/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

CULTURES OF HONOR AND CULTURES OF LAW

>>670221

>> Give me a saint who says the pope is more than just the first among equal patriarchs.

> "First among equals" is an idea that only rose up in the 12th century.

The expression "first among equals" rose up in the 12th century and it is a futile attempt to explain to the Western mind the stand of the Eastern Church.

>>670735

>In fact the idea of a mere "honorary primacy" between bishops is rather new, and still not widely accepted in Orthodoxy.

Now, this statement is a very good illustration of the Western mind in action. What can be more important than honor, my friend? The following text is borrowed from Wikipedia:

Various sociologists and anthropologists have contrasted cultures of honour with cultures of law. A culture of law has a body of laws which all members of society must obey, with punishments for transgressors. This requires a society with the structures required to enact and enforce laws. Cultures of honor are often conservative, encoding pre-modern traditional family values and duties. In some cases these values clash with those of post-sexual revolution and egalitarian societies.

In my local Orthodox Church, my patriarch is "first among equals" with respect to the other bishops. Officially he doesn't have greater power. But I can assure you, that he is more honoured and has more influence in my Church than the current pope in the Catholic church. Do you see, my friend? It turns out the "honorary primacy" is not "mere honorary primacy".

During the first Ecumenical councils the East was shaken by countless heresies which (for the most part) didn't affect the West. During this time the popes were pillars of the Orthodoxy. The popes earned the respect of the Eastern Orthodox people. The letters of the orthodox Eastern bishops to the popes were full of submissivenes and praise for the popes. This, too, was a result of the "honorary primacy". So again, we see that the "honorary primacy" is not "mere honorary primacy".

But the poor Western mind doesn't understand the real meaning of honour. Instead, the Western mind seeks law. So the Catholic theologians explain the primacy of the pope in legalistic terms. They read the letters of the Eastern bishops to the popes and make the spectacular "discovery" that the popes had certain legal rights in the East.

BISHOPS RECEIVE THE KEYS THROUGH PETER

I don't know much about the Catholic theology. So I was very surprised to learn that there exists a teaching that the bishops receive the keys through Peter. I am very curious when did this theory appeared for the first time. I asked about this and I was given the following citations.

By St. 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 ordainined by his own authority that Chair as the source of unity and its guiding principle. The remaining 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?"

- "On one man he builds his Church and although he assigns to all the apostles after the ressurection 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 order that the Church of Christ might be exemplified as one."

I am not sure about the exact source of these citations but I found similar statements in the threatise "On the Unity of the Church", http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm.

From these citations one can conclude that someone is in Church only if he is in unity with the pope who sits on the chair of Peter. Well, no and this is why one shouldn't read citations without the context. If we read the whole threatise of St. Cyprian, we will see that there the Chair of Peter is not the Chair of the popes of Rome. Peter is a symbol of the unity with the Church. In a way any bishop who is in unity with Peter sits on the chair of Peter. "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source." A few lines after that St. Cyprian explains that this source is not Peter but Christ. This understanding of St. Cyprian is well seen not only in this threatise but also in several of his letters.

By St. pope Leo the Great:

- "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."

- "[Christ] wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as it were from the head"

Unfortunately I was unable to read the source of these citations. Google found the first one in https://books.google.bg/books?id=kBPGDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=leo+It+was+as+if+the+condition+of+the+others+would+be+more+secure+if+the+mind+of+their+leader+were+not+overcome&source=bl&ots=gTSbhItqYL&sig=IHBjantsFWC39bEU0Szb2-xD2rk&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIsrurpZDcAhVDLVAKHfBuDSIQ6AEIMjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false where the first citation is given as coming from "Sermon 4; Eng. trans: Leo the Great, Sermons, 28". Since I don't know the context of these citations, I am unable to comment.

So the question remains: when did the teaching that the bishops receive the keys through Peter originated? I suppose it originates no earlier than 5-th century because the western father st. Jerome didn't know about it. When commenting the words of Christ to Peter (((I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven |Matthew 16:19))) St. Jerome makes it clear that all bishops have the keys and he rebukes those who think that they are free to bound and release whoever they want: "the priest or bishop binds or looses, not those who are innocent or guilty, but because of his own office. When he hears the various kinds of sins, he knows who should be bound, and who should be loosed".

WHO IS THE ROCK?

(((You are rock, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. |Matthew 16:18)))

The Catholic teaching about this citation is that Peter is the rock. This is despite that the opinion of the Church fathers seems to be almost unanimous and unchanged throughout the centuries: the rock is not Peter but the faith and/or confession of Peter (((You are the Anointed/Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God |Matthew 16:16))). A nice survey of the opinion of the Church fathers on Matthew 16:18 can be found at https://www.the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html. I am not going to copy/paste here.

DO THE ORTHODOX REJECT THE PRIMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME?

No. St. Symeon of Thessalonica says: "One should not contradict the Latins

when they say that the bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful

to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to

that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of the pontiff".

Therefore, if the pope is faithful to the faith of Peter then he can enjoy all the privileges of the pontiff. Otherwise he is not even a member of the Church.

I've noticed that sometimes in the discussions about the pope the Catholic guys expend labour to prove to the Orthodox guys things that we do not object. So in order to save our time and efforts let me clarify one thing we do not object.

The pope has the right to be the "voice of the Church" and to issue statements about the doctrine or to pronounce anathema. Both acts are effective for the whole Church. However, it is very important to understand that technically in the Orthodox Church any bishop can be the "voice of the Church" and issue statements about the doctrine or to pronounce anathema. Both acts are effective for the whole Church. The pope has the right to be the "voice of the Church" but this is not an exclusive right that other bishops don't have.

What differs the pope from the other bishops is that it is more appropriate for the pope to issue such statements. Let me use the consecration of a bishop as an example. Technically any two bishops have the right to consecrate a new bishop. But this doesn't mean that it is appropriate for two bishops to consecrate whoever they decide. Similarly to this, despite that any bishop has the right to issue some statements that are effective for the whole Church, it is rarely appropriate for any bishop to do so. The pope has the honour to act as a visible voice of the Church more than any other bishop.

Of course, the Orthodox Church does not agree with the Catholic dogmat about the infallability of the pope. While the pope has the honour to be the visible voice of the Church, there is absolutely nothing to prevent him from issuing heretical statements that are only his voice and not the voice of the Church. The Church is infallable, however any visible authority is fallable, be him a pope or a council claiming to be ecumenical.

Top OrthoLARP

>>672948

Great to see the Catholics bringing their best to a genuinely good thread.

>>672961

>All the disciples were gotten the keys in Matthew 18:18

>Matthew 18:18

<keys not even mentioned in that verse

Wow you sure showed those darn papists

>>672967

>muh keys

>implying the keys is not the power of binding and loosing

>>672938

>>672941

>>672943

>>672944

Good golly, OP. You spent way too much time on this for an image board

>>672969

Except it's not solely that. Peter ALONE was given the keys. Stop with this baptist-tier argumentation.

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

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, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. 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. . . . 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]).

>>672988

>blaspheming Saint Peter to win a petty argument on the internet

What a sad human being you must be. Please repent asap.

>>672956

Youre giving standard, worn out orthoprot arguments we've all heard a hundred times and expecting something other than a meme answer.

>>673049

Where do you think you are ?

I tell you: On a board where trap bait posts get 300 replies and quality threads are either shat up or OP has to carry them with >50% of posts, because no one is interested in actual things Christian. Point in case: The Rosary thread. For a board that is said to be majority Catholic that's pretty weak, don't you think ?

Same for this thread. Yeah, OP's arguments have been heard and refuted a billion times before. But he put a lot of effort into this and deserved better than mere trash posting - from both sides of the Adria - as you mentioned.

>>672938

Ah, yes. Calling me both "Western" and a "Catholic".

I was Orthodox for the longest time, and might very well remain so as the Catholic priests I've spoken with told me I should stay Orthodox.

I'm the guy you talked with on that thread if that wasn't clear.

>In my local Orthodox Church, my patriarch is "first among equals" with respect to the other bishops. Officially he doesn't have greater power. But I can assure you, that he is more honoured and has more influence in my Church than the current pope in the Catholic church. Do you see, my friend? It turns out the "honorary primacy" is not "mere honorary primacy".

First, you're essentially saying nothing here.

Second, the idea that a bishop has no greater power than another officially hasn't existed for most of the history of the Church. A primate (knowing there are 3 levels of primacy as highlighted at Ravenna) really does have power.

>This, too, was a result of the "honorary primacy".

Many of those letters give to the Pope a real power really inherited from Peter.

>>672943

>I don't know much about the Catholic theology. So I was very surprised to learn that there exists a teaching that the bishops receive the keys through Peter.

That's what I was taught… as an Orthodox…

>I am not sure about the exact source of these citations

"On the Unity of the Catholic Church" 4-5.

Also from Cyprian:

- "[from Peter] flows the appointment of bishops and the organization of the church, with bishop succeeding bishop down through the course of time" (Letter 33)

But your assessment of Cyprian's idea of the See of Peter is correct - he thought all bishops sat on it. However, he also thought that the Church of Rome held a special role, calling the Church of Rome in particular "the chair of Peter . . . the primordial church, the very source of episcopal unity" (Letter 59, 14.1)

>Unfortunately I was unable to read the source of these citations.

First: "Sermon 4"

Second: "Letter 10 to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne"

>So the question remains: when did the teaching that the bishops receive the keys through Peter originated?

The New Testament, notably Matthew and Luke-Acts.

>St. Jerome makes it clear that all bishops have the keys

Nobody denies that all the bishops have the keys. But they have them through Peter. The question is whether the Pope indeed acts in the person and power of Peter, or if he inherits the keys from him the same way any other bishop does but has special honor for also being ordained by him.

>This is despite that the opinion of the Church fathers seems to be almost unanimous and unchanged throughout the centuries: the rock is not Peter but the faith and/or confession of Peter

There are 4 patristic interpretations.

<The Typological View (every believer who confesses Jesus as Son of God is the rock):

>Origen

>Ambrose of Milan

cont

<The Eastern View (Peter's confession of faith is the rock):

>Didymus the Blind

>Theodore of Mopsuestia

>John Chrysostom

>Gregory of Nyssa

>Maximus the Confessor

>Basil of Seleucia

>John of Damascus

>Ambrosiaster

>Hilary of Poitiers

>Ambrose of Milan

>Augustine of Hippo

<The Christological View (Jesus is the rock):

>Ambrose of Milan

>Jerome

>Augustine of Hippo

>Aphrahat

>Theodoret of Cyrus

>Cyril of Alexandria

>Basil of Seleucia

<The Roman View (Peter is the rock):

>Tertullian

>Cyprian of Carthage

>Jerome

>Hilary of Poitiers

>Origen

>Epiphanius of Salamis

>Aphrahat

>Basil of Caesarea

>Gregory of Nyssa

>Ephrem the Syrian

Furthermore, scholars agree today (even Orthodox scholars) that the author of Matthew intends to say Peter is the rock. A list of scholars who expressed this consensus would be too long so I'm not bothered to copy it down.

>>672961

Most scholars agree that Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 for a reason. Peter is established as *the rock* when Christ is *the Rock*. Peter is made to inherit the keys of heaven and earth when Christ is the one who holds them, per Revelation. Many scholars (B.H. Streeter, Reinhart Hummel, Kähler, William Davies, Dale C. Allison…) conclude that in Matthew 16, Peter is instituted by Christ as "supreme Rabbi", an office that obviously only he alone can hold.

However, *something* of Peter is given to the other apostles. Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 show that Peter's power isn't exclusive to him even as he alone holds it, and Luke-Acts has a schema of pastoral and doctrinal authority that is Jesus->Peter->Paul.

But in 2 Peter, Peter is truly shown to have a doctrinal authority superior to that of the other apostles, playing the role of authoritative arbiter between James and Paul and being able to interpret prophecies and the writings of Paul authoritatively.

>>672982

Tertullian believed that Peter alone could hold the key. That is, nobody, no bishop or Pope, holds the keys but Peter. He was an anti-clerical Montanist…

Cyprian of Carthage thought all bishops inherited the keys equally from Peter, without the Pope having a special role in his own office.

Anyway, when all is said and done… Orthodox are just Protestants and have the same understanding of historical doctrine and patristics as they do, unsurprisingly.

>>673054

Chans are designed for shitposting. What do you expect from a serious thread? "Oh man I love praying the rosary dont you? Yeah man I do too".

On top of that OP doesnt bring anything new. Anybody,both catholics and orthodox, who is interested in papal primacy has already read all the copy paste OP has used, and heard his opinions articulated much better before.

>>673093

The Rosary is one of the most amazing thing to have ever been revealed to us. So much content, history, stories, etc. surround this thing that we could have 20 threads about it and could still keep going. Pope Leo XIII. alone published 13(!) documents about it. If that's nothing for you to talk about, I don't know.

>>673090

>the idea that a bishop has no greater power

But by not codifying that power, any Bishop may stand up to another if he feels the other is in the wrong about something. Nestorius was the Archbishop of Constantinople whereas Cyril of Alexandria was from a 'second city' (my usage, not as powerful as Constantinople) and he stood up against the heresy of Nestorianism

This leads me to a question that I sincerely don't know the answer to and I'm not asking it to make an argument, but what mechanisms are there in the Catholic church to rebuke the Pope when he steps out of line? I fully understand that papal infallibility doesn't apply to every single word he says so that isn't the source of my questioning. If the Pope were to come out tomorrow and open communion to everyone, as those German bishops seem to be trying to do, how would you Catholics stop him?

>>673100

There were 3 issues relating to authority in the pre-schism Church.

1) In the order of authority, what is the degree of authority of each Church? Most notably, the authority of Rome. Is it equal to that of other high-ranking bishops? More than that? Is it supreme?

2) Is the authority of the Churches pastoral? doctrinal? both? are the pastoral authority and doctrinal authority equal in greatness?

3) Are the 3 great Churches Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch because of the Petrine principle? Or are they Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem because of conciliar decisions and God-given circumstances?

From a Catholic perspective Rome always had supreme authority anyway.

But even from an Orthodox perspective (and I don't mean the modern Orthodoxy that has a made-up "honorary primacy" system where the only difference is the order of procession in liturgies), a bishop having more pastoral and/or doctrinal authority than another doesn't mean that a "lower" ranking bishop cannot correct or even excommunicate them.

It should also be noted that in practice, the only churches to have made use of their primacy in such a way as to enforce pastoral/doctrinal authority were Rome, Constantinople (even after the schism), and Alexandria.

>>672938

Listen to this it will be mind blowing.

You are all the latins thinks like this, instead the greeks thinks like this, etc…

What if the Photian schism was the Byzantines seething because they lost control of Rome (many Popes were greek before then)? Instead of the evil Rome wanting to control everything?

What if it was the Greeks who were demanding uniformity and not wanting to accept the theology of the latin fathers? Instead of the evil Pope who wanted to submit the East.

What if it was the Greeks sperging over different words being used? Instead of the evil Pope wanting to force celibacy and communion under a single specie on everyone?

You can still see it everyday: every Orthodox argument, be it russian or greek, has a huge dose of provincialism and national particularism in it.

What if you just don't like the latins using latin reasoning and latin words because it's different from you?

Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (Luke 22:32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, 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 [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple [Mark] as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us (John 17:21). Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you, I declare to you that I exult with great joy from knowing that you labour assiduously against the barkings of heretics; and I implore Almighty God that He would aid your Blessedness with His protection, so as through your tongue to uproot every root of bitterness from the bosom of holy Church, lest it should germinate again to the hindrance of many, and through it many should be defiled. For having received your talent you think on the injunction, Trade till I come (Luke 19:13). I therefore, though unable to trade at all nevertheless rejoice with you in the gains of your trade, inasmuch as I know this, that if operation does not make me partaker, yet charity does make me a partaker in your labour. For I reckon that the good of a neighbour is common to one that stands idle, if he knows how to rejoice in common in the doings of the other.

-Pope Saint Gregory the Great (Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, Letter 40)

Really activates the almonds.

>>673130

What if both sides are to blame, and we are still suffering from nationalistic shitposting from empires that have been dead for hundreds of year?

>>673090

>Ah, yes. Calling me both "Western" and a "Catholic".

>I was Orthodox for the longest time, and might very well remain so.

Then I apologize for calling you "Catholic". I don't know if I have to apologize for calling you "Western" but if you think I shoud, then I do apologize.

>First: "Sermon 4"

>Second: "Letter 10 to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne"

Unfortunately, Sermon 4 is unavailable at newadvent.org. Thanks for the direction to Letter 10.

>>So the question remains: when did the teaching that the bishops receive the keys through Peter originated?

>The New Testament, notably Matthew and Luke-Acts.

No, I am asking for the first use of a clear statement that bishops receive the keys through Peter.

>>673130

>What if the Photian schism was the Byzantines seething because they lost control of Rome (many Popes were greek before then)? Instead of the evil Rome wanting to control everything?

>What if it was the Greeks who were demanding uniformity and not wanting to accept the theology of the latin fathers? Instead of the evil Pope who wanted to submit the East.

>What if it was the Greeks sperging over different words being used? Instead of the evil Pope wanting to force celibacy and communion under a single specie on everyone?

I suppose the first alternative is the Catholic point of view. The second, however, is not the Orthdox one. Most of the time the acts of the popes were not acts of a dictator who wanted to control everything or to submit the East. Even today the popes allow the oriental Catholics to do pretty much anything they want.

>What if you just don't like the latins using latin reasoning and latin words because it's different from you?

Ah, but I do like the latins and I pray for them. :) However, I have to reject the latin reasoning because I don't want to secede from Peter's solid rock.

>>673130

The funny thing is that up until the era of western scholasticism and Thomism and the popularisation of Aristotle in the West the cultures were quite reversed.

In the Greek east you had the proto-scholasticism and finely-tuned, exhaustive arguments of men like St John of Damascus and guys who looked a lot to Classical/pagan philosophy of everything to the point innovation, whereas in the relatively staid West you had people who focused almost exclusively on Scripture and the Fathers, if only because that was most of what was left for many people. They were the ones who passed down the traditions by word and deed rather than delving into obscure or reductive philosophy the same way the Greeks were doing.

>>672938

I don't know man. Christ said to Peter he is the rock, not his faith or whatever. He also gave the keys to him, I have no idea why people say well Christ gave them to everyone.

In Jewish tradition, the court steward was given the symbolical keys. There's only one steward to the King, not millions.

All things considered, it just makes more sense Christ wanted a hierarchy. What sense does it make to have a ship with 100 captains who are equal amongst themselves? One person needs to make the calls.

I highly doubt He wanted the church of Russia and Bulgaria and Serbia and them all bickering amongst themselves. One, holy, Catholic Church.

St. John Chrysostom

>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)

>>673246

>He also gave the keys to him, I have no idea why people say well Christ gave them to everyone.

Because most of the Church always believed that He gave them to everyone. The power of the keys is said to be that of "binding and loosing" which is identified with that of including or excluding from the local assembly (Matthew 18:18), a power owned by all the apostles.

>In Jewish tradition, the court steward was given the symbolical keys. There's only one steward to the King, not millions.

Indeed, there is a way in which Jesus, Who is the Rock and owns the keys of heaven (Revelation 3:7), gives to Peter qualities that are His - to be rock and to hold the keys of heaven. But, the quality of being "rock" is also mysteriously shared with all the believers per 1 Peter 2:5 and the quality of having the keys of heaven is shared with at least the apostles per Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22.

The real dispute here is what exactly is the relationship between Jesus, Peter, and the other apostles (and indeed the rest of the Church), and how this relates to the current state of the Church.

>I highly doubt He wanted the church of Russia and Bulgaria and Serbia and them all bickering amongst themselves.

… The Churches have been bickering since the beginning, long before there was a schism.

>St. John Chrysostom

And he said St John the Apostle is

>the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence