richard, the word Petros (Peter) means "rock" in Greek.

Effie

John Wilson

03-11-2003, 01:15 PM

In the footnotes on page 54 of the book "Upon This Rock" by Stephen Ray, you find the following quote from Saint John Chrysostom.

"See how Paul speaks after Peter, and no one restrains: James waits and starts not up, for he (Peter) it was to whom had been entrusted the government (primacy)" (Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33 in Berington and Kirk, Faith of Catholics, 2:34).

Now look at the unedited quote in context.

"After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up[2] (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. "And after that they had held their peace, James answered," etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others* to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."

Bit of a difference don't you think? Always check out the quotes given from church Fathers. Quoting them out of context is what is known as "proof texting" and I think most people agree that it is not the way to understand what was intended by the author. Better still if you can read the original Greek as many of the English translations leave something to be desired.

John.

Cyril Guerette

03-11-2003, 05:24 PM

I thought this was interesting in Origen's Commentary on Matthew, Book XII:

"11.THE PROMISE GIVEN TO PETER NOT RESTRICTED TO HIM, BUT APPLICABLE TO ALL DISCIPLES LIKE HIM.

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,"(7) hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"?(8) Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"(9) be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? "

He goes on to argue in more depth why these promises apply to all the disciples and not just Peter.

As far as Evangelicals interpretation of the verse, it is usually along the same lines ... that he was building the Church on Petros confession; or that the Church was indeed built upon Peter (his vision being the true and first authority for bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles) but that this was a historical assertion and not a commendation of Papal succession.

Richard Leigh

03-11-2003, 05:39 PM

Dear Effie,

Yes, I know, and Kephas is "Rock" in Aramaic.

Dear Father Averky,

Our (Lutheran) churches teach, like you Orthodox that that Scripture (in Matt. 16)refers the "Rock" upon which the church is founded as the confession, but we hasten to add that confessions are made by people.

Richard

Richard Leigh

03-11-2003, 06:48 PM

Dear Everybody,

Don't the Orthdox distinguish seniority from primacy? Isn't "primacy" an "RCatholic" word?
I thought the emphasis on seniority was that, while all are equal before God, the seniors (elders) would be the more experienced and hopefully on that account wiser, always holding the caveat that wisdom is given by the Spirit of God and the aged can be foolish. But, generally speaking, is this not the Orthodox take on "authority" as it is vested in the Church?

Richard

Byzcath1

04-11-2003, 08:48 PM

It seems to me that every buddy uses the Greek Translation of Matt 16:16. Jesus Didnt speak greek, he spoke Aramaic that would be the most acurate translation of that passage. I was wondering if any buddy could post some Early Church Fathers in support of Orthodoxy's view, of Peterine Primacy, and Catholic Papal Doctrines. I myself have never seen any Church Fathers supporting Orthodoxys view can any buddy help me find some?

In Christ+
Daniel

John Wilson

05-11-2003, 08:26 AM

I think you are mistaken when you say that Jesus did not speak Greek, he quoted the Old Testament chiefly from the Greek Septuagint for a start. Greek was, after all, the lingua franca at the time and I suspect that pretty much everyone spoke it. It is one of the beefs I have with Mel Gibson's "Passion".

Regarding your point, the Matthew's Gospel wasn't given to us in Aramaic but in Greek, perhaps for the very reason of protecting against people misinterpreting Peter the person as being the rock. Jesus had given Simon the name "Kephas" when he first called him in John 1:42. John used the Aramaic then, so why doesn't Matthew? I don't think your argument is as simple and clear as you think it is.

John.

M.C. Steenberg

05-11-2003, 10:24 AM

Regarding patristic views on the place of the see of St Peter, and thus the place of the bishop of Rome, which are in support of the view held by the Orthodox Church, as requested earlier in this thread:

Some of the most straightforward remarks in this regard actually come down to us from St Gregory the Great, pope of Rome in the sixth-seventh centuries A.D. His remarks were occassioned by the Emperor's application of the title 'Ecumenical Patriarch' to St John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople. Gregory was deeply disturbed by this title, not because he felt that its attribution to a patriarch other than that of the see of St Peter was improper, but because he felt the very notion of such a title or rank was incorrect (we must keep in mind that St Gregory understood 'ecumenical' to mean universal in authority and power, which is not how the term as it is used in the title 'ecumanical patriarch' has come down to us today'). In response to this, St Gregory writes to St John:

"Certainly Peter, the first of the Apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John -- what were these but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head [...] the prelates of this Apostolic See , which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called 'universal' (oikoumenikos) by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. Yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or has seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren [...]"
[I](Excerpted from Book 5 of the collected epistles of St Gregory the Great of Rome, Epistle 18).
Later he writes in a similar vein:

"This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve . But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren..."
[I](Book 5, Epistle 43)

When, a short time later he writes to the Emperor (Maurice) on the matter, he is yet more emphatic:

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others."
(Book 7, Epistle 33)

Later, he writes to the Bishop of Alexandria (Evlogios):

"Your Blessedness [...] You address me saying, 'As you have commanded'. This word 'command' I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am and who you are. For in position you are my brother, in character my father. [...] In the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you, most sweet Holiness: do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself [...] For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally."
(Book 8, Epistle 30)

There are multiple things of note in these quotations, but among them I might simply point out Gregory's own insistence that, prior to his own day (he reposed in A.D. 604), no bishop of Rome had ever claimed episcopal primacy of authority.

INXC, Matthew

Richard Leigh

05-11-2003, 05:27 PM

Dear John,

I beg to differ regarding our Lord's native language. We must all recognize that the question is somewhat conjectural, meaning that we do not have God's word on the matter other than the few instances I will give here. There are couple of distinct indications of Christ's use of Aramaic in the Gospels, e.g. "Talitha Cumi," "ephphatha," and "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," which show Him definitely using Aramaic, not to mention Simon's surname "Cephas" (Kefas). There are also several instances where the Greek used in the Gospels definitely translates Aramaisms, and some Hebraisms as well, though there are also places where the Greek used cannot be said in Aramaic/Hebrew (also, "Amen" is definitely a Hebrew word not translated in the Gospels, though at times translated "alethinos" ="true" or "genuine").

Of course, there is the curiosity that Simon is not a Greek name, while his brother's, Andrew, is. Thus, we have in the same family one who "points" toward Hellenism while the other in the opposite direction.

Josephus stated that Greek was difficult for him, and he was a scholar, somewhat contemporary with the Apostles, and the 12 were not scholars. Koine Greek was apt to be spoken in the cities, and granted Nazareth and Capernaum were cities in the "gentilish" area of Galilee, so it is conceivable that He and his disciples used Greek, at least there in public, but Aramaic was ggenerally used in the outlieing areas of the country (as the 'mother tongue' was in all the "provinces of empire, note the list in Acts 2), and as Peter's name is given also as Kephas, I doubt that when they were alone together as a closed group they were speaking anything but Aramaic.

It is certainly important that the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation were all ultimately written in the lingua Franka, but that doesn't mean, I don't think, that they aren't translating from a language which was an earlier lingua franka in the east, and remained so for kingdoms to the east of Alexander's so-called oikumene.

Yours,

Richard

Byzcath1

05-11-2003, 07:19 PM

Dear: John,

Yes the Gosples were written in greek but they were spoken by Christ to the Apostels in the
common lanugage of the people which was Aramaic at the time, even though many and most of the jews of jesus' era were very hellenized. It is safe to say that Jesus did speak Greek, Heberew, and Aramaic. Although it is a historical fact that the lanugage of the common people in this time period was Aramaic, so the i my personal opinion Aramaic is the most correct lanugage for translations and interpretations. I do recall that through my studies Matthew was oringially written in Aramaic at least one of the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of St. Matthew is in aramaic.

In Christ+
Daniel

Herman Blaydoe

05-11-2003, 07:20 PM

Cyprian of Carthage

Possibly along the lines of the Abbe Guettee in his treatise "On the Papacy"

St. Cyprian was right in calling the Church of Rome, "the chair of Peter; the principal Church, from whence sacerdotal unity emanated." (St. Cyp. 55th epis. to Cornelius.) But for all that, did he pretend that the Bishop enjoyed authority by Divine right? He believed it so little, that in his Treatise upon the Unity of the Church, he understands by the "chair of Peter," the entire Episcopate, he regards St. Peter as the equal of the other Apostles and denies his primacy, he makes St. Peter to be the simple type of the unity of the Apostolic College. Further on will be found entire the texts of St. Cyprian and Tertullian. Therefore, it is in a limited sense that he calls the Church of Rome the chair of Peter; he makes her the principal Church—but that was a fact resulting from her exterior importance. She was the source of Sacerdotal Unity in this sense that Peter was the sign and type of the unity of the Apostolic College. To give any other sense to the text from the letter of St. Cyprian to Cornelius would be to contradict the Treatise on the Unity of the Church, to attribute to St. Cyprian two contradictory doctrines, and consequently to take from him all logic and all authority.

Those who have given such high importance to the text of St. Cyprian, taken from his letter to Cornelius, have forgotten another that so well explains it that it is difficult to understand how they have omitted it. It is that in which he declares that, "Rome should precede Carthage, because of its great size—pro magnitudine sua." Cypr. Ep. 59 ad Cornel. This doctrine agrees with that of St. Irenæus and the other Fathers, who have never mentioned any divine prerogative with which the Church of Rome had been favored.

From: of the Authority of the Bishops of Rome in the First Three Centuries (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/guettee06.html)

Simply Herman

Byzcath1

05-11-2003, 07:38 PM

Dear: M.C.

Christ is in our Midst!

Thank you for the quotes thats the first time any buddy Orthodox has posted any for me in support of orthodoxys view. Can you tell me were I can get them? Also can you post a few more. Thanks

In Christ+
Daniel

John Wilson

06-11-2003, 12:26 PM

Dear Richard,

you misunderstood me. I never said that Greek was Jesus' native language. I was merely responding to Daniel's statement:

Jesus Didnt speak greek, he spoke Aramaic

which he has since corrected in his most recent post. I'll have to admit it is more likely that Jesus quoted the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the Gospels, being written in Greek, made use of the Greek Septuagint rather than translating again from Hebrew (why reinvent the wheel?), so I'll take that back about Jesus quoting the Septuagint.
I'd like to see what the Pe****a has for Matthew 16:18, I suspect Kephas, but I can't read Aramaic.

I think it is important to note that Jesus did not give Simon the name Peter in Matthew 16, but when He first called him. I also feel that since Jesus was speaking directly to Peter in Matthew 16:18, that we should try and understand how Simon Peter would have understood Jesus' words (is he talking about me personally, or about what I just said?)

John.

Richard Leigh

06-11-2003, 11:17 PM

Dear John,

Oh, well, OK. I think maybe it's not this big a deal anyway. Maybe, back to what the Father's thought about what was going on there in Matthew 16.

You raise a good point, though, as to how Peter himself took Jesus' statement to him.

Richard

Fr Aaron Warwick

08-11-2003, 01:08 AM

Dear Byzcath1:

Here are some more quotes from fathers...most of them Western fathers to boot! If you are interested in reading about the differences in opinion between East and West in regards to the Pope, I highly recommend Michael Whelton's book, "Two Paths."

St. Augustine (Homily X on John V. 1-3): "See what praises follow this faith. 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church.' What meaneth, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church'? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock' saith He 'I will build My Church.'"

St. Ambrose ("On the Incarnation"): "Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it
was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he
borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavor then, thyself to be a rock - thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock."

St. Jerome (6th book on Matthew): "Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named."

St. John Chrysostom (Homily LIV on Matthew XIV:13): "'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church', that is, on the faith of his confession."

Aaron

Byzcath1

10-11-2003, 09:58 PM

My question is, what would be the Signifigance if Peter was the Rock? What would be the Signifigance if Peters Confession is the Rock as Orthodoxy Believes?

Because I believe after reading some western church fathers, that Peters Confession is what Christ calls the Rock. Any buddy help me out.

If Peter was the Rock what would that mean for the Papal Doctrines?
If Peters Confession was the Rock of which Christ spoke of what would that mean for the Papal Doctrines today?

In Christ+
Daniel

Fr Aaron Warwick

11-11-2003, 05:36 AM

Dear Daniel:

There were some fathers, in my understanding, that said Peter himself was called Rock. However, one must keep in mind the following:

1. Peter was considered by the early church to be a "prototype" of all bishops. All bishops shared in the episcopal ministry with Peter and were just as much bishops as Peter was bishop.

2. Peter was a bishop in Antioch for a longer period of time and before he was bishop in Rome. He also had connections with the Alexandrian church, which is why Pope St. Gregory the Great referred to the see of Peter as Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.

3. The first church council, held in Jerusalem, was presided over by St. James, the brother of the Lord, and not Peter.

It seems to me that the subject of Christ's statement has little significance to the Orthodox for the reasons stated above. In fact, I once read that approximately 20% of the fathers interpret "Rock" to be Peter himself. These fathers were in communion with the same fathers that interpreted the Rock as Peter's confession.

The point of this is that the practical application of the early Church's belief was not dependent on whether one viewed Christ's statement as being Peter or Peter's confession. In other words, the problem lies not within what Christ was referring to, but rather what practical implications his statement has. Whether an early father believed that Christ referred to Peter or whether he believed He referred to the confession of faith, the early Church father did NOT believe in the Papacy as it is proclaimed by the RCC today.

That being said, if Christ was referring to Peter's confession and not Peter's person, then the entire understanding of the Papacy must be changed in the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC has built an entire theological system/empire around the understanding that Christ was referring to Peter himself. Unlike the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church's position is VERY much dependent on the subject of Christ's statement.

In addition to the above, I think it is also important to understand that we are all called to be "Rock." We are all called to have the boldness of faith that St. Peter had.

I'm sure that others will add much more and much better. Forgive.

Aaron

M.C. Steenberg

11-11-2003, 10:54 AM

Dear Aaron,

I appreciated your last post) on the idea of Peter as 'rock'. The notion of distinguishing between Peter's confession and Peter's person in the ascription of the title 'Rock' by Christ has always struck me as a bit dualistic. Both are certainly true, and we must keep in mind that many Orthodox Fathers ascribe the title directly to Peter's person, without equivocation, as warranted by his confession. The desire to divide the two has, I assume, been occassioned over the course of history precisely by the desire to compare and relate the RC and Orthodox understandings of Peter's episcopacy and its place in relation to the other patriarchates.

But as much as both statements are true (namely, that the title 'rock' applies both to Peter himself and to his confession), so both are incorrect and dualist. If discussions such as this have anything to learn from the long history of Orthodox ascetical theology, it is that person and confession can only be divided and separated if neither one is whole or complete. True confession is the fruit and manifestation of purified personhood, and one's person embodies and makes real his or her confession.

For Orthodoxy, St Peter is the rock -- the rock upon which Christ will and has built His Church. This is true of Peter's person, for, as Aaron noted, Peter is the first among bishops, the prototype and model of hierarchs. It is also true of his confession, for Christ as the living Son of God is the heart and life of the Church, and without that confession she does not stand.

This is all, however, somewhat separated from a discussion on the 'primacy' of any one bishop over another. We have seen, in another thread, quotations from multiple Fathers who show that this 'first position' of St Peter and of his patriarchate does not equate to primacy of authority, rule or power. We have also seen, in the current thread, that the earliest Church, that still reigned over by the Apostles, honoured St Peter but called its first council under the omophor of St James.

INXC, Matthew

Byzcath1

14-11-2003, 07:28 PM

I am having alot of trouble trying to understand the papacy and its historical role with in the early centuries of the Christian Church.

What does the Orthodox Church basis ther denial
of the Papal Infallibility, and Papal Primacy of Authority, and Universal Jurisdiction, on? Thats what I am really after, I already know what Catholics, say to "prove" the Papal Doctrines, and beliefs. What do the Orthodox say to refute that, where do they look? I do want to be reunited with my "Mother Church" The Orthodox Church, but I do need to study the issue of
the papacy indepth because thats really all that
seperates Orthodoxy in Catholicism in my eyes.
Hope you can help. I will also be reading the Primacy of Peter, and am going to buy "The Orthodox Church: By Bishop Killistos" God Bless.

In Christ+
Daniel
IC XC NI KA

Richard Leigh

15-11-2003, 12:35 AM

Dear Daniel,

Orthodoxy basis all of its assertions and denials on, dare I say it? the truth. The Truth started out the truth at the beginning, and has remained the truth ever since. The papal dogma of papal infalibility was propogated only in the 19th century.

Orthodoxy's understanding of authority in the church is that there are three orders of what I'll call "leadership" in the church which correspond to high priest, priest, and levite in the Old Testament Hebrew dispensation. These are Bishop, presbyter (elder, or priest) and deacon.

The Bishop is an apostolic minister of oversight. This is the ministry they were alotted (cleros, from which comes the word "clergy"). And oversight translates the word from which "episcopacy" comes. In hierarchical terms, thate is really nothing higher than Bishop. Patriarch is a term that was given in the fourth century but its bearer is not more than a bishop, but it originally designated the bishop of one of the first five sees (seats) from which the regional churches radiatedm and to whcih they were related by their mutual missional activity.

Each bishop is head of his own house, so to speak, for the Lord. Each are equal befor God, with the others. But, even though "head of his own house" no bishop is overlord of his house, the church or congregation, which is the temple and house of the Holy Spirit. Like a good householder, he listens to what the spirit says in "the bride" of Christ, the church, and guides prayerfully. All is worked collegially.

By the same token, in the overall church, consisting of all the Bishoprics, the Holy Spirt dwells in the whole, and the Bishops together rule collegially. One among them has the first place of honor with the expectation that he will preside in the same collegial fashion they all do over each their respective bishoprics.

The chair of Peter is certainly held as first in honor among the rest, but for last nine or ten centuries that chair has put itself across not as first among equals, but Emperor over princes, dukes, and counts (or earls). No one throwing his weight around like that deserves listening to, and until that is rectified (by repentance of the true sort) the "first in honor among equals second only to Rome," namely, Constantinople is left to stand in.

God gives infallibility to no one human being, under any circumstances, and that's the truth.

Yours,

Richard

Fr John Wehling

15-11-2003, 02:00 AM

Daniel,

Reading even an introductory church history text (R.W. Southern, for example, has a chapter on the papacy in "Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages") will make it abundantly clear that, no matter how many quotes can be marshalled for the RC doctrine of Papal primacy, it simply never existed that way, at least in the East. RC's who push primacy (and not all RC's do) often try to make it sound as if the Orthodox East rebelled at some point against the Pope (or as if the Eastern Patriarchs were puupets for the Emperors), but history just doesn't bear this out. Rather, as Papal presumption grew and the claims of the Popes became grander and grander, the contrast between Papal claims and Orthodox ecclesiology became more and more apparent.

Of course, it is a tangled history in some regards, and the danger of oversimplifying the matter is ever-present. But it seems to me, in my small mind, that history is on the side of the Orthodox in this matter. John Henry Newman said once that to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant. Ironically (for Newman converted to RC-ism), it seems to me that it also leads one away from Roman Catholicism.

That's the view from where I sit, anyway.

Peace to you,
Fr John

Fr Aaron Warwick

15-11-2003, 04:34 PM

Dear in Christ Daniel:

I came across this encyclical yesterday and it is very much appropriate to the topic that we are discussing. I cannot imagine finding a better Orthodox understanding of the differences between East and West than this, the Ecumenical Patriarch's Encyclical of 1895 in response to the Pope's Encyclical of the same year. Here's the link: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/ency1895.html

Aaron

Herman Blaydoe

15-11-2003, 07:49 PM

Responses to Roman Apologists (http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/responsestopa.htm)

This is a fairly comprehensive website.

Herman the simple

M.C. Steenberg

15-11-2003, 10:10 PM

Dear all,

I am going to 'gently suggest' that perhaps we wrap up this discussion, unless we wish to turn it back to the patristic sources, etc, as further points of discussion. I do believe that the point has been well made regarding the equality of bishops --all bishops-- in the Orthodox understanding, and my thanks to all for the very informative and enjoyable posts to this effect.

INXC, Matthew

Matthew Panchisin

18-11-2003, 01:14 AM

The explanation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact says the following. Sorry, if I made any typographical errors in posting the text. I went over it a few times, but usually after I post I notice errors.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Once again Peter leaps forward with fervor and confesses that He is truly the Son of God. He did not say, thou art the anointed one, a Son of God", without the article, "the" , but with the article, “the Son”, that is, He Who is the One and the Only, not a son by grace, but He Who is begotten of the same essence as the Father. For there were also many other christs, anointed ones, such as all the priests and kings; but the Christ, with the article, there is but One.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. He calls Peter blessed for having received knowledge by divine grace. And by commending Peter, He thereby shows the opinions of other men to be false. For he calls him "Bar Jona", that is, son of Jona", as if saying, "Just as you are the son of Jona, so am I the Son of My Father in heaven, and of one essence with Him." He calls this knowledge "revelation", speaking of hidden and unknown things that were disclosed by the Father.

And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. 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." For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but do not have as a foundation the Orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying "My Church" He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, to, had been lifted up when he said "O thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death" (ps. 9:13) From what gates, O David? From the twin gates of murder and adultery.

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 peroson 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.

Ken McRae

10-02-2005, 08:27 PM

Despite the limited 'theological' value of a list of Patristic quotes on any subject, it would be 'unorthodox' to entirely denounce the practice. Such lists clearly have their proper (though limited) place in all theological discussions of this nature. With that in mind, I post the following, sourced from two web pages, one of which is entitled, 'The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy and the Papacy' (http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm)! That webpage lists many other Orthodox witnesses, (as the link will evidence,) which I've not elected to post in this thread; seeing no point or need if these few, (which I have posted here,) prove ineffectual to entice you to look further.

001 - St. Gregory the Theologian (http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm) :-

"Regarding the faith which they uphold, the ancient Rome has kept a straight course from of old, and still does so, uniting the whole West by sound teaching, as is just, since she presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony."( In 'Carmen de Vita Sua' A.D. 382 )

002 - The Synod of Constantinople - A.D. 382 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311a.htm) :-

"Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock ... shall be loosed in heaven.' ... The first See of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, 'not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.' But the second See was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist ... And the third See of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch ... " (http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm)

003 - Pope Gregory the Great (http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm) :-

"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." (Lib. IX, Ep. 12)

"If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility." (Lib. IX, Ep. 59)

004 - St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387) (http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm) :-

"Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, &c.' This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

"Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe." (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

"Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church." (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world." (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

"In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren." (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)

"He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc." (in Ps. cxxix. 2).

"God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc.'" (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

"He [Peter] was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the Apostles, the leader of the band ... Jesus put into his hands the chief authority among the brethren ... For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only does not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks ... for Peter greatly loved John ... When therefore Christ had foretold great things to him, and committed the world to him, and spoke beforehand of his martyrdom, and testified that his love was greater than all the others ..." (Hom. 88 on St. John). (http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm)

005 - St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):-

A disciple of St. John Chrysostom ...

"Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles. Art not thou he that didst say, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'? Thou Bar-Jonas (son of the dove) hast thou seen so many miracles, and art thou still but Simon (a hearer)? He appointed thee the key-bearer of Heaven, and has though not yet layed aside thy fisherman's clothing?" (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

006 - John Cassian, Monk (c. 430):-

"That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God." (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

007 - St. Nilus of Constantinople (448):-

A disciple of St. John Chrysostom ....

"Peter, Head of the choir of Apostles." (Nilus, Lib. ii Epistl.)

"Peter, who was foremost in the choir of Apostles and always ruled amongst them." (Nilus, Tract. ad. Magnam.)

008 - Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516):-

"Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.'" (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a ; and Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

009 - Emperor Justinian (520-533):-

Writing to the Pope ...

"Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches." (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

"Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all." (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

010 - St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650):-

A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople ...

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate ... even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

011 - John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715):-

"The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren." (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

012 - St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828):-

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles." (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

013 - St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):-

Writing to Pope Leo III ...

"Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven." (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal ...

"Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all." (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

Writing to Emperor Michael ...

"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

"I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter." (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

"In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge." (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

"Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See." (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

=>> While the following witness is of Western origin, I post it to provide some 'Western' light on 'the Ambrosian Comment' posted above by Justin :-

014 - Blessed Jerome :-

"I follow no one as supreme leader except Christ only; hence I attach myself in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the see of Peter. I know that the Church is built upon this rock. Whoever eats a [passover] lamb outside this house, is profane. Anyone who is not in Noah's Ark will perish when the flood prevails." ( ep. 15 [ ad Damasum ] ; also quoted in Bettenson's 'Later Christian Fathers', p. 188 )

Justin

10-02-2005, 09:08 PM

Um... ok. Here's a few thoughts...

The part I think is funny is when people quote St. Gregory the Theologian to support papal supremacy, and the idea that you have to be in communion with Rome to be in the Church. Rome was not in communion with Constantinople at the time that St. Gregory the Theologian was Patriarch, and did not (during his life time) recognize him! They didn't recognize his successor, St. Nektarios, either. And yet Catholics consider him a saint and quote him in support of papal supremacy.

The part that's even funnier is quoting St. Emperor Justinian. Apparently someone hasn't read much about the 5th Ecumenical Council, because St. Justinian put the Pope of Rome under house arrest, humiliated him by making him look like a hypocrite at one point by making public a once-private doctrinal document, and even once tried to forcibly remove the Pope of Rome from a Church (which he was able to prevent by grabbing ahold of the altar). http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

One might bring up other examples concerning the other names mentioned. It's just too much. This papal supremacy stuff would be like me taking the thoughts expressed by St. Gregory the Theologian in the Oration after the death of St. Basil--you know, the one where he says that St. Basil is greater than all the prophets and Apostles--and making a doctrine that says that faithfulness to the writings of St. Basil would guarantee Orthodoxy.

This stuff is about rhetoric and politics, both of which are sometimes necessary.

Ken McRae

10-02-2005, 09:58 PM

>> Um... ok. Here's a few thoughts... <<

Thanks for taking the time. I will consider them, seriously.

>>The part I think is funny ... <<

I was'nt trying to be funny, nor provocative. I do not profess to anything, other than much ignorance, though I hope not invinvible. I posted these to elicit just the type of feed-back you provided, though hopefully in a spirit of humility and brotherly kindness. I'm not trying to belittle anyone, as I hope is apparent by now. If it has'nt been apparent that I'm trying to find my way into Orthodoxy, then I sincerely apologize. However, for me that involves doing my "due diligence", like checking into the list of Patristic quotes I just posted. If that's a problem for you, (and the others,) then perhaps I should depart from here, as I do not wish to stir-up anyone's ire.

>> ... is when people quote St. Gregory the Theologian to support papal supremacy, and the idea that you have to be in communion with Rome to be in the Church. Rome was not in communion with Constantinople at the time that St. Gregory the Theologian was Patriarch, and did not (during his life time) recognize him! They didn't recognize his successor, St. Nektarios, either. And yet Catholics consider him a saint and quote him in support of papal supremacy.<<

Well, I can only claim ignorance, as I've never heard or read of these events you refer to. If you feel up to it, I'd appreciate information, with either the book titles or web links you're sourcing. With regard to the "laughable" idea of having to be in communion with Rome, is that not what all those quotes appear to say, either explicitly or implicitly, or am I even more "illiterate" than I supposed? Can they all be dismissed as easily as you imply?

>> The part that's even funnier is quoting St. Emperor Justinian. Apparently someone hasn't read much about the 5th Ecumenical Council, because St. Justinian put the Pope of Rome under house arrest, humiliated him by making him look like a hypocrite at one point by making public a once-private doctrinal document, and even once tried to forcibly remove the Pope of Rome from a Church (which he was able to prevent by grabbing ahold of the altar).<<

Again, I have never heard of this either. Please provide some more details and reference sources. If it is true, as you say, then how does Rome deal with that? How do her apologists explain this?

Btw, St. Emperor Justinian sounds like quite the saint. If those quotes of his (I posted) are authentic, indeed, then it seems Justinian has his own share of the Pharisee, within himself. And I'm not impressed in the slightest with his manners. His behaviour, as you describe it, seems utterly reprehensible and quite unbecoming of a saint. I have to wonder what other little surprises of "saintly" character a study of his life might just uncover?

>> One might bring up other examples concerning the other names mentioned. It's just too much.<<

You obviously doubt my sincerity or the will of Christ to convert me to Orthodoxy, for you to dismiss me, "willy nilly", like that. May Christ reward you accordingly, for your penetrating discernment. It never occurred to me that a soul seeking the path of salvation was not that important.

>> This papal supremacy stuff would be like me taking the thoughts expressed by St. Gregory the Theologian in the Oration after the death of St. Basil--you know, the one where he says that St. Basil is greater than all the prophets and Apostles--and making a doctrine that says that faithfulness to the writings of St. Basil would guarantee Orthodoxy.<<

I'm afraid my "invincible" ignorance prevents me from seeing the logic of your point.

>> This stuff is about rhetoric and politics, both of which are sometimes necessary.<<

Perhaps, but that's not the impression The Synod of Constantinople - A.D. 382 - leaves me with :-

"Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock...shall be loosed in heaven.' ..."

This seems to say its more a matter of "Thus saith the Lord", than anything else.

(Message edited by theophilus on 10 February, 2005)

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-02-2005, 10:26 PM

My dear Theophilus,
The Holy Fathers honoured Rome as First Among Equals. This was due to Rome's connection to Apostolic authority chiefly through St. Peter. But mainly this honour was due to the fact that Rome guarded the purity of the Orthodox Faith even at times when this was being compromised in the East.
Tragically this began to gradually change beginning in the 9th century. Rome began to lose track of some of the fundamentals of Apostolic teaching which resulted in the great schism that we still see today. So although we acknowledge that Rome had a position of honour in the ancient Church we believe that she forfeited this by losing track of several fundamental Apostolic teachings.
There are quite a few Orthodox books devoted to this subject & also quite a bit has been posted at monachos about this. In a way I would say that one can learn a lot about what Orthodoxy is by studying what divides Her from Rome.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Aaron Warwick

11-02-2005, 04:52 AM

Dear Theophilus:

A few things to keep in mind.

(1). Any quote from a Church father should be considered within the general context and practice of the Church. These quotes are great, but the fact remains that the early Church did not use the same model used today by Roman Catholics in regards to church authority. For example, the Councils were not ashamed to anathematize the Pope of Rome if and when necessary, such as at the 6th Ecumenical Council with Pope Honorius. Who today in the Roman Catholic Church would dare anathematize the Pope (besides a few renegade Jesuits)?

(2). Many of these fathers may also be quoted as contradicting Roman Catholic assertions of papal authority. For example, St. Gregory the Great says that no bishop should call himself the Universal Bishop and says that any bishop who would do so is the pre-cursor to the antichrist.

(3). The Roman Catholic Church is not even the same church it was 70 years ago, let alone the same church it was 1,000 or 1,500 years ago. If it is evident that the Roman Catholic Church does not even hold to the same traditions it espoused 70 years ago, why would we expect them to have maintained the apostolic faith?

(4). If you are interested in an Orthodox view of this topic, I would recommend the book "Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition" by Michael Whelton. You can find it several places on-line.

Aaron

Olga

11-02-2005, 06:51 AM

I can understand your dilemma about how could Justinian have become a saint, given the allegation of unseemly behaviour. One of the most celebrated acts of hot-headedness perpetrated by a saint whose sanctity was beyond question was St Nicholas of Myra, who boxed the ears of Arius the heretic during an Ecumenical Council, no less!

Anthony

12-02-2005, 01:53 PM

I followed up the reference to T.R.Valentine's web site (above), and it is indeed a valuable resource.

Although this probably belongs to a different thread, I was interested by his comment that there is doubt over the Council of Hatfield, which is generally believed to have established the "filioque" in England. Unfortunately the link provided there is broken. Can anybody point me to more information on this?

Anthony

Ken McRae

12-02-2005, 05:51 PM

"In a way I would say that one can learn a lot about what Orthodoxy is by studying what divides Her from Rome." - Fr. Raphael

Dear Father,

Please forgive me, and pray that I may, by the grace of God, learn to bear patiently the rebuke of Divine providence, in a spirit of Christ-like meekness and humility. Thank you, as always, for your pastoral guidance and advice. I've taken it to heart.

In the love of Jesus,
Theophilus

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-02-2005, 06:28 PM

Dear Theophilus,
Don't worry- there is nothing to forgive you for!
May we all be guided to His True Church leading a life worthy of His Name.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Ken McRae

12-02-2005, 06:29 PM

"One of the most celebrated acts of hot-headedness perpetrated by a saint whose sanctity was beyond question was St Nicholas of Myra, who boxed the ears of Arius the heretic during an Ecumenical Council, no less!" - Olga

Hello Olga ~

Thanks for your feedback. I have the deepest respect and veneration for St. Nicholas, whose action was at least justified, if not inspired by God. Thus, we can say that his "violent" act was not sinful passion, but simplicity of heart acting in humble obedience to the Spirit.

Personally, I find the initial reaction of the Council Fathers, toward this event to be highly instructive. As far as I can recall, they were all scandalized by the Bishop's behaviour, and thus moved to defrock or strip him of his rank. Thus ought we to learn from their reaction that outbursts of "passion" are unworthy of a saint.

However, as the servant of God, St. Nicholas, was clearly vindicated by the wonder-working Providence of God, immediately after, the Council Fathers repented of their action against him and restored St. Nicholas to his throne with full honour.

Though I am not informed of the details touching Emperor St. Justinian's case, I somehow feel his actions to be less than inspired of God. Perhaps I'm wrong, though, and will eat my words later. May the Lord help me always to keep an open mind!

Btw, I'm reminded of quite a remarkable event in the life of St. Seraphim of Sarov, who I deeply respect and venerate, (together with the wonder-working St. Herman of Alaska,) in which he was attacked by a group of brigands, and left for dead presumably. Though he survived, by the grace of the Almighty, he was permanently maimed. But what I find remarkably wonderful in this account, and wholly not of this world, was not only his complete passivity during the attack and utter refusal to defend himself, but the way he interceded on their behalf, when his attackers were finally captured, to have them set free without punishment!!

I can't find the place where I read it, at the present moment, but I believe he threatened the authorities that if they refused to free his attackers, he'd leave the area and they'd never see him again!! Now that's a saint, IMHO, one that I can love and do love!!

I cannot for the life of me ever imagine the Emperor Saint behaving in that manner. His light, by comparison to St. Seraphim's brilliant radiance, is but the faint flicker of a candle "burning" in the bright light of the sun, at high noon!!

O holy St. Seraphim, pray for me a wretched man!!

(Message edited by theophilus on 12 February, 2005)

Ken McRae

13-02-2005, 10:40 PM

>> " ... the Councils were not ashamed to anathematize the Pope of Rome if and when necessary, such as at the 6th Ecumenical Council with Pope Honorius. Who today in the Roman Catholic Church would dare anathematize the Pope (besides a few renegade Jesuits)?" - Aaron <<

Dear Aaron ~

Thanks for your feedback. Sorry for the delay on my part, but I've been giving your contribution(s), (along with Justin's,) some serious thought, and am presently conducting research into them. Before I come to the main part of this post, I wish to express a few "personal" thoughts on the state of contemporary Catholicism.

First off, while I am on a journey toward Orthodoxy, and have discovered a growing love, deep within my heart, for many of your saints, my wife is Catholic (and not even remotely interested in Orthodoxy) and my daughter attends a Catholic school. Thus, I find myself still attending the Catholic Church, but more out of a sense of obligation to my father, wife, and daughter, than for any other reason.

Secondly, despite the ecumenical vision of Vatican II, I find myself agreeing with tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of disaffected Catholics who deeply believe that Vatican II was a complete and utter disaster for the Catholic Tradition; producing more evil than could have ever possibly been imagined. These disaffected Catholics judge the scandalous pontifficate of John Paul II as, without question, one of the worst ever in Catholic history !! Since Vatican II, CC attendance has dropped by over 60%. That alone speaks volumes!!

Both Vatican II and John Paul II are big reasons for my sustained interest in Orthodoxy. While there are a few scattered parishes that still faithfully adhere to Tridentine Catholicism, mine is not one of those. Mine is as downright Vatican II as they come, and it literally tortures me to participate in it, on any level; but I do, as I say, out of regard to duty (filial, spousal, and parental). For any who might be interested in taking a quick look at my Church, here is its Website (http://www.stjohnvianney.ca/).

The main crucifix alone, at the front of the Church, literally tortures me; the receiving of the wafer in the hand tortures me, the altar girls torture me, female readers, the female eucharistic "assistants", who are all over the altar, dressed in "unisex" clothing, and distributing the holy gifts. All tortures me!!

In all my time, I have never heard of or witnessed someone approaching the sacred gifts and being refused by any priest or eucharistic "assistants". Believe me: when faced with this utter debacle, every living fiber in me wants to cry out in horror and call down the wrath of God upon it all. But I try to be "calm" about it, in a good sense, not wishing to pass rash judgements, or throw out "the baby with the bath-water", if I may be so "cliche" about it. What I really mean is, I've been slow to reject the last 1000 yrs. of Catholic Tradition, purely over my fall-out with Vatican II and its current pope. That's part of the reason: the other part is my responsibility for my daughter.

To return to your question, though: "Who today in the Roman Catholic Church would dare anathematize the Pope (besides a few renegade Jesuits)?" With the current state of the CC, one has to wonder why JP II has never called another EC Council. Could it be that he's afraid he might loose the reigns of control, or that the end result of a Third Vatican Council might lead to his being deposed? Thousands upon thousands of Catholics view him literally as a tyrant. Personally, I think the chances of his being deposed by a 3RD Vatican Council are great !!

The deposition of John Paul II, I feel, though, would not present the Papacy with any greater difficulty than the case of Honorius has. And this brings me to the main part of my post. The Honorius case is admittedly complex, and presents both East and West with some considerable difficulty. From the Eastern perspective, you have the burden of reconciling the ecclessiology of Sts. Maximus and Theodore the Studite, and many others of their spiritual and theological stature, with contemporary Orthodox ecclessiology.

Though I am just beginning to plum the depths of this convoluted theological labyrinth, it does'nt require a Ph.D in this field to see the "rub". I've again posted below certain excerpts of these two saints, as the current focus of my research in this area. It would be extremely beneficial to me if someone who's taken the time to study the writings of these two saints, would explain for us all how to receive and understand these words of theirs.

While St. Maximus reposed before the 6th EC, he was contemporary to Honorius, and was, doubtless, completely informed of the details; and St. Theodore, looking backwards in time to both, still adhered to a view of the papacy that appears to clash with contemporary Orthodoxy. It is clear as day, in my eyes, that both of these great saints did not think the case of Honorius presented the difficulty to papal claims that you suggest, or would you care to disagree on that? Are you able to produce passages from their writings that contradict these posted below?

St. Maximus the Confessor ( c. 650 ):-

St. Maximus the Confessor - "Known as the Theologian and as Maximus Confessor, born at Constantinople about 580; died in exile 13 August, 662. He is one of the chief names in the Monothelite controversy one of the chief doctors of the theology of the Incarnation and of ascetic mysticism, and remarkable as a witness to the respect for the papacy held by the Greek Church in his day." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm)

01 - "From the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her." ( Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90 )

02 - "In the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate." ( Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10 )

03 - "The most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):-

04 - "Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven." (Theodore, Ep. to Pope Leo III, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

05 - "Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou ... " (Epistle of St. Theodore and Four Other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

06 - "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Ep. to Emperor Michael, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

07 - "I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter." (Theodore, Ep. to Emperor Michael, Bk. II. Ep. 63)

08 - "In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge." (from the Letter of St. Theodore and the Four Abbots, to Pope Paschal)

09 - " ... the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod ... " ( Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420 )

What do these two say? St. Maximus says that the Apostolic See "has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." Do you think he was ignorant of the views of St. Gregory the Great, or perhaps that he saw no contradiction between what Pope St. Gregory taught and what he himself believed?

St. Maximus proceeds further to say that "according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against" Rome; and St. Theodore says the same: -"I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie." It appears to my "untrained" eye a lot like both these saints believed in papal "supremacy" and "indefectability". How do you personally, Aaron, interpret these words of theirs?

While St. Cyprian precedes these two saints by a considerable sum of time, as everyone well knows, I could not but help notice the striking similarity between his views and those of Sts. Maximus and Theodore. Thus, have I taken the liberty here to post below three passages from him as well.

St. Cyprian of Carthage:-

10 - "Neither must we prescribe this from custom, but overcome opposite custom by reason. For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come." ( ANF, Volume 5, pp. 377 )

11 - "I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority ... Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter ... etc." ( ANF, Volume 5, pp. 394 )

12 - "After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics - to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." ( ANF, Volume 5, pp. 344 )

You may have a different reading of these than I, but the way I see these passages, from Cyprian, the first appears to teach that Peter held the primacy but chose wisely not to exercise it over Paul, when confronted on the issue of circumcision. The second passage clearly shows the claim Pope Stephen made in regard to apostolic authority and primacy; while the third claims that "faithlessness could have no access" to the throne of Peter, which sounds a lot like he believed in the "indefectability" of the see of Rome.

By the way, thanks for the book recommendation. I will make a point to read it, as well as the one posted on T.R. Valentine's website, and many others, in the Lord's good time.

Humbly in Jesus,
Theophilus

(Message edited by theophilus on 14 February, 2005)

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-02-2005, 11:55 PM

Dear Theophilus,
Thank you for bringing this subject up as it is so crucial to the life of the Church. For now just a few thoughts for now after reading the quotes you provided from our Fathers among the Saints Maximos the Confessor & Theodore the Studite.
I believe that what they say about the honour to be given to Rome is a very important point. You refer to a difference between modern Orthodox ecclesiology & that of these fathers in this regard. Without doubt there was great honour given to the Church of Rome throughout the universal Church in pre-schism times. We need to acknowledge that this was so also in the Orthodox east.
But I would say that the honour shown by these fathers is still relative & not absolute as with the modern concept of papal infallibility; ie it is contingent on the Orthodoxy of the Papacy. Indeed this is referred to specifically in one of the quotes & also in a more general sense that the honour the fathers refer to is manifested in the active defense of Orthodoxy by Rome. In other words the honour accorded to Rome is not abstract but rather as a result of Her active Apostolic Faith.
So none of this means that this honour was regarded as absolute. Both fathers after all would have been fully aware of the fact that long before their times the 4th Ecumenical Council had already declared in Canon 28 that Constantinople had an equal preminance to Rome. If either of the fathers had seen a betrayal of Orthodoxy by Rome then we can be most assured they would have condemned Rome.
I think what is important to keep in mind here is that the statements of these two fathers are grounded in the Orthodox ecclesiology that in fact no epicopacy is infallible; neither Rome nor Constantinople.
On the other hand it could be that there is an exaggerated note in modern Orthodox ecclesiology compared to the Patristic idea. Nowadays we like to stress "First among Equals" almost to the point that the "equals" outweigh the "first". Is this perhaps our modern way of thinking coming into play? It's something interesting to consider. After all the honour accorded to Constantinople until recent times by the rest of the Church was quite remarkable; eg how Constantinople could be an arbiter in the ecclesiastical affairs of other Patriarchates- something rarely seen now except in cases of clear political interference.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Aaron Warwick

14-02-2005, 07:48 PM

Theophilus,

I would have to agree with Fr. Raphael. As I mentioned earlier, all quotes are made within a context, and it is important for us to determine within which context they are made. As Fr. Raphael noted, these quotes were based upon the orthodoxy of the Roman See. As I have already noted above, the fathers had no hesitation in condemning and anathematizing a Roman Pope when his teaching was not orthodox.

Furthermore, I would again point out that the current Roman Catholic Church--or even the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church--does not even hold to the same teachings as these saints you quote, so I sincerely doubt they would make the same remarks today. For a good document related to this issue, I would recommend the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx).

In regards to St. Maximus, he refused to communicate with the Patriarchs of Constantinopole and Alexandria while they taught heresy. In the "Life of our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor," the following account is valuable in regards to our current discussion. Two patriarchal envoys asked St. Maximus:
"But what will you do when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch. "

The Saint replied, "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."

From the above, we can see that St. Maximus revered the Roman See because of its loyalty to Orthodoxy, not because of an absolute principal that the Roman See is the Church. I think that his qoutation of St. Paul sums up the modern Orthodox argument regarding papal authority.

Aaron

Emery Godlef

19-02-2005, 11:08 PM

We should also keep in mind the sometimes hyperbolic language used by the fathers. For instance, from Avitus of Vienne's letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem:

Avitus of Vienne writing to the Patriarch of Jerusalem: "Your apostolate exercises a primacy granted to it by God: and it is careful to show that it occupies a principal place in the Church not only by its privileges, but by its merits."

Which almost seems like awarding a primacy of honor to the Jerusalem Patriarch!

That said, I should like some opinions on certain quotes that pertain not to Roman primacy, but actual Roman jurisdiction... I have been struggling with these lately:

Pope St. Boniface (d. 422): "... it is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to it's fellowship." (Ep. 14, 1)

Pope St. Leo The Great (d. 461): "Though priests have a like dignity, yet they have not an equal jurisdiction, since even among the most blessed apostles, as there was a likeness of honor, so was there a certain distinction of power, and the election of all being equal, pre-eminence over the rest was given to one, from which type the distinction between the bishops also has risen, and it was provided by an important arrangement, that all should not claim to themselves power over all, but that in every province there should be one, whose sentence should be considered the first among his brethren; and others again, seated in the greater cities, should undertake a larger care, through whom the direction of the Universal Church should converge to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere disagree with its head." (Ep. 14)

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496): "Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment." (Thiel, Ep. 26)

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-02-2005, 04:15 AM

I think that St Boniface is talking about the honour of Rome due to its Apostolic authority. Implied is that this Apostolic authority witnesses to the True Apostolic Faith & is founded on it. This is why if one seperates from this Church one becomes "an exile from the Christian religion." And Rome as the greatest in honour of the chief centres of the Church at the time (this is before the 4th Ecumenical Council where Constantinople is made equal in priority to Rome) was due this honour. I think however that we have to keep in mind that such statements are not directed only at establishing juridical authority- such statements often are similar in tone & point to St Ignatios of Antioch explaining how the Church is always manifested around its bishop- which is not an apology for episcopal despotism (on the contrary!) but rather an exhortation for unity & how this is manifested within the Church. However even though this is not the context of St. Boniface's statement if Rome were to ever deny this Apostolic Faith it would forfeit its Apostolic authority and it is hard to see how even the Popes of the time would have denied this.
As for the statement of St Leo the Great. It appears similar in point & Patristic tone to that of St Boniface. Interestingly it actually describes the ecclesiastical 'system' found within the west at the time. In reality Popes of the time had limited real authority over Metropolitan sees over which it had apparent authority. For example there are a number of interesting Epistles of St Gregory the Great to the Metropolitans in both Ravenna (Italy) & Carthage (North Africa) which show that the Metropolitans with their synods had a fair amount of autonomy. The Popes had always to tread carefully amidst this & not step on too many high episcopal toes. One gets the strong impression that Papal authority was one of an honour which largely depended on its acceptance by others. In reality Papal authority had to operate with a great degree of diplomatic skill since by the 5th century there was not only distinct episcopal authority to deal with; there was also the new secular authority of the 'barbarian' kings which created a situation much more complicated than that of the eastern Patriarchs. Perhaps it is also in this new secular context that Papal supremacy as it would later be known found fertile ground to grow in.
As for Pope Gelasius it seems that his strong statements were made in the context of his struggles with Constantinople which now claimed an equal authority to Rome & with the Byzantine Emperor also. It seems that Pope Gelasius began to push the concept of Papal authority in the sense that we now know it. For example he also said, "There are two powers by which chiefly this world is ruled: the sacred authority of the priesthood and the authority of kings. And of these the authority of the priests is so much the weightier, as they must render before the tribunal of God an account even for the kings of men." The last sounds similar to the doctrine of the Gregorian reformed Papacy of the early Middle Ages.
In this context it is interesting to consider that Papal supremacy may have been precisely a response to increasingly bold ecclesiastical & secular challenges in the west to its authority & honour. Thus Papal supremacy arose first in the west before it was directed against the east.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

George Geo

20-02-2005, 11:22 AM

An interesting read on this subject is the work of Réné-Francois Guettée, who was a Roman Catholic priest who converted to Orthodoxy in the 19th century. In his book: "The Papacy" he adresses these claims to "Patristic support" of the doctrine of papal supremacy. His book can be downloaded (courtesy of the Milan Synod)in pdf format at http://www.odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf

Herman Blaydoe

20-02-2005, 03:04 PM

You can also read it online at:

The Papacy (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/essays.html#guettee)

As already mentioned in this thread, is important to note that modes of speech differ between east and west. Eastern speakers tend to be more hyperbolic and flowery, and things said should not be taken literally at face value.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-02-2005, 10:54 PM

The question of how language is used is very important. After all Orthodoxy & Roman Catholicism interpret the very same Patristic texts concerning Papal Authority in contradictory ways.
I would say that the way language was used in the Church- both east & west- before the Schism was very similar. Most of the time language was used to make a theological or spiritual point set within a certain Church context. If it was however juridical in nature this would be expressed through canons & capitularies(in the west). Most Patristic texts make a theological point not a juridical one so the language is always general & should be read carefully so as not to distort its intent. After all as we said before if we were to read the works of St Ignatios of Antioch in a distorted juridical fashion we could come up with some sort of argument in favour of episcopal absolutism- which is hardly St Ignatios' point.
Lastly about the texts we have been looking at. Although they do witness to a high degree of honour that was accorded Apostolic Rome this should not be confused with the later claim to absolute Papal authority which eventually becomes the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Honour is far more subtle in concept & practice and we can see this in how mainly in the west the authority of the Papacy was not seen as being absolute. If anything in the west the lack of respect shown the Papacy was often far less than in the "seperated Orthodox east"!
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Emery Godlef

20-02-2005, 11:39 PM

Thank you, Father! Do you happen to know where I could find the texts in question, so that I could read them in full? And which writings of St. Irenaeus were you referring to?

I suppose if the quote from Pope Gelasius proves something, it's that the beginnings of the Roman Catholic conception of the papacy began long before medieval times, as is sometimes claimed. Why is St. Gelasius considered a saint if his writings can be used to support such a dangerous doctrine?

Emery Godlef

20-02-2005, 11:40 PM

Um. St. Ignatius. Ignatius of Antioch. Sorry.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-02-2005, 12:29 AM

I was speaking in general about how the Holy Fathers thought & expressed themselves. So almost every text could provide examples of this.
The Holy Father referred to was St Ignatios of Antioch. The famous passage about the episcopacy is from his Letter to the Smyrneans (65: 8,1) "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverance the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no on do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
(Jurgens, Vol.1, p.25)

About how it would be easy to completely misunderstand St Ignatios if one was to read him juridically: " For Jesus Christ, our inseperable life, is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ." (Letter to the Ephesians,38:3,2)

and, "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God..." (Letter to the Magnesians 44: 6,1)

St Gelasius: Especially in the ancient Church saints were glorified locally. So we can assume that Pope Gelasius was either regarded as being saintly at Rome and those areas of the west under the influence of the Papacy or was regarded in this way after his repose.
In any case he may have been glorified due to a saintly life quite apart from his pronouncements about Papal authority. And even if his canonisation was due to his ideas about the Papacy- at times the motivation behind certain actions can be good even if the way in which these actions are expressed is confused. This is especially so in times of turmoil which apparently this Pope lived through. In any case I hope St Gelasius intercedes for us!http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Andrew Wales

06-03-2005, 10:50 PM

I am a Roman Catholic, seriously considering conversion to Orthodoxy.

I have been doing research in the past about Orthodoxy, but I have a question.

Did the Church Fathers teach that they were symbols of the power to bind and loose? I know I have asked others about this before, but could anyone supply quotes? Also, did the Fathers ever teach that the Keys = infallibility, like modern Catholicism claims? Thank you for you replies!

Herman Blaydoe

07-03-2005, 03:42 PM

I would commend you to the excellent treatise written by a Catholic (at the time) priest, the Abbe Guettee, who was commissioned to do a justification of the Papal claims.

The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/essays.html#guettee)

Matthew Panchisin

07-03-2005, 04:44 PM

Dear Andrew,

I'm glad you are here as Monachos is a wonderful community. Your question has been brought up and discussed many times before either directly or indirectly.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4229/18590.html

The explanation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact says the following. I understand that The Blessed Theophylact's explanation has been historically used by slavic Orthodox monastics for quite some time.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Once again Peter leaps forward with fervor and confesses that He is truly the Son of God. He did not say, thou art the anointed one, a Son of God", without the article, "the" , but with the article, “the Son”, that is, He Who is the One and the Only, not a son by grace, but He Who is begotten of the same essence as the Father. For there were also many other christs, anointed ones, such as all the priests and kings; but the Christ, with the article, there is but One.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. He calls Peter blessed for having received knowledge by divine grace. And by commending Peter, He thereby shows the opinions of other men to be false. For he calls him "Bar Jona", that is, son of Jona", as if saying, "Just as you are the son of Jona, so am I the Son of My Father in heaven, and of one essence with Him." He calls this knowledge "revelation", speaking of hidden and unknown things that were disclosed by the Father.

And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. 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." For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but do not have as a foundation the Orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying "My Church" He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, to, had been lifted up when he said "O thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death" (ps. 9:13) From what gates, O David? From the twin gates of murder and adultery.

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.

Hope this helps.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

George Geo

07-03-2005, 11:09 PM

From what I can see, the "infallibility" of the Church is currently a "hot topic" in ecclessiology.
The Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Australia, His Grace Stylianos, recently wrote a doctoral dissertation on the "infallibility" of the Orthodox Church, and I know of at least one paper which refutes his arguments which appeared in the "Theandros" Theological journal located here (http://www.theandros.com/infallib.html).

Andrew Wales

08-03-2005, 12:15 AM

Thank you everyone for your posts so far! I really appreciate it. Right now, I also post occassionally on orthodoxchristianity.net, but have heard about this place, so I thought I would check it out. Thanks for welcoming me! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Andrew Wales

08-03-2005, 11:38 PM

Matthew,

Thank you for your reply especially. I am wondering, though, is what Blessed Theophylact said about the Gospel of Matthew taken from what the Fathers taught? Thanks!

Andrew Wales

09-03-2005, 01:05 AM

I have been reading The Papacy at this site for a little while now, and I have a question. This is the site I have been reading it from: http://www.odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf

On page 61, towards the top, it sounds like Guettee is saying that Peter and Paul werent the first bishops of Rome, but rather organized the Church of Rome, making Linus the first Bishop of Rome, which has been taught by many of the Fathers. But, on page 65, it says that St. Epiphanius said this: "Peter and Paul, the first of the Apostles, were equally Bishops of Rome." To me, this sounds like St. Epiphanius made Peter and Paul both bishops of Rome. This seems to contradict what was said on pg. 61, where Linus was the first bishop of Rome, not Peter and Paul. But obviously the Fathers dont contradict themselves.

So, therefore, could anyone explain this to me? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

Matthew Panchisin

09-03-2005, 08:00 AM

Dear Andrew,

Yes, what Blessed Theophylact said about the Gospel of Matthew was very much so taken from what the Fathers taught and believed. Certainly, there are many Patristic quotes that very much praised the Bishop of Rome when the see was recognized as truly Orthodox and a firm defender of the Orthodox Catholic faith. Such quotes are often used as "seeds" of infallibility when referenced and watered by supporters of the developed Papacy of today. As far as the keys are concerned those Matt. 18:18 “keys” were given to all the apostles. Peter alone is not in sole possession of the keys. Collectively Rome believes that the mysteria or sacraments of the Orthodox Church are valid. What else could the "keys" be other than absolution? When we confess our sins and receive absolution and forgiveness our souls we are not stuck or locked up with them.

Below I have referenced for your consideration the Priests prayer of absolution during an Orthodox Funeral. You may notice that the idea of purgatory would somewhat reduce the efficacy of the below prayer, hence as Orthodox Christian purgatory is not part of our theology. The below prayer existed prior to the Latin "theo logical?" development of purgatory.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, by his divine grace, as also by the gift and power vouchsafed unto his holy Disciples and Apostles, that they should bind and loose the sins of men: (For he said unto them: Receive ye the Holy Spirit: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained. And whatsoever ye shall bind or loose upon earth shall be bound or loosed also in heaven.) By that same power, also, transmitted unto us from them, this my spiritual child, N., is absolved, through me, unworthy though I be, from all things wherein, as mortal, he (she) hath sinned against God, whether in word, or deed, or thought, and with all his (her) senses, whether voluntarily or involuntarily; whether wittingly or through ignorance, If he (she) be under the ban or excommunication of a Bishop, or of a Priest; or hath incurred the curse of his (her) father or mother; or hath fallen under his (her) own curse; or hath sinned by any oath; or hath been bound, as man, by any sins whatsoever, but hath repented him (her) thereof, with contrition of heart: he (she) is now absolved from all those faults and bonds. May all those things which have proceeded from the weakness of his (her) mortal nature be consigned to oblivion, and be remitted unto him (her): Through His loving kindness; through the prayers of our most holy, and blessed, and glorious Lady, the Mother of our Lord and ever-virgin Mary; of the holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostles, and of all Saints. Amen.

An Orthodox Christian funeral including the above prayer is among the mysteria that Rome believes to be valid.

Glory to God for all things!

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Fr Aaron Warwick

10-03-2005, 07:15 PM

Dear Andrew:

I would guess that St. Epiphanius was using the term 'bishops' loosely, indicating that they both had an authoritative relationship with the Church of Rome.

Aaron

Herman Blaydoe

11-03-2005, 01:15 AM

I agree that St. Epiphanius was speaking in honorific rather than administrative terms.

Ken McRae

14-03-2005, 01:00 AM

Emery Godlef originally posted:-

>> "Do you happen to know where I could find the texts in question, so that I could read them in full?" <<

Reply:-

01 - The Martyrdom of St. Ignatius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0123.htm)

02 - The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm)

03 - The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm)

04 - The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm)

05 - The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm)

06 - The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm)

07 - The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm)

08 - The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm)

09 - The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm)

10 - The Martyrdom of Polycarp (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm)

Kosmas Damianides

22-08-2005, 06:36 PM

I have been discussing this topic on a Roman Catholic forum and all I get is a head ache.

It's like going around in circles. I wish there was something I could do to make them realise that no Pope can be equal to St Peter.

Papal Primacy and infalliblity is one of the many major issues blocking against unitity with the Roman Catholic Church. (The other is the filioque).

Vasilis Kirikos

22-08-2005, 07:17 PM

Re: "It's like going around in circles. I wish there was something I could do to make them realise that no Pope can be equal to St Peter. "
I don't know about "no pope" but if the historical accounts of the Roman popes is of any help I suggest you consider reading about a pope who had people murdered; or the history of another pope who was married, had a child whom he fully intended to name his successor pope. I think that you will find these historical accounts on the web. No. They are not fictious accounts. CALLIXTUS III: (1378 - 1458, Pope from 1455 - 1458). Also, there is the history of the Great Schism of the Roman Catholic Church, where two popes, one in France and one in Rome, ruled the Roman church AT THE SAME TIME.
If our Lord is the one who picks the popes of Rome to be his personal representative on this earth, why would our Lord, the Prince of Peace EVER pick a murderer; or if our Lord is supposed to have A personal representative..why were there EVER two popes at the same time?
Perhaps you may find some of this helpful when next you encounter your Roman Catholic Friends.
Vasilis

Leandros Papadopoulos

22-08-2005, 09:16 PM

It's like going around in circles. I wish there was something I could do to make them realise that no Pope can be equal to St Peter

We must realize that Rome has the precedence over every other see. There were multitudes of martys in the first centuries and so many persecutions against the Church of Rome that offered to the see of Rome the primacy among all Churches. If there are any theologians in Church, they are to be found in the martyrdoms.

If Rome was not to be taken by the Christian Faith, Christianity would have been a marginal religion. But then, the Church would have been still more the Light that Lights upon Earth. So it is normal for the Light to be accepted as primate.

The "problem" with the Orthodox is that we can not accept supremacy instead of primacy, because then the Light does not light but it "blinds".

May God bless us, all.

Patrick Walsh

22-08-2005, 09:20 PM

I spent four years in RCIA. It took me four years, plus two courses of M.Div study at the American Catholic University to become Orthodox. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy (Primacy is Orthodox, but their particular bent on it is not!), Marioidolatry (Mediatrix, Co-redemptorix, Dispentrix of the Holy Gifts, etc.) are all neologisms of the Roman church.

For the topic of papal supremacy I suggest
Fr. John Romanides, "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine."

Another book--more pertinent to penance and Mariology in the Roman church, is by the same author, more available, "The Ancestral Sin."

Both of these books focus on the development of Roman doctrine and how it was influenced by the Franco-Carolingian Emperors of the Frankish-Holy Roman Empire.

The best refutation of the filioque is the classic work, "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit," by St. Photios the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople.

It should be noted that the Roman doctrines of filioque and papal supremacy conspire to great effect in the Roman church. The Holy Spirit essentially becomes the prisoner of the Vicar of Christ, and grace comes through the Pope to the priest who dispense it in miserly portions upon the people. Ask your Catholic friends if they eat the same piece of bread and drink from the same cup that the priest did. They can't, since the priest consumed them entirely before dispensing the odd bits on the table.

One thing I have noticed in my continuing discussion with Roman faithful is that they have very narrow applications of the doctrine of papal infallibility. There seems to be a loophole for everything, so it is useless to debate them on this.

However, papal infallibility has imposed upon them a rigidity in doctrine which will gradually undermine their whole church. For example, the medieval doctrine of original sin includes the guilt of Adam as well as the spiritual death of Adam for his physical descendants.

This has created problems in their Christology since then Christ would not be free from sin. So to "correct" this problem, they basically had to deify the Mother of God--the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Vatican I, late 18th Century). Instead of admitting the mistaken definition (then the Pope is not infallible) they compounded their eror with another error.

Now, their "improvement" has created problems in the theology of salvation. If Christ did not have a fallen nature, then he has accomplished nothing. St. Gregory the Theologian's maxim, "What was not assumed was not healed," would apply here. Christ came to heal our fallen nature, our spiritual death, to bring life back into the world, but to do that he had to assume our fallen state. Don't use my explanation in discussion with Catholics. They will take it apart, and I am just giving a rough example. The more refined argument is in Romanides' book, "The Ancestral Sin." Fr. Romanides also points out other problems in the Roman definition of Original Sin.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility has pretty much painted the papal theologians into a corner, and now they are starting to put up drywall, and masonry. And the longer they deny it, there will be marble facing encasing the whole corner, and statuary. Soon Michelangelo will reincarnate to paint the ceiling. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Oh, before I forget. Saint John of San Francisco and Shanghai has written a wonderful little book, also pointing out many Catholic problems in their Mariology--"The Orthodox Veneration of Mary".

feofil

Kosmas Damianides

23-08-2005, 06:31 AM

Thank you very much for all your help. But it's like talking to to a Titanium wall. I suppose we have to be patient. I hope one day they will see the light.

Fr Leandros I know that Rome had the primacy, but this was a forced primacy and a primacy out of need to keep them on side, since Constantinope was now called Rome or New Rome. This wise move was in fact supposed to take away the power of the Roman Senate which was powerfully pagan and they were still deaply into emperor worship etc. The new Rome was to be a Christian centre and Christ was to take away this worship of the gods and the Emperor.

Therefore in "Old Rome" the Popes sought to increase their power and authority since the ancient religion and deity of "the spirit of Rome" was now gone. The Pope was now self-proclaimed the Pontifex Maximus and this was the title of the Emperor of Rome from the time of Caesar Agustus, it was a pagan title. Originally Pontifex maximus was the title given to the High Priest of the polytheistic religion of Rome.

So Rome did not only think of the Pope as a successor of Peter, but had to also see him as successor of the Roman Pagan cult of Emperor worship and The High Priest of the entire Roman World. He wasn't the "High Priest" of ROme alone.

It was only later that New-Rome tried to break this myth which had started by saying the Church in New Rome would be considered on equal par with that of ROme. Rome rejected this and Constantinople (NEW ROME) had to settle with 2nd place.

How do you undo an almost 2000 year old error? You can't. It should have been stopped from the beginning.

Patrick Walsh

23-08-2005, 02:30 PM

The title Pontifex Maximus was not assumed by any pope until very late in the pre-schism era. It was in fact, one of the signs of the increasing divisive stance the Roman church was taking, just as the coronation of Charlemange as "Holy Roman Emperor" when the Roman Empire's capital was in Constantinople, and so on.

The title Pontifex Maximus is a very ancient pagan title for the high priest of Jupiter in the old pagan temples. It is very ancient and shrouded in mystery--it predates even the Seven Kings of Rome. He is the guardian of the Vestal Temple, and the protector of the Vestal Virgins and the eternal flame that burned in the Temple. The Senate could not open a term without his presiding presence over the installation of the elected officers, and so on.

But an odd circumstance was attached to this office during the reign of the second King of Rome whose name eludes me at the moment. He was the caretaker of the wills and last testaments. This seems like an innocuous duty, but it gave him a tremendous amount of clout. Rich Patrician Senators did not want to have their wills "lost" and their properties confiscated by the state upon their demise. The Pontifex Maximus had the power to bring an end to a great Patrician family should the head of that family die while the Pontifex Maximus was still alive--since they were elected for life, and protected from impeachment or removal. Even a dictator had to watch his step around the Pontifex Maximus.

Caius Iulius Caesar was on the brink of political disaster until he managed to get himself elected to this post. Since the election is for life and carried with it a tremendous amount of prestige and legal clout, it gave him the necessary latitude to institue many of his reforms. In order to prevent any individual to use this position to undermine the Roman emperor's authority, the title and office was incorporated into the emperor itself. I am not sure what happened to this title when the Imperial capital moved from Rome to Constantinople but I imagine it simply fell into disuse until a Pope took it up in the ninth century I believe.

feofil

Anthony

23-08-2005, 05:55 PM

I believe one of the early Christian emperors (Theodosius or one of his predecessors) refused to adopt the title because of its pagan associations. If this is correct, then it is all the more ironic that it should later be adopted by the papacy.

Anthony

23-08-2005, 06:00 PM

In fact it was abolished by Gratian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratian) in 382 (from Wikipedia).

Kosmas Damianides

23-08-2005, 08:45 PM

Someone told me it was originally the title given to the chief bridge builder, and that the Pope is the bridge between heaven and earth as the Vicar of Christ.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/rofl.gif

Kosmas Damianides

24-08-2005, 07:14 PM

(Matthew 18:18-20)

Although at first Jesus seems to give authority to bind and loose only to Peter, calling him the Rock, Orthodoxy has always maintained and explained that the confession of the Lord as Messiah and Son of God by Peter is the Rock, Simon being renamed is only symbolic, and the Church does not have any other head appart from Christ: - "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church..." (Ephesians 5:23).

Later Jesus seems to 'change His mind'. He speaks to all the Apostles bestowing this same authority to all of them, saying:

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

and then later He says (Matthew 28:18-20):

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

So the same authority that Peter had was also given to the other Apostles equally. Peter was only the figurative head. The first by honour and not primate by inherited massive authority.

Vasilis Kirikos

25-08-2005, 12:36 AM

> "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven...if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven " Can you imagine what power the entire Church would have if the TWO bishops, the one in Rome and His All Holiness, the Patriarch in Constantinople got together? It would spell the end of the anti-Christ whom I believe to be Islam. Vasilis

>

Patrick Walsh

25-08-2005, 03:53 AM

"Thou only art Holy"

feofil

Vasilis Kirikos

25-08-2005, 05:36 AM

> I'd like it if someone would enlighten me as to the words represented by the initials "ROCOR". Does ROCOR stand for "Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia?" Vasilis

Fr Raphael Vereshack

25-08-2005, 03:13 PM

I'd like it if someone would enlighten me as to the words represented by the initials "ROCOR". Does ROCOR stand for "Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia?" Vasilis

Yes- ROCOR stands for Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

30-08-2005, 12:09 PM

Dear all,

There has been considerable discussion of this topic here in the past -- worth looking at as the current thread continues. Just a few references:

On titles such as 'ecumenical', or 'universal' with respect to authority of patriarchs and popes, I made a comment on this in a discussion held here in 2003 (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=7097#POST7097).

On the authority of Peter in particular, this comment (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=7047#POST7047) (part of a larger thread archived here (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/13373.html#POST7062)).

On the matter of Peter or his confession being 'the rock' of the Gospel, a post by Mr Aaron Warwick (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=7137#POST7137), to which I replied (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=7140#POST7140), suggesting that it is both Peter's confession and his person that must be understood.

INXC, Matthew

Kosmas Damianides

31-08-2005, 02:50 PM

Thank you Matthew Steenberg for your advice.

Brethren,

St. Cyprian says in his work, “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”:

“That is the reason why the Holy Spirit comes in the form of a dove: it is a simply joyous creature, not bitter with gall, not biting savagely, without vicious rearing claws; it loves to dwell with humankind, it keeps to one house for assembling; when they mate they hatch their young together, when they fly anywhere they keep together, the places they live in are shared in common, by their sounds also they give recognition to concord and peace, in all things they fulfil the law of unanaimity. The same is the simplicity of the Church which we need to learn, this is the charity we must acquire, that we may imitate doves in our love for the brethren, and rival lambs and sheep in their meekness and gentleness." (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V: Cyprian, Treatise I, para. 9)

I think that it is fruitless to argue against those who will never conceed their error. It is also a waste of time and energy. The best thing one can do is close themselves in their rooms and pray. This I think is the best solution to healing this "illness" of Rome. We should immitate the Holy Spirit as a dove and wait patiently for the Spirit of God to fill their minds.

Leandros Papadopoulos

31-08-2005, 07:16 PM

Let us see, what St Paul has to say about St Peter in Galatians chapter2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202;&version=50;):

For you (Galatians) have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God in me. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201:13-14;&version=50;)

So, as St Paul says that the first and hardly the only person that he went after returning from three years isolation was St Peter.

Then he continues:

….Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:1-2;&version=50;)….when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:7-9;&version=50;)

After another 15 years St Paul returned to Jerusalem and again he used St Peter’s ministry as a prototype that provided the measure by which authenticity of evangelizing was to be measured – and the result was that St Paul’s apostleship was blessed the same as St Peter’s. Then St James, St Peter (Cephas) and St John having known the Grace that was given to St Paul, they accepted him in the apostolic society.

How St Paul has been looking up on to St Peter! In him he turned each time he needed confirmation of his divine ministry and in him he found the measure of rightness.

BUT, in the same letter to Galatians, in the following lines right after the above verses St Paul writes an unexpected incident about St Peter:

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. (%20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:11-21;&version=50;)

How was it possible for St Peter, the pillar of faith, that “he was to be blamed”?. How was it that he “was carried away with hypocrisy” and that he “was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” and that he was falsely guided others in distorted practise of Faith? And when St Paul lectured him “before all of them” St Peter did not argue in defending himself.

That is the most vivid-strong instant of Church history: the little lectures the big; the pillar of the faith is being lectured by the man that was previously asking for his accreditation.

The truth can only be preserved within a relation, even if the relation is the relation of lecturing, in Spirit.

St Peter says in his second letter: But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:13-16;&version=50;)

How marvellous thing is it, that the lectured St Peter is suggesting St Paul’s guidance to provide another reference for his teachings.

Glory to God, Who gives, to each and every one human being, the freedom to lecture and to be lectured, in Christ.

What is important is the honest, loving, personal relation in Christ, which take care each others deficiency and imperfection.

What is so "disgusting" in every non-Orthodox way of being in relation between a "newcomer" and an "aged" Christian is the absence of the relation that St Paul and St Peter were having: each one was the measure for the authenticity of the faith of the other.

May God bless us, all.

Theopesta

31-08-2005, 07:58 PM

if it is possible can I know what the intent by
http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_right.gif {the freedom to lecture and to be lectured, in Christ....What is so "disgusting" in every non-Orthodox way of being in relation between a "newcomer" and an "aged" Christian is the absence of the relation that St Paul and St Peter were having: each one was the measure for the authenticity of the faith of the othe}}

if it is foolish simple question no thing if no response

Leandros Papadopoulos

01-09-2005, 05:38 PM

Sister theopesta,

St Paul says: Brothers, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For each one shall bear his own load. Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.(Galatians 6:1-6) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%206:1-6;&version=50;)

In this passage it seems that St Paul gives two contradicted advises: "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" and "each one shall bear his own load".

And then he proposes a strange proposition “Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches”

With these remarks, St Paul is saying that as long all Christians are not the same regarding spiritual growth, it is expected that some less experienced Christians are going to perform false. Then the more experienced Christians should take the foreign false performance like being their own and restore it considering it being their own personal trespass. With this method the burden of the other is transform to our burden. This transformation is not a help provided by the stronger to the weaker, but it is the practical experience of being in relation with the other person that is not different from our self. Then in overcoming the false performance as a personal achievement we will be happy like being restored ourselves after committing false and not in seeing that someone else overcame his/her problem with our help. We bear the foreign responsibility because “each one shall bear his own load” so there is no distinction between foreign and personal. All becomes one and for that “him who is taught the word should be let to share in all good things with him who teaches”.

This is exactly what Christ did: He saw us that we have failed and He took our failure as His own. This is the law that St Paul is talking about with his phrase “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” – it is a law that was defined from Christ by His example.

Then, Christ restored the failure in Him, just like being His personal failure – which was not – and then He let us to share with Him in all good things that He taught us, like His relation with His Father and the Heaven.

Christ being in the freedom of Love was lecturing us, because He was superior, but also he has been lectured because He bear our failure as an incapable – which He was not.

Unfortunately, this clear law of humbleness that Christ has taught us, is distorted by many as it is being considered a law of help from the stronger to the weaker. The strong never leaves the place of being power in his effort to help the weak. In this context the relation between them is not a personal relation of love but a relation of power. Then the empowered weak is not partaking in the power of the powerful but he achieves his/hers own power. The law of Christ, which is a law of relation and participation in foreign success within the relation, is replaced by the law of becoming perfect and strong.

But, the Orthodox way of relation between a “newcomer” and an “experienced” Christian is the relational way, where the experienced spiritual person takes the burden of the un-experienced as existential personal part of his personhood and he joins with the other person in the relation of love letting him partake in his more blessed way of being.

In this context, the primacy of St Peter is not to be taken as dialectic supremacy but as an ecclesiastic crucifixion. The see of Rome is the most powerless place on earth, because the Pope of Rome should follow the law of Christ in bearing the burdens of all. And this bearing destroys the power and strength.

When St Peter was following the typical of Judaism, he did it for the sake of his fellow patriots, knowing that he took on him their failure. By that he let them partake in his spiritual superiority. St Chrysostom explains that St Peter agreed in advanced with St Paul to be lectured by him “before all of them” so that, while he was lectured by St Paul the others would benefit, while he was accused and being condemned for wrong doing the others were being corrected in his expense. In this way the weaker in faith that were taught the word share in all good things with St Peter, who was their teacher. He became the scapegoat for their trespass. St Peter was following the example that he received from Christ and the last words of Christ: “ Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.” " (John 21:18-19) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:18-19;&version=50;)

May God bless us, all.

*sister Theopest, thank you for your question*
Leandros

(Message edited by lpap on 01 September, 2005)

Theopesta

02-09-2005, 01:07 PM

the Zealous Brother Leandros Papadopoulos,
I think I am not the only member grateful to you but this is the general feeling towards your theosophical {I am not find the suitable expression}
I hope my weak and poor expression not give opposite impression in any previous posts.

Your high-minded opinion like a word for Bishop Kallistos Ware on homily about: "the Glory crossed" I think he said {no transfiguration without suffering}

Why the catholic give st. peter the primacy over all apostle?
St. peter may be because his age, or may because his simple or zealous nature he always the first one who gave response about him self and about the others,
When Jesus Christ said to him: Mat 16: 19
(AKJV) "And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This grace not only for him it is for all may be in his person as he is always the 1st on who spook

In the same chapter when he not understand the importance of suffering Jesus said to him specially: Mat 16: 23
(AKJV) But he turned, and said to Peter, Get you behind me, Satan: you are an offense to me: for you mind not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Then Jesus began to explained to his disciple the meaning and importance of cross and suffer.

I feel Jesus not said to St. peter you are the rock but he said:
(GUV) : "thou {SUBJECT} thyself are Peter, {APPELLATION} and I will build My assembly {DIRECT OBJECT} (on) this rock,"

with the addition of the Greek version I understand that :
as your name mean the rock, thy confession " You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. " will be the rock on which the church build.

Also, st. Paul who preached to Rome and wrote its epistle this obvious from chapter 28 of Act he was the 1st one who spoke about Christ in Rome
Why the catholic give st. peter the primacy over all apostle?
I am not read the posts in this thread if this question and point discussed above please forgive me I will read them if I not find response

in CHRIST

M.C. Steenberg

04-09-2005, 02:37 PM

Dear Leandros and others,

I've enjoyed reading through the last several days' messages in this conversation. Leandros wrote, concerning the relationship between Peter and Paul:

That is the most vivid-strong instant of Church history: the little lectures the big; the pillar of the faith is being lectured by the man that was previously asking for his accreditation.

This is certainly true. I would however just make one point for the sake of clarifying traditions of ecclesiastical authority, which was the original focus of this thread; namely, that traditional Roman Catholic custom surrounding the primacy of the pontiff of Rome would certainly welcome the same observation. A kind of radically-singular and unchallenged authority to a given bishop is an aberration, in all traditions. No one can deny that Peter himself, immediately after receiving the words of Christ ('thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church...'), entirely misunderstands his own confession and Christ's admonition, and is called 'Satan' by the one he has confessed to be Son of God and Messiah.

INXC, Matthew

Kosmas Damianides

04-09-2005, 04:40 PM

Dear all,

There has been considerable discussion of this topic here in the past -- worth looking at as the current thread continues. Just a few references:

On titles such as 'ecumenical', or 'universal' with respect to authority of patriarchs and popes, I made a comment on this in a discussion held here in 2003.

On the authority of Peter in particular, this comment (part of a larger thread archived here).

On the matter of Peter or his confession being 'the rock' of the Gospel, a post by Mr Aaron Warwick, to which I replied, suggesting that it is both Peter's confession and his person that must be understood.

INXC, Matthew

Certainly there needs to be dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church on this specific topic. They seem to disagree that Peter was "First among Equals", a title commonly used in the Orthodox Church.

But for our own peace of mind we should be patient. Evidently something wich is lacking in the modern world we live in today.

God Bless

Leandros Papadopoulos

09-09-2005, 04:46 AM

No one can deny that Peter himself, immediately after receiving the words of Christ ('thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church...'), entirely misunderstands his own confession and Christ's admonition, and is called 'Satan' by the one he has confessed to be Son of God and Messiah

Dr Steenberg and friends,

Let me submit the respective passage, before making some remarks :

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-20;&version=50;)

From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men”. (Matthew 16:21-23) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:21-23;&version=50;)

When Christ asked “But who do say that I am?”, St Peter gave an unexpected answer: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”. St Peter was a Jew. For any Jew the notion that God should have a Son was unthinkable – and even more unthinkable was that this alleged son would be human. When the high priest questioned Christ, whether or not was He the Son of God, he received an affirmative answer and then he said “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” (Matthew 26:63-66) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:63-66;&version=50;) The whole Jewish council considered the Divine Sonship of Christ as a blasphemous proposition (of course the decision was preset at the council, but this statement provided the pretext for the council’s intentions). How was then possible for St Peter to declare Christ as the Son of God ?

Christ had tried to make clear to the Jews that He was the Son of God:

Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me”. (John 10:24-25) (http://%20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:24-25;&version=50;)

I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” (John 10:30-38) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:30-38;&version=50;)

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (John 14:8-11) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:8-11;&version=50;)

In every instance Christ revealed His identity as the Son of the God. Because this revelation was unacceptable by the Jews He used the presence of His miracles as counter argument to their disbelief: The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me - though you do not believe Me, believe the works - or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves !

But again the Jews remained unbelievers, thus Christ said to them A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed. (Matthew 16:4) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:4;&version=50;)

But He sighed deeply in His spirit, and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation. And He left them, and getting into the boat again, departed to the other side.” (Mark 8:12-13) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:12;&version=50;)

And in numerous other occasions Christ gave the same answer: no sign shall be given.

The sign that was asked was a sign beyond miracles; it would be a sign from the Father that would present indisputably the Sonship of the Son as a natural relation.

In this context, St Peter was also carrying the Jewish believe that the God is ONE, and that God had no Son. But in his genuine quest for the Jewish God-Father, he was found to be in front of Christ. Thus his quest for the Father revealed to him the Son! He was looking for the One and he found the Other. He was looking the God-Father in heaven and he found His Son on earth ! For this, Christ said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven”. The Sonship of Christ was not revealed by His presence on the Earth but by the Fathership in heaven. And by the realization of the Fathership St Peter’s confession was solid as a rock, on which the Church was to be built by Christ– for, where there is a Father, there is also a Son. “And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against Church”, because the knowledge of the Fathership of God guarantees His beloved Son.

Christ then told to St Peter that “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”. This is not a promise to make him a gatekeeper of the kingdom of the heaven. This is not a promise for the authorization to forgive sins. This is not a promise that was given to the Church. This is an affirmation that St Peter, by having known the Fathership as a personal realization in the Divine way of Being in his quest for knowing God –consequently having also known the Son and the Spirit- he is entitled to consider the kingdom of heaven as a place where he is more than welcomed, and this is denoted by the possession of its keys. The identification of earth and heaven in a timely way of being is denoted by the phrase “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”. This is not a declaration of sequential effect, that the events on earth will condition the events in heaven afterwards. It is a unification of time on earth with the time in heaven, in synchronization. Bind something on earth and (at the same time) it will be bound in heaven. Loose something on earth and (at the same time) it will be loosed in heaven.

It is as simple as that: By knowing God as a Father, St Peter was introduced in the relation of the Trinity; therefore he was “holding” the keys of personal, honest, loving, ontological relations. The knowledge of the Father is a personal knowledge that generates the hypostasis/person of the human being. Therefore St Peter’s ontology was being transformed from an impersonal lawful Jew into a hypostatical person that ontologically was present acting on earth but at the same time he penetrated heaven by facing God as the Father of Christ.

Now, when St Peter asked – or actually demanded – from Christ “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”, he was asking for the best human resolution. He knew who Christ was and he could not accept that “He would suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed”. This was not an idea from the devil but it came from the mind of St Peter that reckoned “the things of men”.

Why then did He call St Peter “satan”. Satan is a word that in Jewish means “hinderer” (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/satan.html). (*see also how St Paul used the word "satan" in his letter to 1 Thessalonicians 2:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thess%202:18;&version=50;)). In the way that the word “satan” was phrased, Christ said “Get behind Me, hinderer! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men” and then immediately He taught St Peter how he would not become a hinder for God: But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16:23-28) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:23-28;&version=50;)

So, Christ asked St Peter to follow him –“get behind me”- to do the will of God instead of the will of man and then immediately taught him how to do that.

Christ never called St Peter as an instrument of satan/evil. This is a major misunderstanding.

Actually he said about Sr Peter, St James, and St John "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."(Matthew 16:28) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:28;&version=50;) in front of whom He Transfigured on the Mount. St Peter, St John and St James had clean hearts for that they were choosen to be present in the Transfiguration of the Lord and thet were praised by Him.

May God bless us, all.

M.C. Steenberg

09-09-2005, 09:37 AM

Dear Leandros,

Your most recent post in this thread I read with interest. You’ve a creative interpretation of the texts to hand, and give good pause for thought on topics often assumed as supporting simple and standard responses. However, some of the explanation offered seems to me too creative, inasmuch as I cannot think of its being part of the tradition of the Church’s experience and interpretation of these events.

Peter’s response to Christ’s ‘Who do you say that I am?’ is critical—and it seems to me primarily modern to assert that it was ‘unexpected’ from a Jewish perspective. The Messianic expectation of the period was high; new ‘messiahs’ were proclaimed almost daily. The unique revelation in Jesus Christ of the true Messiah’s nature as not merely elect, but genuine Son of the Father, was, as you say, the reality borne witness to in Christ from the first. Yet the nature of the experience of Christ is such that, as surprising as this reality may be to others, is it not surprising to one who stands at his feet and witnesses his life—thus the nature of Jesus’ question: not who do others think that I am, but who do you, Peter, who have been with me all these days, say that I am? ‘The Christ [Messiah], the Son of the Living God’ is the only answer Peter could give, precisely because he was a Jew and had experienced Christ. Expectation and reality met. The authentic encounter with and experience of Jesus Christ (and not merely the observation of him, as was the case with, e.g., the assembled Sanhedrin) transfigures expectation. It is in this encounter that one who might otherwise be prepared to say only ‘You are a good man’, falls to his knees and cries ‘My Lord and my God!’

To the matter of the encounter that follows, culminating in Christ’s biting ‘Get behind me, Satan!’: It is far too gentle to the reality of scripture to posit that this is simply the Lord bidding Peter not to hinder him. There is far more at play in this moment than merely this. First comes the gift of the keys of the kingdom. Whatever else may be symbolised in this, the Church clearly does teach that this signifies the authority to forgive sins. From the commentary on St Matthew’s Gospel by Theophylact (found elsewhere in this community (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=7192#POST7192) in a not unrelated discussion):

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’(John 20.23). The verb in Greek for ‘ye remit’, aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only […] we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles.

This is a profound moment of revelation of the nature of the kingdom and man’s place within it. It is with the authority of God—for only God has the power to forgive sins—that man acts in the kingdom, in the Church, in the world, and (as Theophylact goes on to say) in eternity. There is a great and unspeakable mystery in this: God’s power is given to man, and the human confessor of Christ’s glory becomes one who participates in his work in the world. In an act of love, God grants God’s authority to the one who confesses God’s glory.

It is in the full reality of this mystery that Christ’s words, ‘Get behind me, Satan!’, must be read as more pointed than simply calling Peter hinderer. Peter has just been given a share in the authority of God, has been given divine charge; yet his response is to seek to prevent the will of God—to belay the Passion and Resurrection. This is not simply hindrance; this is the work of the devil, of Satan as being and reality, to whom Peter has joined himself in his ‘Far be it from You, Lord—this shall not happen to You!’. ‘Satan’ does not merely mean hinderer: it is understood by most of the fathers as ‘adversary’, and as title refers to a genuine being, the Adversary. When St Paul mentions, in his letter to the Church at Thessalonica, that ‘we would have come to you, but Satan hindered us’, he is not speaking generally, but of a being who did the hindering. When Christ speaks to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan!’, he is not accusing him of a general spirit of hindrance—he is addressing him as The Adversary, for the whole encounter that has culminated in this moment has shown that one participates in the life of the one whose will and reality he confesses. When Peter in his ignorance takes into his heart and speaks through his mouth the will not of the Father in Christ, but of the devil, he participates in the devil’s reality as much as he had participated in God’s when confessing Jesus as the Father’s Son. And so Christ addresses him no longer as ‘rock’, the solidity of His own Church, but as ‘Satan’, the adversary.

The way we live in and through our encounter with the world around us, the way our confession motivates our ‘praxis’, our actual words and thoughts and intentions, allies us to those with whom our hearts find refuge. We can look at a saint and say ‘I see Christ’, for the heart allied with Christ is one that participates in the life of the Son of the Father through the Spirit. But we can also look to those allied elsewhere—primarily ourselves—and see with the same reality the one who works against him, ‘for if you are not with me, you are against me’. We can see Satan in the human just as we can see God, and this is not a ‘reminder’ or ‘token’ of Satan’s work that is seen, but Satan himself. Christ does not say to Peter, ‘Stop hindering me’, but ‘Get behind me, Satan!’. This ought not be misunderstood on account of the fact that, later, this same Jesus Christ reveals to this same Peter the transfiguration on the mountain, or speaks of ‘some who will not taste death’ in his reference. Human life is not a once-for-all ‘either/or’ between Christ and Satan: our fallen state is one of constant battle in the heart between the activity of both and our participation in each. Even the thief on the cross hears, ‘Today you will be with me in Paradise’.

INXC, Matthew

Leandros Papadopoulos

09-09-2005, 06:20 PM

Dear Dr Steenberg,

I find this issue to be of great importance, so I am answering to you not in a rival spirit but in a spirit of Christian brotherhood, as I understand this forum to be a commune of brothers and sisters in Christ.

First let me come to the “defense” of St Peter.

St Chrysostom says in the his “commentary on the epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians” (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-13/npnf1-13-06.htm#P314_88493) Ver. 11, 12 :

“But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat. 16:16) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. 17:4) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, "Be it far from Thee." (Mat. 16:22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger.”

St Chrysostom accounts the phrase of St Peter “Be it far from Thee” with his others phrases: with his answer to Christ “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” and with his question on the mountain during Christ’s Transfiguration “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” They are all alike; through St Peter the whole group of apostles was being expressed through his “fervent love” - according to St Chrysostom.

For that St Mark in his Gospel describes this incident in the following way: And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Mark 8:31-33) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:31-33;&version=50;)

The same thing is described by St Matthew: From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Mark 8:31-33) (%20http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:21-23;&version=50;)

In both Gospels it is presented that while “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him” and they were being isolated from the other disciples having a personal discussion, St Mark writes that “Christ had returned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying…” and St Matthew writes that “Christ returned and said to Peter…” The turning of Christ facing His disciples in order to rebuke St Peter means that He knew that St Peter was talking in the name of all of His disciples, or else it is peculiar behaviour to rebuke a person in a private conversation and to turn towards an irrelevant group of others. For that He first told St Peter not to become an obstacle in His way (Get behind Me, hinderer! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men) and He immediately started to teach all of His disciples how they would follow Him according to the way of God, reforming their human love for Him, as it has been expressed by St Peter, in the likeness of His crucified Love: “Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24). Then He assured them that their love, even this love that was putting obstacles in His path, was introducing them in a blessed relation: “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28).

Then, to say that “When Peter in his ignorance takes into his heart and speaks through his mouth the will not of the Father in Christ, but of the devil, he participates in the devil’s reality as much as he had participated in God’s when confessing Jesus as the Father’s Son” is really unfair for St Peter and even “unfair” for devil ! How is it possible to conclude that devil did not wanted Christ to “suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed” ? For these were the things that St Peter counteracted against. Was devil’s will against these things? Of course not, on the contrary the devil was the main supporter of these things and the instigator of the betrayal of Christ, as St John says in his Gospel: “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him”. John 13:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=13&verse=27&version=31&context=verse)

And why Christ told St Peter “you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matt 16:23) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2016:23;&version=50;) - for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.(Mark 8:33) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%208:33;&version=50;)? In both Gospels there is absolute symphony in the verbalization: St Peter was mindful of “the things of men”. Were the “things of men” identical with the will of devil? No, because the devil wanted to kill Christ and St Peter wanted to save Him from being killed. But because Christ rebuked, the innocent of any blame, human love of His disciples for Him, who could not afford to see their incarnated God being killed and tortured and crucified, He said to St Peter, while addressing through him to everyone, you are mindful of “the things of man” but you must reckon “the things of God” instead. The devil is absolutely irrelevant in this instance.

As for the issue of the phrase “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19, it consists of three clauses which are being produced by the acknowledgement “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”. Which in its turn is being produced by the reality that “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven”

So there is an underlying generative cause for the rock-ness and un-prevail-ness and consequently for the reception of the keys and for the bind-bind, loose-loose between earth and heaven. This generative cause is that St Peter was blessed. The formulation “Blessed are you” (makarios ei (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:17;&version=69;)) means you are now blessed, already. You are not going to be blessed, neither I will bless you in the future, but now and here you are blessed. And as the angel said to the Virgin “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus….(Luke 1:30-31) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:30-31;&version=50;) likewise Christ told St Peter “Blessed are you …”. As Theotokos(Mother of God) found favour with God before Christ’s conception, similarly St Peter was blessed before the “offerings” of Christ. And as there were not the consequent events that produced the favour with God, but the existed favour with God that produced the consequent events in Virgin, likewise there were not the consequent gifts that produced the blessing to St Peter but the existed blessing produced the consequent gifts. And the blessing of St Peter was that “Christ's Father who is in heaven revealed this to him”. The revelation was not information. It was a relation, like it was the case with the Virgin. The Most Holy Virgin was the first human being that in being related with God within this relation experientially realized God as a Father of His Son. As THE SPECIFIC FATHER OF THE SPECIFIC SON - this is not an attribute but a relation and only within the specific relation it can be made known. For that she “found favour with God” and she partook into the Trinity way of being even before Christ’s incarnation. Likewise St Peter in his relation with God realized that God is a Father, not as an abstract name of a generator, but as a Father person of the specific Son person. This relational revelation is not knowledge through examination and experience of Christ’s human life. It is a revelation beyond created reality. It is a revelation that was to be offered at the Pentecost by the Spirit of Christ when St Peter told to the crowd: This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. (Acts 2:32-33) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:32-33;&version=50;).

Therefore, the relation with the Father has the rock-ness and the un-prevail-ness and the reception of the keys and the bind-bind, loose-loose between earth and heaven, as intrinsic Uncreated realities. They are not accessional offerings. What Christ did was to present the uncreated part of the blessed relation of St Peter. From St Peter (who presented his answer in the name of the whole group of the disciples) the confession of the sonship of the Son, was a direct confession of the fathership of the Father. It was an answer like the answer that the Virgin gave “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word”(Luke 1:38), in which she confessed the fathership of the Father by accepting the sonship of the Son.

The participation of the human into the uncreated Trinity way of being of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is producing myriad of uncreated wealth. To say that in partaking in this Relation humans are taking part in the Divine privilege of forgiving sins is an understatement. Christ did not mention just that. He presented to St Peter - and to all of His disciples- the uncreated way of being as it is being united with the created way of being. First the rock, the ontological solidness of being in personal uncreated relation with the Trinity persons, then the immortality as a way of personal being even in the death of natural presence, then the reception of the keys of heaven as the acknowledgement of being an active person in the specific relation and finally the integration of earth and heaven in a simultaneous ontological presence and performance in both realities. All of these are caused by the Father as we are being related with Him through Christ in the Holy Spirit. This blessing of the Father was being accepted by St Peter, and the other disciples, within their relation with Him.

May God bless us, all.

M.C. Steenberg

09-09-2005, 07:28 PM

Dear Leandros and others,

Of course this space is for discourse - so engaged responses proferred in a warm spirit are entirely what we're about. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

In that light, I grow more, not less apprehensive, about this particular way of interpreting St Peter, his confession and the response of Christ, on now reading these most recent thoughts. As before, there is much in the thoughts themselves that seems to me very interesting and insightful (on relation to God's eternal, immaterial relations, etc.); but we have to be attentive against fanciful readings of the scriptures themselves.

Part of the problem here is the idea of needing to 'come to the defense' of Peter, when the manner of his actions is addressed. That Peter could be both saint and sinner, both joined to Christ yet still in discourse with the devil, is in no way to defame him. Far to the opposite, to suggest that there must be analogy behind the otherwise direct words of Christ, in order to save Peter the supposed injury that would come in being addressed as Satan, is to attempt to transform that which makes him truly blessed into a manner of exaltation of character. This is precisely at the heart of so much disputation over his person between Orthodox and Roman Catholics over the course of history. Peter is blessed, but the real question is what such blessedness means. To have the words makarios ei spoken to him does indeed indicate immediate blessedness; but nowhere is such blessedness defined as a state of being without flaw, without misconception, without right behaviour. It is he who denies Christ. It is he who misunderstands the nature of the transfiguration. Peter's blessedness is not to be found in creatively explaining away these realities, so boldly (and unapologetically) recorded in scripture. Peter's blessedness is found in the far more transfiguring reality that the experience of Jesus Christ wed a man of 'not a cautious temper' (as St John put it) to the life of the Son of God - in and through and with his occasional inability to grasp fully the incomprehensible mystery of even his own confession.

Peter's confession, the full reality of its meaning and the influence that both it and he will have on the future of the Church, can be understood and appreciated only when we do not attempt to transform his person (and indeed that confession, and Christ's reply) into something based on a reading of Christian theology writ large. In the reading of the fathers, Christ's words granting the keys of the kingdom, the power to bind and loose, are about the granting of the power of forgiveness of sins -- God's power -- to the office represented in this man. Peter does misunderstand the will of God and the advance to the crucifixion that must follow; and Christ does call him Satan, the devil, the great foe. I cannot (off hand) think of a father who does not read the text thus.

We must be wary not to confuse the will of men, the will of the devil and the will of God in this situation. It was the will of the Father, not the devil, that his Son be offered on the cross in love for the life of the world; this was the eternal vision of the Father for his Son -- and it is in evidence of this that Christ himself can say 'for this reason have I come to this hour', and St Gregory can term him 'the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world'. Satan may work in the hearts of those who take part in the cruelties that surround this offering, but the offering itself is God's will, God's want, and God's purpose. To hinder this sacrifice has been the devil's purpose since long ago he was told that the child of a woman would crush his head underfoot -- an allusion the fathers take almost universally to be a prophecy of the cross. It is the devil who wishes to stop, not advance, the sacrifice of the Son. And it is this purpose, this wish not to see the sacrifice made, that is found in Peter's words, 'Far be it from you, Lord - this shall not happen to you'. When Christ responds, 'Get behind me, Satan!', he is not simply deeming Peter adversarial or a hindrance: he is addressing Satan, whose will is confessed in Peter's words - however unwitting his admission to this foe.

This is the true mystery of Peter's blessedness. In a man who encounters the living Son of the eternal Father, Peter is made bold to confess in the Spirit the heart and centre of Christian reality. Yet the man who speaks, to whom God's own authority is given, is a man fallible in the face of the mysteries of this world. He is a man whose heart burns with the love of God, whose mind errs, yet who is unwilling to let his errors or his failings, even his unwitting alliance to all that is opposed to God (for we ally ourselves with Satan in acting against Christ) have the last word in his life. He here misguidedly opposes the Passion; he later misunderstands the vision on Tabor; in Jerusalem he denies the Saviour three times. But the last image of this Peter left in the Gospel of Matthew is one in which, after and in midst of the memory of all these things, he confesses this love three times to Christ: 'Lord, you know that I love you'. And in the light of all that has gone before, the Christ responds, 'Follow me'. This is Peter's blessedness. It is what exalts him. Strip him of the reality of his life and encounter, and we strip him of his crown.

INXC, Matthew

Byron Jack Gaist

10-09-2005, 07:34 PM

Dear Matthew,

Human life is not a once-for-all ‘either/or’ between Christ and Satan: our fallen state is one of constant battle in the heart between the activity of both and our participation in each. Even the thief on the cross hears, ‘Today you will be with me in Paradise’.

Thank you for these wise words, which are helpful in my life right now. I only wish we could remember this simple and sad reality more often. Other sayings, like "He who is not for me is against me", or "You cannot serve two masters" are often used as fuel to light the flames of judgment and intolerance towards others and towards ourselves.

In Christ
Byron

Leandros Papadopoulos

11-09-2005, 01:36 AM

Dear Dr Steenberg,

I read with great interest your last post and I gave a lot of thought whether there was anything more to be said on the subject, which would produce fertile discussion. I came to the conclusion to submit a part of St John Chrysosome’s homily on Matthew Chapter 16, Verse 28 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-62.htm), in which he comments also on the event of Transfiguration, taking ground from your mention that St Peter “later misunderstands the vision on Tabor” among a series of alleged failures.

Let us read the passage from St John’s homily:

2. "And after six days He takes with Him Peter and James and John.

Now another says, "after eight," not contradicting this writer, but most fully agreeing with him. For the one expressed both the very day on which He spoke, and that on which He led them up; but the other, the days between them only.

But mark you, I pray you, the severe goodness of Matthew, not concealing those who were preferred to himself. This John also often does, recording the peculiar praises of Peter with great sincerity. For the choir of these holy men was everywhere pure from envy and vainglory.

Having taken therefore the leaders, "He brought them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light. And there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him.

Wherefore did He take with Him these only? Because these were superior to the rest. And Peter indeed showed his superiority by exceedingly loving Him; but John by being exceedingly loved of Him; and James again by his answer which he answered with his brother, saying, "We are able to drink the cup"; nor yet by his answer only, but also by his works; both by the rest of them, and by fulfilling, what he said. For so earnest was he, and grievous to the Jews, that Herod himself supposed that he had bestowed herein a very great favor on the Jews, I mean in slaying him.

But wherefore did He not lead them up straightway? To spare the other disciples any feeling of human weakness: for which cause He omits also the names of them that are to go up. And this, because the rest would have desired exceedingly to have followed, being to see a pattern of that glory; and would have been pained, as overlooked. For though it was somewhat in a corporeal way that He made the disclosure, yet nevertheless the thing had much in it to be desired.

Wherefore then did He at all foretell it? That they might be readier to seize the high meaning, by His foretelling it; and being filled with the more vehement desire in that round of days, might so be present with their mind quite awake and full of care.

3. But wherefore did He also bring forward Moses and Elias? One might mention many reasons. And first of all this: because the multitudes said He was, some Elias, some Jeremias, some one of the old prophets, He brings the leaders of His choir, that they might see the difference even hereby between the servants and the Lord; and that Peter was rightly commended for confessing Him Son of God.

But besides that, one may mention another reason also: that because men were continually accusing Him of transgressing the law, and accounting Him to be a blasphemer, as appropriating to Himself a glory which belonged not to Him, even the Father's, and were saying, "This Man is not of God, because He keeps not the Sabbath day; and again, "For a good work we stone You not, but for blasphemy, and because that You, being a man, makes Yourself God:" that both the charges might be shown to spring from envy, and He be proved not liable to either; and that neither is His conduct a transgression of the law, nor His calling Himself equal to the Father an appropriation of glory not His own; He brings forward them who had shone out in each of these respects: Moses, because he gave the law, and the Jews might infer that he would not have overlooked its being trampled on, as they supposed, nor have shown respect to the transgressor of it, and the enemy of its founder: Elias too for his part was jealous for the glory of God, and were any man an adversary of God, and calling himself God, making himself equal to the Father, while he was not what he said, and had no right to do so; he was not the person to stand by, and hearken unto him.

And one may mention another reason also, with those which have been spoken of. Of what kind then is it? To inform them that He had power both of death and life, is ruler both above and beneath. For this cause He brings forward both him that had died, and him that never yet suffered this.

But the fifth motive, (for it is a fifth, besides those that have been mentioned), even the evangelist himself have revealed. Now what was this? To show the glory of the cross, and to console Peter and the others in their dread of the passion, and to raise up their minds. Since having come, they by no means held their peace, but "spoke," it is said, "of the glory which He was to accomplish at Jerusalem; " that is, of the passion, and the cross; for so they call it always.

And not thus only did He cheer them, but also by the excellency itself of the men, being such as He was especially requiring from themselves. I mean, that having said, "If any man will come after me, let him take up his cross, and follow me;" them that had died ten thousand times for God's decrees, and the people entrusted to them, these persons He sets before them. Because each of these, having lost his life, found it. For each of them both spoke boldly unto tyrants, the one to the Egyptian, the other to Ahab; and in behalf of heartless and disobedient men; and by the very persons who were saved by them, they were brought into extreme danger; and each of them wishing to withdraw men from idolatry; and each being unlearned; for the one was of a "slow tongue," and dull of speech, and the other for his part also somewhat of the rudest in his bearing: and of voluntary poverty both were very strict observers; for neither had Moses made any gain, nor had Elias aught more than his sheepskin; and this under the old law, and when they had not received so great a gift of miracles. For what if Moses clave a sea? yet Peter walked on the water, and was able to remove mountains, and used to work cures of all manner of bodily diseases, and to drive away savage demons, and by the shadow of his body to work those wonderful and great prodigies; and changed the whole world. And if Elias too raised a dead man, yet these raised ten thousand; and this before the spirit was as yet vouchsafed to them. He brings them forward accordingly for this cause also. For He would have them emulate their winning ways toward the people, and their presence of mind and inflexibility; and that they should be meek like Moses, and jealous for God like Elias, and full of tender care, as they were. For the one endured a famine of three years for the Jewish people; and the other said, "If thou wilt forgive them their sin, forgive; else blot me too out of the book, which thou hast written." Now of all this He was reminding them by the vision.

For He brought those in glory too, not that these should stay where they were, but that they might even surpass their limitary lines. For example, when they said, "Should we command fire to come down from heaven," and made mention of Elias as having done so, He said, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of;" training them to forbearance by the superiority in their gift.

And let none suppose us to condemn Elias as imperfect; we say not this; for indeed he was exceedingly perfect, but in his own times, when the mind of men was in some degree childish, and they needed this kind of schooling. Since Moses too was in this respect perfect; nevertheless these have more required of them than he. For "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no ease enter into the kingdom of Heaven." For not into Egypt did they enter, but into the whole world, worse disposed than the Egyptians; neither were they to speak with Pharaoh, but to fight hand to hand with the devil, the very prince of wickedness. Yea, and their appointed struggle was, both to bind him, and to spoil all his goods; and this they did cleaving not the sea, but an abyss of ungodliness, through the rod of Jesse,-an abyss having waves far more grievous. See at any rate how many things there were to put the men in fear; death, poverty, dishonor, their innumerable sufferings; and at these things they trembled more than the Jews of old at that sea. But nevertheless against all these things He persuaded them boldly to venture, and to pass as along dry ground with all security.

To train them therefore for all this, He brought forward those who shone forth under the old law.

4. What then said the ardent Peter? "It is good for us to be here." For because he had heard that Christ was to go to Jerusalem and to suffer, being in fear still and trembling for Him, even after His reproof, he durst not indeed approach and say the same thing again, "Be it far from thee; but from that fear obscurely intimates the same again in other words. That is, when he saw a mountain, and so great retirement and solitude, his thought was, "He hath great security here, even from the place; and not only from the place, but also from His going away no more unto Jerusalem." For he would have Him be there continually: wherefore also he speaks of "tabernacles." For "if this may be," said he, "we shall not go up to Jerusalem; and if we go not up, He will not die, for there He said the scribes would set upon Him."

But thus indeed he durst not speak; but desiring however to order things so, he said undoubtingly, "It is good for us to be here," where Moses also is present, and Elias; Elias who brought down fire on the mountain, and Moses who entered into the thick darkness, and talked with God; and no one will even know where we are."

Do you see the ardent lover of Christ? For look not now at this, that the manner of his exhortation was not well weighed, but see how ardent he was, how burning his affection to Christ. For in proof that not so much out of fear for himself he said these things, hear what he said, when Christ was declaring beforehand His future death, and the assault upon Him: "I will lay down my life for Thy sake. Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee. "

And see how even in the very midst of the actual dangers he counselled amiss for himself. We know that when so great a multitude encompassed them, so far from flying, he even drew the sword, and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant. To such a degree did he disregard his own interest, and fear for his Master. Then because he had spoken as affirming a fact, he checks himself, and thinking, what if he should be again reproved, he said, "If Thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for Thee and one for Moses, and one for Elias."

What are you saying, O Peter? Did you not a little while since distinguish Him from the servants? Are you again numbering Him with the servants? Do you see how exceedingly imperfect they were before the crucifixion? For although the Father had revealed it to him, yet he did not always retain the revelation, but was troubled by his alarm; not this only, which I have mentioned, but another also, arising from that sight. In fact, the other evangelists, to declare this, and to indicate that the confusion of his mind, with which he spoke these things, arose from that alarm, said as follows; mark, "He wist not what to say, for they were sore afraid;" but Luke after his saying, "Let us make three tabernacles," added, "not knowing what he said." Then to show that he was held with great fear, both he and the rest, he said, "They were heavy with sleep, and when they were awake they saw His glory;" meaning by deep sleep here, the deep stupor engendered in them by that vision. For as eyes are darkened by an excessive splendor, so at that time also did they feel. For it was not, I suppose, night, but day; and the exceeding greatness of the light weighed down the infirmity of their eyes.

5. What then? He Himself speaks nothing, nor Moses, nor Elias, but He that is greater than all, and more worthy of belief, the Father, uttered a voice out of the cloud.

Wherefore out of the cloud? Thus do God ever appear. "For a cloud and darkness are round about Him;" and, "He sitteth on a light cloud;" and again, "Who maketh clouds His chariot;" and, "A cloud received Him out of their sight;" and, "As the Son of Man coming in the clouds."

In order then that they might believe that the voice proceeds from God, it comes from thence.

And the cloud was bright. For "while he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and, behold, a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him."

For as, when He threatens, He shows a dark cloud;-as on Mount Sinai; for "Moses," it is said, "entered into the cloud, and into the thick darkness; and as a vapor, so went up the smoke;" and the prophet said, when speaking of His threatening, "Dark water in clouds of the air;" -so here, because it was His desire not to alarm, but to teach, it is a bright cloud.

And whereas Peter had said "Let us make three tabernacles," He showed a tabernacle not made with hands. Wherefore in that case it was smoke, and vapor of a furnace; but in this, light unspeakable and a voice.

Then, to signify that not merely concerning some one of the three was it spoken, but; concerning Christ only; when the voice was uttered, they were taken away. For by no means, had it been spoken merely concerning any one of them, would this man have remained alone, the two being severed from Him.

Why then did not the cloud likewise receive Christ alone, but all of them together? If it had received Christ alone, He would have been thought to have Himself uttered the voice. Wherefore also the evangelist, making sure this same point, said, that the voice was from the cloud, that is, from God.

And what said the voice? "This is my beloved Son." Now if He is beloved, fear not thou, O Peter. For thou oughtest indeed to know His power already, and to be fully assured touching His resurrection; but since; thou knowest not, at least from the voice of the Father take courage. For if God be mighty, as surely He is mighty, very evidently the Son is so likewise. Be not afraid then of those fearful things.

But if as yet thou receive it not, consider at least that other fact, that He is both a Son, and is beloved. For "This," it is said, "is My beloved Son." Now if He is beloved, fear not. For no one gives up one whom he loves. Be not thou therefore confounded; though thou lovest Him beyond measure, thou lovest Him not as much as He that begat Him.

"In whom I am well pleased." For not because He begat Him only, does He love Him, but because He is also equal to Him in all respects, and of one mind with Him. So that the charm of love is twofold, or rather even threefold, because He is the Son, because He is beloved, because in Him He is well pleased.

But what means, "In whom I am well pleased ?" As though He had said," In whom I am refreshed, in whom I take delight;" because He is in all respects perfectly equal with Himself, and there is but one will in Him and in the Father, and though He continue a Son, He is in all respects one with the Father.

"Hear ye Him." So that although He choose to be crucified, you are not to oppose Him.

The emphasis in the text was placed by me.

St John asks this question “Do you see how exceedingly imperfect they were (the apostles) before the crucifixion?” and he asserts that the whole groups of the Apostles were “troubled”, “ were hold with great fear” and “were sore afraid”.

Being in this condition they were not without love for Christ, but on the contrary because of their love they were in this condition. Because of their love for Christ “they by no means held their peace” knowing His future passion in advance – this is very clear in St John’s homily.

Also, St John praises their courage and he insists that St Peter “To such a degree did he disregard his own interest, and fear for his Master”.And then: "Do you see the ardent lover of Christ? For look not now at this, that the manner of his exhortation was not well weighed, but see how ardent he was, how burning his affection to Christ".

In this situation of “excessive love” that drives human heart and mind in deadlock, Christ took His loved disciples to the mountain “To show the glory of the cross, and to console Peter and the others in their dread of the passion, and to raise up their minds. Since having come, they by no means held their peace, but "spoke," it is said, "of the glory which He was to accomplish at Jerusalem; " that is, of the passion, and the cross”.

And there, according to St John, the Father told them “This is my beloved Son." Now if He is beloved, fear not thou, O Peter. For thou oughtest indeed to know His power already, and to be fully assured touching His resurrection; but since; thou knowest not, at least from the voice of the Father take courage. ... For "This," it is said, "is My beloved Son." Now if He is beloved, fear not. For no one gives up one whom he loves. Be not thou therefore confounded; though thou lovest Him beyond measure, thou lovest Him not as much as He that begat Him.

St John says for Moses and for Elias: "each being unlearned; for the one was of a 'slow tongue', and dull of speech, and the other for his part also somewhat of the rudest in his bearing: and of voluntary poverty both were very strict observers; for neither had Moses made any gain, nor had Elias aught more than his sheepskin". For their case, just as for Peter's, it is proper to remember St Paul writing And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Corinthians 12:9) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2012:9;&version=50;) This weakness may look as a sign of submission to evil, or as evil prevalence but on the contrary it is the Glory of God. This is the same weakness that St Peter had. It is the weakness of Love.

As I read, again, the homily of St John I fail to see in St Peter “a man whose heart burns with the love of God, whose mind errs, yet who is unwilling to let his errors or his failings, even his unwitting alliance to all that is opposed to God (for we ally ourselves with Satan in acting against Christ) have the last word in his life”.

All that I see in "ardent Peter" is blessed love-love-love. And where love is, there is no room for "opposition to God" - neither witting, nor unwitting.

As St John, puts it: "For He brought those in glory too, not that these should stay where they were, but that they might even surpass their limitary line". Man has limits that are surpased only in Love with God.

May God bless us, all.

Tim Grass

11-09-2005, 01:55 AM

I don't understand why we sometimes seem to need to make people fit pictures of what we think their life must be about. Obviously St. Peter makes mistakes... that's everywhere in the Gospels. Why are we afraid of this? We have neat little pictures of waht sanctity is supposed to mean. It's not what the Gospels say it means, it's what we think it means...and so we stop letting the Gospels say what they actually say. Peter's life is totally meanginless without his errors.

--Tim

nurse-aid

11-09-2005, 04:14 AM

BRAVO TIM! that what repentance is all about....

ONLY HE IS SINLESS and ONLY MOTHER OF GOD IS MOST PURE ONE!

so rest of us repented and confess all life...if not in physical sins, then in pride or ealse..NO ONE IS SINLESS!!!!DUH! VERY BASIC OF CHRISTIANITY!

nurse-aid

11-09-2005, 04:18 AM

and WHY? WHY? we are alawys have to look at other's plates..don't we mind our own business...like a pigs looking under ourselves...and not on others...to see IF they got beter...if we are mind our own business...it will be great!

to find out WHY PETER got more then Andrew...simply stupid...BEACAUSE we are not the ones who read HIS mind...is in it SIMPLE!!!!!

Myles A. Bailey

08-10-2005, 05:09 AM

The Fathers' dont contradict they just number differently sometimes. For instance, if I remember correctly, St Ignatius of Antioch did not include St Peter as one of his predecessors in his See, which obviously Peter was. At times the Fathers include the apostolic founders of their Sees in their numerical listings as Bishops at other times they do not. Why is debateable? Perhaps out of respect for the dignity of the office of Apostles, which comes out more and more in Acts and the New Testament epistles where Apostle becomes a reserved term for the disciples (and Paul). I wouldn't say St Epiphanius' statement is wrong e.g. in the non-canonical work 'The Acts of Peter and Paul' Peter is listed as already in Rome heading the Church there when Paul arrives for trial by Caesar as mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Moreover, to my knowledge none of the Fathers list Linus leading the Roman Church before the martyrdoms under Nero in which Sts Peter and Paul died according to tradition and the aforesaid non-canonical book. If it is legitimate to consider St Peter the first Bishop of Antioch (and I contend it is) I see no real difficulty in considering him first Bishop of Rome either, and St Paul as co-worker in the See also.

M.C. Steenberg

08-10-2005, 11:51 AM

The question over the numeration of bishops of Rome in the early Church is not in fact quite so straight forward. The fundamental question of whether Peter should be included on a listing of the 'bishops of Rome', for example, is not necessarily a case of the obvious. While there is no doubt that he headed the church there, such a father as Irenaeus quite clearly distinguishes between his office as apostle, and the office of his successor, who became the first bishop of the city. There are also matters of certain names later on the early registers of bishops which are believed by some in fact to be multiple names for the same person, etc.

INXC, Matthew

Mina Monir

01-12-2005, 10:10 PM

dear Rev. Dr.Mathew ,
I believe it is interesting to reactivate this thread,
many historians believe that the first bishop of Rome was Paul , not Peter ... Eusibius of Caesaria mentioned paul and peter in different places in his famous book on the history of the church. in the same time , german historians support that point . anyway, I always doubt in the catholic resources ... You can find gaps in the list of roman popes ... and also you can find sometimes include more than two popes for rome! Peter's Primacy is not a traditional nor biblical ... and this can be proved simply... but later , as i'm busy now...
note : catholics are proud that St.Clement of rome was one of their early bishops in the first century (90-98)
if u ask them : who is clement of rome ? you will find two answers -at least- about his roots.
so, history wont support this imperial idea.
IC XC
Mina

Fr Raphael Vereshack

02-12-2005, 12:11 AM

Greetings Mina,
For some reason whenever you post on the thread called Orthodoxy between Ecumenical Duty & Globalisation your posts get all messed up: the post is far larger horizontally than the inbox (don't know what this is called technically); a lot of the writing comes up as numerical jibberish; also
the link goes to a large white box that does not allow any reply. So it's almost impossible to read your posts.
I don't know if this is a monachos problem for Matthew S. to deal with or not.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: I suspect this is the 5th column ecumenists sabotaging your postshttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Mark Anthony

05-09-2010, 07:49 PM

"yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside"-(_St.Gregory the Great((Pope of Old Rome)),Book VII, Letter 40_)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

To simply say "The See of Peter is in Rome" is a gross Mistake.Since we see from St.Gregory the Great although Rome is the See of Peter so is Antioch and Alexandria.Antioch since it was the First Throne and Alexandria because St.Peter sent St.Mark to be "Peter" in Alexandria.Peter has three Bishops sitting upon his throne.This may sound odd but God never told us of a single earthly authority.Our Authority that we are under is the church,all bishops even priests.I'm not sure if someone already posted on this,but I find it is a very compelling quote from st.Gregory.Though he is FAR from alone in the belief that Peter's throne is not "ONLY" in Rome.

Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the see of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus of the chorus of the apostles.-St.Theodoret,epistle 86

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707086.htm

So to claim Rome is the only Keeper of the Keys or even Peter is a gross mistake.ROME is but ONE of the Bishops who sit on the throne.I think we can even liken it as a imperfect image of the trinity

The Bishop of Rome
The Bishop of Antioch = successor to Peter's throne
The Bishop of Alexandria

Now their are not three Thrones but one throne,but three bishops sit upon it.Although we refer to Rome as first,it is no more or less the see of Peter then Antioch is or Alexandria. Although Antioch by being a First throne,and Alexandria as by St.Mark

God's church is not a monarchy under a Single Bishop,but under Christ,all Bishops are equal sharers of the Keys.Though it is from Peter we receive the keys from Christ.We can not say that these Keys are Peter's alone.It was given him first for Unity.He chose Simon as "Peter" not for authority,but for unity

And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity-St.Cyprian Treatise 1 "On unity" paragraph 4

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

Why was Rome the "Ecumenical Patriarch" as it was given to Rome by councils,emperors and such,was not for authority.but to play "Peter" as a "Rock" of Unity.To be bound with Peter was to be Bound with the church.But since Rome is not the sole successor to Peter we must be humble and understand that if Rome loses faith,she can no longer be considered Peter.For if even a angel of the Lord comes and preaches anything contrary to the Catholic faith,we are to renounce them.Even if it is Peter and Paul!

Unity only exists with Orthodoxy,this is the Keys that holds the Church Together.

Disclaimer: I am only a convert,I am not intelligent nor of a scholastic training,I only speak of what has been told to me and I have seen,Please do not be humble but be zealous and correct me in any point I have err'ed.For I am your brother and son in faith

In Christ I profess my love for all of you,
Mark Anthony