/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>654608

There is no "True" Church in the sense of Catholicism versus Orthodoxy. We are both of the same Church but we refuse to acknowledge the Pope as above us. We went our on way and they went theirs. It is a giant schism that may never be healed do to some serious doctrinal differences now. But neither is more "True" than the other.

>>654614

Would believing in one instead of the other send a person to Hell, if they're part of the same?

>>654614

>We are both of the same Church

Rejecting the Primacy of the Pope makes you a false Church in the eyes of many Catholics though.

I'm not saying that's right.

>>654608

> if they don't recognize the Petrine primacy

>“My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriarchates and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office… How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of such a church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.” (Nicetas of Nicomedia, 12th century)

Add to that the recent developments made by the Joint Commision(Ravenna in 2007, Chieti 2016), and it's clear we both agree Rome has the historic primacy, and would, in normal conditions, be the protos of the Church.

So, there are two concepts at play here. The primacy of Peter, and the powers granted to Peter by Christ.

The following are the historical and exegetical interpretations of Peter's primacy:

- Peter has a primacy of power above the other apostles, he is truly above them and can do things they cannot

- Peter has a primacy of honor among the other apostles, he inherits a special role and mission but it doesn't put him above in rank to the other apostles

- Peter has a primacy in time, he has received certain things prior to the other apostles but is otherwise identical in prerogatives to them

For the historical and exegetical interpretations of Peter's powers, see next post.

Scholars:

The first part of the following verse ("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." - Matt. 16:19) clearly draws on Old Testament imagery (especially Is. 22:22) where the power of the keys is conected with the notion of stewardship. Thus understood, Peter is essentially appointed "vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain," "prime minister and major domo" of the Kingdom, "exercis[ing] authority on earth in harmony with Jesus, who remains Lord of his Church." He is not only "the archetype of the professing disciple," but also "the prototype of the Christian teacher" and "the custodian of the Jesus tradition." He is the "foundation supporting the Church," to whom "the community owes the knowledge of Jesus' will that unlocks the door to God's kingdom."

The exegetical question that flows from this interpretation is whether the "power of the keys" (here given to Peter alone) is different from the authority to "bind and loose" that Jesus later confers on the Twelve in Matthew 18:18. Orthodox theologians past and present have consistently interpreted the power of the keys to be "a symbol of the authority of binding and loosing," and thus something possessed by all the apostles, who were given this authority in Matthew 18:18.

Biblcal scholarship has achieved no real consensus on this question, or the exact nature of either of these powers. Cullman suggested that "binding and loosing" in this context doubtless refers to the forgiveness of sins, which Jesus so closely connected with entrance to the Kingdom. Bornkamm and Meier were of the opinion that the power of "binding and loosing" given to Peter in 16:19 is the authority to "interpret the moral teaching of Jesus authoritatively" and thus essentially different from the powers described in Matthew 18:18 (i.e., "the power to admit or exclude from the local church"). Others have expanded upon this, suggesting that Peter's power not only touched "the allowing or disallowing of certain conduct [i.e. halakic decisions]," but also matters of doctrine, as questions arose about the kergyma and its interpretation. For this reason many scholars have argued that what was conferred upon Peter in this verse is essentially the office of "supreme Rabbi" who "can promulgate binding rules and make authoritative decisions about teaching in contrast to the 'teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees'." He thus becomes for Matthew's community "the transmitter of the Church's tradition of teaching," "the normative apostolic authority" and "the guarantor of orthodox teaching."

Fathers:

Jerome: "The Church is founded upon Peter, although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one if the Twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed there may be no occasion for schism."

Cyprian of Carthage: "upon him [i.e., Peter] he builds his church, and to him hands over in trust his sheep to be fed and, although he might assign to all apostles equal power, he established one Chair and ordained by his own authority that Chair as the source of unity and its guiding principle. The remaiing apostles were of necessity that which Peter was, but the first place was granted to Peter . . . Can anyone believe that he himself sticks fast to the faith without sticking fast to the unity of Peter? Can someone be confident that he himself is in the Church if he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church is founded?"

Cyprian of Carthage: "On one man he builds his Churrch and although he assigns to all the apostles after the resurrection equal power . . . nevertheless in order that he might reveal their unity, he ordained by his own authority that the source of that same unity should begin from the one who began the series. The remaining apostles were necessarily also that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership both in honor and of power, but the starting point from which they begin is from their unity with him in ordr that the Church of Christ might be exemplified as one."

Isidore of Seville: "after Christ the order of priesthood began with Peter. For to him the pontificate in the Church was given first . . . He was therefore the first to receive the authority of binding and loosing . . . And since the other apostles also became equal sharers with Peter in honor and authority, they also preached the gospel dispersed throughout the world. Coming after them, there succeeded the bishops, who have been set up in the seats of the apostles."

Bede: "although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other apostles . . . Indeed even now the same office is committed to the whole Church in her bishops and priests."

Augustine: "It's clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and ames and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ."

Augustine: "If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alone did this; he passed away, and went away; so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys. And what am I to say? That it is only we who bind, only we who loose? No, you also bind, you also loose. Anybody who's bound, you see, is barred from your society; and when he's barred from your society, he's bound by you; and when he's reconciled he's loosed by you, because you too plead with God for him."

Leo the Great: Just as Peter became rock through participation with Christ, in a similar way the other apostles were granted authority only through participation with him. "Certainly the right to use this power was conveyed to the other apostles as well . . . Yet not without purpose is it handed over to one, though made known to all. It is entrusted in a unique way to Peter because the figure of Peter is set before all the rulers of the Church . . . for the aid of divine grace is ordered in such a way that the firmness given to Peter through Christ is conferred upon the apostles through Peter." Thus for Leo, Peter "received the fullness of blessing . . . so that, in loosing or binding the petitions of any whatsoever, only that should be ratified in heaven which had been settled by the judgment of Peter."

So, long story short… There is in fact very little official doctrine about Peter in Orthodoxy, other than that the Roman Catholic position (that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter in such a way that he cannot drive the church into heresy) is incorrect. So some say that Peter was the head of the Church and the leader of the apostles, and that all bishops inherit his ministry. Some say that Peter's ministry what Peter's alone and was not inherited. Some say that the Pope inherited Peter's ministry in a special way, but not to the point of infallibility. Some even say that Peter was not the leader of the Church in any way, and did not have a unique ministry to begin with.