The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy

Divine inspiration does not necessarily imply permanent arrangement.

Than it would not be as solemn as Paul stated what he stated. Remember his words: "The one who worked in me..."

God has an absolute majesty, he is not just a simple being.

1) This further undermines your argument: perhaps the youngest should be first because he is conventionally considered, as you said, last in Near East culture. 2) Personality and experience are often reason people choose representative, without the chosen person accepting the role out of pride.

1. This is a sophism and even (no ofence) a pervert idea. The virtue of humility is not irational and is not contrary to the common moral.


2. You see the things like the apostles were a team of workmen. The values of intelligence or experience were null for the disciples of Jesus. It was a spiritual brotherhood and their head was being Jesus, not some of them.

Unless I've misunderstood your argument, it appears that you mentioned Philip because you want to say that Peter's representative role is limited to Matthew 16. That means you're now saying that Peter is not always the established representative.

Peter was not the representative but in some discutions or situations he was acting as a leader, especialy after the Ressurection.


.........................

You will need to support your theory that Clement is a priest rather than a bishop; in light of all the documentary evidence to the contrary, we must interpret his letter in the context of the accepted historical narrative which presumes his episcopal status. Once again, if you wish to question this narrative, you must provide documentary evidence.

At the church of Corinth apeared troubles and one of the priests of Rome, the most representative (probably) sent a letter to Corinthians. If he would have been a bishop he would have mentioned this.


The investment of a bishop by the apostles was a clear act, assuming the ritual of puting the hands.

And by the way, the Apostolate and Bishopry were two different tasks in the early Church. The apostles were not bishops and the bishops were not apostles.

Peter could not have been bishop and to think that the two were at Rome and Peter was the bishop of Paul is also hilarious.

1. As your article notes, the successors to Peter were entrusted with the episcopate. I don't really see why you linked to it; it would appear to refute your assertion that Clement was not, indeed, a bishop. You may wish to read it again. 2. If you consider the works of Irenaeus to be fantasy, then why not those of Ignatius, which represent an account of the ancient, episcopal nature of the Church, and which represent early documentation of Eastern ecclesiology?

1. That web page is reflecting the Roman-Catholic claims. I gived the link because is presenting more clear the list of the twelve bishops Irenaeus has put on list.


2. There is not a rule. If Irenaeus was having the inclination to fabultion and exageration, is not a rule that all the Fathers were being the same. About Ignatius I know almost nothing, but from the little I have read it seems he was not having that sort of inclination.

The episcopal nature of the church in Rome is contradicted even by Ignatius, as I quoted when I sayed about the fact that Rome hasn't bishop until the half of the second century.

Not all the churches were having bishop.

First, there is a theology of the keys in Orthodoxy; you will notice Peter depicted with them in iconography. Second, you are confusing the more general power--that to bind and loose--with the more specific Petrine comission, of which the keys represent a part.

There is not a special theology about Peter's difference to the other apostles in Orthodoxy.

The keys are the gift promised to all the apostles. In Matthew 18: 18 Jesus says to the apostles:

Amen, 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.

The correct, Orthodox interpretation is that the keys are bestowed upon Peter as recognition that he is a source of unity in the early Church; his position, however, is derived not from his person but from his confession of faith. This is what is meant by the "keys." You might look to Cyprian of Carthage's On the Unity of the Church if you wish to learn more.

Is the first time I heard about such thing. Anyway, it is not true, because we don't see at Paul or other figures that Peter was considered a source of unity. Is something that started from the (wrong) interpretation of that verse in Matthew and this is all.

What Cyprian says are speculations.

The episcopal nature of the Church is well attested to, both by the Fathers and the Scriptures. As noted above, the collective government of the Roman Church does not preclude the possibility of a bishop.

The differentiation of the bishop of the priest was not yet manifested at the churches in Rome and Corinth. Look how Clement speaks:


CHAPTER 42 -- THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

.................

CHAPTER 44 -- THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

In the Eastern churches such differentiation may have existed, Ignatius in his letter to Eastern churches is speaking about the bishops of the cities.


But in Clement's time, there was not a superior of the local church at Rome and Corinth. We see that the presbyters in Corinth were deposed by the whole church, not by a bishop, and this was the reason for Clement sending the epistle. Is hard to believe that Corinth was having a bishop, a superior of that church and Clement doesn't refer to that.

Clement speaks about bishops only on the ground of what he has had read in Paul's epistles. And he speaks from memory, as we see from the mistake he makes, saying that in the epistle to the Corinthians Paul told them about him, Cephas and Apollos, when in reality Paul writen only about him and Apollos (chapter 47).

Let us try this then. Why don't you explain to me precisely what about Cyprian's statements are speculation, and why you have arrived at that conclusion. Obviously you are intimately familiar with the text, if you are willing to treat it so dismissively. Why don't you tell me what you find particularly speculative and unfounded about On the Unity of the Church, Ch. 4, hm?

There is not a unitary theology. There are some disparate speculations made by a Father or other. What Cyprian says is not found at other Fathers (Origen is not a Father but a heretic). More common was to later Fathers, (e.g.: Maximus the Confessor) to elogiate the bishopry of Rome on the basis of the Petrine pretended superiority. But all these theories are grounded only on the interpretation of a verse in the gospel of Matthew, interpretation which is wrong because, I repeat, few days later (chapter 18) Jesus says that all the apostles will receive the power to bind and loose and after Ressurection (John 20: 22) He fulfill his promise.


But in an Orthodox Catechism you cann't find that Peter has a special atribution.


You try to built an idea for sustaining your theory about Peter's speacial role. You sayed earlier

Peter's leadership role is outlined clearly in the Matthean passage where Christ speaks of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," which represent a special authority given to the Apostle Peter. Peter's leadership role consists of being a sort of spokesperson for the Apostles, and a catalyst around which consensus can be formed.


which is wrong, because Jesus says clearly that the keys are a symbolic speaking about the power to bind and loose:


I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


and then you say

You might look to Cyprian of Carthage's On the Unity of the Church if you wish to learn more. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew also provides us with an orthodox perspective, in that it links the gift of the keys with Peter's confession, and delineates between it and the later, more general gift to the Apostles.


Is obvious that you try to argue it was a point of faith that Peter was the catalyst. And is a strange idea too, this throws us in a sort of a theory about Christians which have some personal attributes in the plan of God. Is a depersonalizing theory and is not found anywhere in the books of New Testament.


These theories with Peter-catalyst were not present at other Fathers (than Cyprian and Origen) and much (most) of Origen theories are heretical or simple speculations.





Edited by Menumorut - 18-Sep-2007 at 02:44

You seem to be taking what is commonly known to be the history of the Roman Church (and the Churches of the West), where the development of the episcopal office was more gradual, and distorting it to fit the preconception that "the Church in the West was not hierarchical."

As I sayed, I believe that until ~130 AD the Church of Rome was not having a unique representant, what we call a bishop. But from Anicetus (155-165) onward Rome was having bishop.

You are partially correct; Clement is writing his letter to reprove presbyters who have deposed those first among them. He uses the terms "presbyter" and "bishop" interchangably because in some areas of the early Church--and particularly in the West--the duties of both offices were ill-defined; the terms were, in fact, largely synonomous. As we have noted above, the development of the episcopal office in the west--which was, on the whole, missionary territory long after the Church had been well-established in the East--was gradual. Still, the office was developing, and a definite episcopal concept existed; indeed some wonder that the individual parishes were not "episcopalized."

Let's refer to functions, not to words, for avoiding the confussion between what we understand by bishop and episcopacy and what the apostles and the Church was understanding by that in the beggining of its history.

The apostles ordered simple priests and diacons. It was not other hierarchy than that between the two categories. Later, appeared a representant of the Church of each important town and appeared the difference between bishop and priest.

At the beginning and as late as Clement's time (as we see in his epistle) the ordering of a priest and his deposition was made usualy by the college of the other priests but in some cases by some not priest but eminent people of the community.

There are not other way in which the epistle of Clement can be interpeted.

Yes, the episcopal office was something separate from the Apostolic office; the episcopal office was a continuation of the Apostolic office. As Clement notes, the Apostles appointed leaders of individual churches to succeed them, and to carry on their ministry. It is in this sense that we, as Orthodox Christians, understand "Apostolic Succession."

You interpret wrongly what Clement says. He says that the apostles And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe..

There was not a representant of the apostles else than the priest, as is today in the Church. There was not a third category.

So, there is not any leader appointed by the apostles, just the priests who received from the apostles the power gived them by Jesus.

Anyway, all that really needs to be said is that Clement, being of the generation of Christians which succeeded the Apostles, was using the term "bishop" in a manner consistent with its Scriptural foundation.

Actualy, Clement was contemporary of the apostles. His epistle is dated between 70 and 96.

You are right that he has the same use of the words as in Scripture: bishop, priest, presbyter, episcopacy were refering to priesthood, not to what we call today bishop.

I think this mistake of yours, more than anything else, demonstrates incontrovertibly that if we think we have found error with something a certain father wrote concerning the early Church, it is our duty to thoroughly examine the documentary evidence before assuming that we are in the right.

No, is not what I think. I think each man should ground his/her belief not on ideas or information but on asking God what he/she should do.

On this topic, I just debate some confussions, mistakes and wrong traditions.

What you say about my mistake doesn't eliminate the confussion made by Dionysius, who shows that Corinthian church (or only Dionysius) taking the epistle of Paul and maybe that of Clement has got to assert that Peter was at Corinth and even founded and organized the church.


Because a correct interpretation of Paul's epistle shows he speaks about some parties in Corinth, of which one was of Jesus, which surely wasn't at Corinth.

irst on the subject of Origen (and an interesting subject it is Wink). While Origen was indeed anathematized posthumously by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, we cannot forget that the early Church owed much to him. Indeed many of the early fathers idolized him, foremost among them Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzos, and Gregory of Nyssa. He is in a special class; he is a father, not a saint. This is evidenced by a particularly rare icon of "Origen Teaching the Saints," whereing Origen is depicted haloless, instructing an assemblage of haloed saints. That said, we must remember that Origen was anathematized for his views concerning apocatastasis, the pre-existence of the soul, and certain other positions held by those calling themselves "Origenists" ; it would be a great disservice to ignore his orthodox views, which provided a foundation for early patristic theology.

When I sayed Origen is heretic I was not refering (only) to his condemnation by the Church but to his spirit and teaching which are the emanation of a sick spirit. He was a rationalist and has had other heresies too than the apocatastasis.

The question actually deals with the issue of the "Rock" upon which the Church is built, and from which Peter takes his name. This "Rock" is seen by the fathers alternately as either a) Christ (obvious), b) Peter (by virtue of his confession of the true Rock that is Christ), or c) the confession of Peter (of the true Rock that is Christ). Your minimalistic and, frankly, misleading interpretation of the Matthean passages, done outside of the context of the faith and interpretations held by the early fathers, is dangerously inadequate. Look to the sources; it really is a fascinating study.

The Rock are the apostles, they are the foundation of the Church.

Christ too is compared with a Rock (even in his own words), the one that the builders omited.

I think Peter has had not any special atribution. He behaved as the leader of the community after the Ressurection because it was the need and for that and because others, being younger, were not having his authority. Later, in the time of the council in Jerusalem, when John and James wee no more such young, they started to be considered pillars of the Church but the prestige of Peter as being the leader of the Church preserved and it was, I think, the explanation for that the authors of the gospels are presenting more often his acts than of the ones of the other apostles.

Really, all you would need to do is study Patristic interpretations of Matthew 16; it isn't as if the information would be difficult to find. ... P.S. Just to make myself perfectly clear, if you are unable to find the opinions of the fathers regarding Peter, Peter's confession, and Christ as catalysts of unity in the Church, I would be more than happy to help you.

I know that there was even in East a great cult and the belief that Peter is somehow superior to the other apostles.

In Romania only in 1930 were changed the Mineas (the books with chants for services of the days of the eclesial calendar), because these chants have been writen in the Byzantine period and were refering to Peter as the head of the apostles and other wrong concepts.

And I know many Fathers, especialy in the iconoclast period, exalted the role of Peter. But they are not authoritative if we want know the historical events. I have read such passages extracted from Fathers' writings, so I don't need to read again.

Originally posted by Menumorut Than it would not be as solemn as Paul stated what he stated. Remember his words: "The one who worked in me..." God has an absolute majesty, he is not just a simple being.

Edited by MengTzu - 19-Sep-2007 at 13:46

Originally posted by Menumorut There is an infinit difference between God and creatures. yes, he may act like you say but this would be damaging for the men, making them get a wrong understanding of God.

Edited by MengTzu - 20-Sep-2007 at 19:07

Originally posted by Menumorut So, the stages consisted in one which was not true and one which was true.

 

It was nonetheless a progression of stages: if an earlier stage was a stage of "image of what it to occur", that is nonetheless a stage, albeit one in which the entire truth wasn't yet revealed.

Edited by MengTzu - 21-Sep-2007 at 17:26

Catholic apologets sustain that the end of first Epistle of Peter shows it was writen from Rome, because it says


12 I write you this briefly through Silvanus, 6 whom I consider a faithful brother, exhorting you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Remain firm in it.

13 The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

14 Greet one another with a loving kiss. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.




They support this with another statement, that the Babylon in Revelation is Rome too.
This is strange because is puting Rome in a negative light, but they make this for sustaining that Rome is the Babylon from I Peter.

On Catholic Encyclopedia at the article about Apocalypse, most is dedicated to the interpretation of Babylon as Rome:


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm





But, if ever Peter would have been at Rome, is not reason for naming this city as Babylon in the context of mentioning the church from there.



It was argued that for the Jews from antiquity, Rome was compared with Babylon and this is true, but in such solemn writing as the Epistle of the most respected apostle or in a cryptic writing as Apocalypse, the Babylon could not refer to Rome.


In both, by "Babylon" is designated Jerusalem.


Peter was witness of Jesus' humiliation and kill by the will of Jerusalem people.


John, the author of Apocalypse, too. In John's gospel there is a big negative feeling against the Jews, as far it was considered an anti-semite writing:



Jews

The Gospel�s treatment of the role of the Jewish authorities in the Crucifixion has given rise to allegations of anti-Semitism. The Gospel often employs the title "the Jews" when discussing the opponents of Jesus. The meaning of this usage has been the subject of debate, though critics of the �anti-Semitic� theory cite that the author most likely considered himself Jewish and was probably speaking to a largely Jewish community. Hence it is argued that "the Jews" properly refers to the Jewish religious authorities (see: Sanhedrin), and not the Jewish people as a whole. It is because of this controversy that some modern English translations, such as Today's New International Version, remove the term "Jews" and replace it with more specific terms to avoid anti-Semitic connotations, citing the above argument. Most critics of these translations, conceding this point, argue that the context (since it is obvious that Jesus, John himself, and the other disciples were all Jews) makes John's true meaning sufficiently clear, and that a literal translation is preferred.

Other critics go further, arguing that the text displays a shift in emphasis away from the Roman provincial government, which actually carried out the execution, and to the Jewish authorities as a technique used to render a developing Christianity more palatable in official circles.[citation needed] Nevertheless, these passages have been historically used by some Christian groups to justify the persecution of Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Jews


In gospel, Jesus prohetizes the destruction of Jerusalem:




Mark 13
1 As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him, "Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!"

2 Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down."




Matthew 23
19 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!

38 Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate.


Matthew 24
1 Jesus left the temple area and was going away, when his disciples approached him to point out the temple buildings.

2 He said to them in reply, "You see all these things, do you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down."



Luke 21
5 While some people were speaking about how the temple was adorned with costly stones and votive offerings, he said,
6 "All that you see here--the days will come when there will not be left a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down."


Luke 21
20 "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand.

21 Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Let those within the city escape from it, and let those in the countryside not enter the city,

22 for these days are the time of punishment when all the scriptures are fulfilled.

23 Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days, for a terrible calamity will come upon the earth and a wrathful judgment upon this people.

24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken as captives to all the Gentiles; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.



And as we know, Jerusalem have been completely destroyed in 70 AD.



The Apostles were identifying Jerusalem with the city that have killed Jesus and that is condemned to destruction.




In Apocalypse we are told about the city cryptic named Babylon:


CHapter 17
4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.

5 This title was written on her forehead:
      MYSTERY
      BABYLON THE GREAT
      THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
      AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.


From here we learn that Babylon is a cryptic name and that it martyrized the saints of Jesus.


It cann't be about Rome because the Apocalypse has a spiritual, transcendental not political message. And in 1st century haven't been persecutions against Christians, with the exception of that of Nero, which was not asking the abjuration of Christ.

But in Jerusalem have been persecutions and martyrization, starting with the one of Steven.


Also, the fact that in the city was found blood of prophets is a proof that this city is Jerusalem:



Revelation 18: 24 In her was found the blood of prophets and holy ones and all who have been slain on the earth.




Let's compare the passage from Revelation 17 with Jeremiah 4:


30 You now who are doomed, what do you mean by putting on purple, bedecking yourself with gold, Shading your eyes with cosmetics, beautifying yourself in vain? Your lovers spurn you, they seek your life.

31 Yes, I hear the moaning, as of a woman in travail, like the anguish of a mother with her first child- The cry of daughter Zion gasping, as she stretches forth her hands: "Ah, woe is me! I sink exhausted before the slayers!"





In Revelation 11 is sayed

7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the abyss will wage war against them and conquer them and kill them.

8 Their corpses will lie in the main street of the great city, which has the symbolic names "Sodom" and "Egypt," where indeed their Lord was crucified.

The great city from here is the same with the great city from Revelation 16:


19 The great city was split into three parts, and the gentile cities fell. But God remembered great Babylon, giving it the cup filled with the wine of his fury and wrath.


The cup from there is the same cup from Isaiah 51:


17 Awake, awake! Arise, O Jerusalem, You who drank at the LORD'S hand the cup of his wrath; Who drained to the dregs the bowl of staggering!



For apostles, Jerusalem was a damned city and the mention of its name was almost a sin because it has killed the Son of God.


The Babylon-Jerusalem from Apocalypse is in oposition with the celest Jerusalem from the same book. The sense is larger, the earthy Jerusalem is the symbol of the life of sin and of the sinners from all times.

This is clear if we compare

Revelation 17
1 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters.

2 With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries."

with


Revelation 21
9 One of the seven angels who held the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come here. I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

10 He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.


but most convincing is the fact that the celestial Jerusalem is called the new Jerusalem



Revelation 21: 2 I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.






The identification of Babylon from Peter's epistle with Jerusalem is in acordance with historical data. Peter's residence was Jerusalem, Mark and Silvanus too were Jerusalimitans.



Edited by Menumorut - 30-Sep-2007 at 13:19

The issue is that there was a progression of stages in God's plan. Unless you claim that the God who gave the Law is different from the God of the New Testament, you have no option but to accept that, in the Bible (Old Testament + New Testament), God's plan worked through a progression of stages. It does not matter whether or not the first stage was purely prophetic: even if it was purely prophetic, there was still such a stage, a stage during which the terms were different from a later stage that fulfills the former stage. The very fulfillment of one older stage by a newer stage IS PRECISELY a progression of stages.

The progression of stages in God's plan has a purpose, is not itself a purpose and is not infinite. The purpose is the bring of the human race from unknowledge and wrong understanding to knowledge and right understanding.

So, a God that after Incarnation behave again in an indirect way, saying one time a thing then changing, would derute human beings. Because we see in Galatians that the apostles were convinced that (the repartition of geographical areas) is not a temporary establishment but a definitive decision of Holy Spirit.

If you suggest that, overall, Jesus taught that the Law should not be obeyed, then you cannot avoid admitting that there is a progression of stages. There was a stage when the Law was to be obeyed (Deuteronomy 27:26.) Jesus recognized that first stage. You cannot avoid the conclusion that there was a time when the Jews had to obey the Law, and then there is a second stage when the Law is fulfilled and certain unclean animals were declared clean.

No, there was not a time when the Jews had to obey the Law, this was a stratagema of God for preparing the human kind for the Incarnation. Everything in the old Law was not necesary, neither in the period BC neither after.


Paul is saying in several places of his epistles that the Judaic Law cann't give salvation.

You've merely replaced "acting on a task" with "being a representative." You have no proof whatsoever that the latter is permanent.

Let's look again the passage:

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised,

8 for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles,

9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

So, it looks like is not about tasks but about the fact that Holy Ghost worked in Paul the apostolate to Gentiles and in Peter the apostolate to circumcised. A changement of this would have confused apostles and the ones who listened them.

So why do you now insist that if another criterion is used, we'll see it in the Bible? And what makes age the default standard that we can infer from the because the Bible didn't expressly indicate it? You have not come up with a single proof for that.

New Testament doesn't mention everything but the gospels are a kind of works that includes explanations necesary to understand the presented situations. When there is a special raport derived from an arangement between some figures and in a situation this raport is manifesting somehow, the gospels explain the reason. For example, at the Last Supper we are told that a disciple were laying with his head on Jesus' chest. And the gospels explain why was that: because he was the most beloved disciple.

Age is not the only possible implied standard here. I've already discussed a number of other possible implied standards. Without an express statement about what the standard is, one can only suppose that the standard is one of the implied standards, and age is not the only implied standard.

The gospels' purpose was to offer a document for the Christian communities to preserve the memory about the happenings of Jesus' Incarnation and deeds. So, they have a precise utility, they are not beletristic creation. They needed to transmit as much as possible but without being to long. So, elements like the ones explaining the relations between apostles are necesary for understanding the events and would not be missed by the four authors, but elements which are not necesary in the description of events would be left out.

A representative is not a rabbi or teacher. The represented is not inferior on the basis of being represented. Jesus said the first is last, last is first. The representative an certainly be seen as the servant of the group.

Than, this could not be called gift.

If it was simply a matter of devotion, the other disciples' reaction was a little odd (they were displeased), and Jesus' subsequent response about "the greatest shall be last" would also be out of place.

The other disciples' reaction was an effect of literaly taking the John and James' ask. Jesus' response was a valorification of that happening.


..........................


Do you have an opinion about my assertions (actualy are not mine, I've taken them from some articles) that the "Babylon" from I Peter and Apocalypse is not Rome but Jerusalem?








Edited by Menumorut - 04-Oct-2007 at 12:40

Quite right, Ako.

The thread was intended for the subject of Peter's primacy, or lack there of, but the majority has been spent elsewhere.

The one belief of the Orthodox that seems to slip my understanding or nature of beliefs is how Christ can give a position of honor without giving pastoral duties as well, it almost seems empty in that aspect, I speak lightly....it is empty in that aspect.

 

There are many writings of our dear Church Fathers that can chosen but I believe Cyprian of Carthage explains the Catholic Church's doctrine very indubitably

"If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, �I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will 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 also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven� (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, �Feed my sheep� (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, �As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;� (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?

Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs, speaking in Our Lord�s name, says, �My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her� (6:9). Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, �There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God�? (Ephesians 4:5)

"The gift of the keys to Peter (Matthew 16) does signify a special authority given to Peter. Indeed Peter generally speaks for the rest; still, we must remember that Peter's status cannot be separated from his confession. If his successor falls into error, he cannot exercise the prerogatives that rightly belong to the See of Peter. That said, each of the Patriarchal sees possesses certain prerogatives. Rome's include, among other things, the right to hear appeals, the right to sit in the first seat at an ecumenical council, etc. The gift of the keys and ancient Roman prerogatives cannot, however, be taken to imply an absolute monarchical authority. Indeed Peter himself never presumed to act in an authoritarian fashion. While he spoke first, he spoke with the Church and never in its despite."

There is not any gift of keys, that passage has corespondence in the other gospels, including Mark (the original gospel, model for others) and there are missing the refering to keys. See my message from 18-Sep-2007 at 16:25.

Peter never was at Rome, I have to repeat. This legend appeared due to the interpretation of the epistle of Clement by Corinthians. Peter died at Jerusalem, which is the Babylon from his first epistle (also from the Book of Revelation).

Also, I repeat that Rome's church was lead, up to the middle of 2nd century, by a college of priests, none having the role of leader.

To sum it up, Rome owed her primacy to her position as the capital of the oikoumene. All of the bishops are Peter's successors (more on this in our discussion of Cyprian below). And finally, the proper exercise of primacy -- the right to which the Roman Church has forfeited due to her manifest heresy -- always takes place in an ecclesial context.

Peter is the patron of the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, so refer to these sees if you you refer to Peter's 'succesors' prerogatives.