/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I wonder what keys do, if only we could figure that one out we could see if anyone else was given the ability to do the same things literally right after the keys were given

>>677401

nothen personnel, kid!

>>677393

There must always be a Protos.

Also, that's kinda the reasoning, that the Byz See is primus because it was the second in line, but Rome is no longer here, so…

>Muh keys

[-]

>>677399

>I wonder what keys do

We must ask the pope!

>>677393

He's the primate of the Orthodox communion. "Primus inter pares" only describes his position vis-a-vis the college of bishops, without further precision.

"Locum tenens" is a good thing to add if one considers that the Pope is normally "first among equals" due to Peter, but that's only one stance among many (like that Rome has the primacy from being the imperial capital, or even that the primacy translated to Constantinople when it became the new capital). The Church of Constantinople has not officially declared the legitimacy of one particular stance yet, and is still discerning its exact role (with some Constantinopolitan theologians coming up with the title of "Primus sine paribus" for instance).

>If anything why doesn't Eastern Orthodoxy consider . . . Francis the Primus inter pares in schismate?

Because for now the Constantinopolitan Church hasn't declared officially a particular thing regarding what the Bishop of Rome's situation is. Some would say he is bishop of Rome but in schism, some would say he is bishop of Rome but in heresy, some would say he is a layman, some would say he is nothing at all. Some would say Rome has the primacy from eternity but has been in an irregular situation so Constantinople is taking over for now, some would say Rome has the primacy from conciliar decision and so Constantinople is next in line since Rome is away, some would say Rome has the primacy purely because of being the imperial capital and lost it when Constantinople became the imperial capital (and those same people might likely say Constantinople lost it when the Byzantine Empire died, and Moscow is "Third Rome").

Byzantines smuggled the promotion of Constantinople during a Council, Rome never accepted that canon but the Greeks say it's totally ecumenical and valid for everyone.

>>677528

>Rome never accepted that canon

Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople was initially rejected by Rome. But eventually Pope Hormisdas did accept Constantinople's claims to being second in rank, in exchange for Ecumenical Patriarch John II's acceptance of Rome's claims of doctrinal orthodoxy based on Jesus's promise to Peter.

>>677399

keys of the kingdom are equivalent to the power of Chief Steward over israel (isaiah 22:22), the apostles where given authority but only as stewards, while peter was given authority over them as Protos (chief).

>>677720

Peter is shown to have the authority of primacy among them, but I don't know of scholars who seriously think he was given a rank above theirs. Rather, his primary role among the apostles was to be a bridge and peacemaker between James and Paul.

Isaiah 22:22 is directly about Jesus, as Revelation 3:7 tells us. To apply it directly to Peter would be like to apply references to the Rock in the OT to Peter as well.

>>677399

Pastoral and doctrinal authority conferred by Christ. Halakhic decisions. It is also the power to retain or forgive sin and to include or exclude from the assembly. Peter is essentially instituted by Jesus as "supreme Rabbi".

Jesus has this power supremely, but confers it to Peter, and through Peter it is conferred to the apostles (Matthew 18:18), and through the apostles to every bishop. Interestingly, we also find that Jesus is the Rock, but He confers this title to Peter, and Peter confers it to the right-believing faithful in 1 Peter. And Jesus is the Good Shepherd, but He confers to Peter the role of shepherd in John, and Peter confers it to the bishops in 1 Peter.

It is also implicit, because of the schema, that Luke-Acts makes Paul a "successor" of Peter as well, in his doctrinal and pastoral authority and his ministry. Luke-Acts has a schema of Jesus->Peter->Paul, assuring the Pauline communities that through Paul they are linked to Peter, and so to Jesus.

>>677506

>but that's only one stance among many

The whole concept of successionism is open to interpretation, you've only made it obvious by continuing talking in terms of what some would say. That's because no matter what manmade statement you consider, it could have a thousand different interpretations. Every word from a "patriarch" mouth has a thousand different possible interpretations, and now you see what happens.

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." — Ps. 118:8

Also, >>677804 "Halakhic decisions"? Are you essentially admitting this is like the Talmudic traditions?

>>677804

Yeah, Christ has them because he is the King of Israel, Peter is the steward with delegated authority in his absence, which was the royal stewards role. I am not applying Isaiah 22.22 to him but to show what kind of authority he received.