You are on page 1of 30

So as a Catholic converting to Orthodoxy, I have one last qualm: the issue of Peter and the popes

(especially when reading Matthew 16:18 and 18:18-20, I believe). I've heard from the Orthodox side:
-These verses were talking to all of the apostles (all having equal authority/capabilities).
-That Peter alone held a leadership role AMONGST the apostles (never over) but afterwards all other
bishops became equal regardless of the See.
-That the keys and power of binding and loosing (which in Orthodox thought are synonymous) applied
to all of the apostles equally and so their successors inherited those powers/equality.
- that the Roman See held primacy of honor, not power. (Even though from the excerpts I've read, the
east seemed to elevate the Roman See and look to her/her bishops for guidance, even in councils,
which makes it appear as though the Roman see had a unique headship in a sense "over" the other sees
in an honorific sense)
Versus the traditional Roman Catholic view that:
-Peter was the special leader and had absolute power and headship over all the apostles (and his
successors, the popes, would have this same power)
- that this power/position was upheld by many of the Church Fathers (I have no quotes to give)
Can any Orthodox Christians help clarify as to why the Orthodox position is correct and that the
Roman concepts are not? What I've read and heard have often spiraled me into further confusion. I
want to believe as the Orthodox Church teaches. There is so much more right with the Orthodox faith
to me than the current Roman church/faith, but this is my one issue I can't ignore.

53 of 65
View previous comments

Nick Finzer "16:18 Peter/rock is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra). Rock
refers not to Peter himself but to the confession of his faith. The true Rock and foundation of the
Church is, of course, Christ Himself. The Church rests upon this Rock by her unchanging faith, her
confession. With this faith as the foundation, the gates of Hades, the powers of death, are powerless
against her. In the OT 'gates' suggest a fortified city (Gen. 22:17, 24:50; Is. 14:31). Hence, by shattering
the gates, Christ is opening the stronghold of death to set free the souls of righteous men. In all the
Gospels, 'church' is mentioned twice by the Lord, here and in 18:17, describing the true Israel whose
citizenship is heavenly. She is the body of Christ, the divine-human organism, and to her comes the call
of Jesus for the whole of mankind to abide with Him and in Him (Eph. 1:23)"
"18:18-20 Temporal rulers have the power of binding, but they bind only the body. God, however,
binds with a bond which pertains to the soul itself, a power which God has not given even to angels.
God is with us. He has a special presence in heaven and in every church as well, through His grace and
the sacraments. Mutual correction, which sometimes necessitates expulsion from the community,

makes the Church strong and invincible through the love of Christ."
Both quotes are taken from the commentary of the Orthodox Study Bible. Perhaps they will be helpful
to you.
Like Reply 15 hrs

Helen Tedcastle 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.' He didn't say it to any of the
other Apostles but addressed Peter. Clear link of the person with the rock of the faith. I don't disagree
with most else of what you have written but there is a personal name involved that cannot be gainsaid
without more debate!
Like Reply 2 5 hrs Edited
Write a reply...

Erick Ybarra Ashley Lewis

The real question is this. How much time are you willing to study these issues out ? I can tell you right
now, if it were as easy as you have painted it, then everyone would be Orthodox. And let's also not be
ignorant of the fact that *just as* Catholic apologetics have a *front* which is usually almost all false,
it can also be the case for the Orthodox apologetic.
Like Reply 1 15 hrs

Ashley Lewis I have been a Catholic for 5 years, a Protestant for 16. It took two out of those five years
to notice troubles. But at the time, I had no knowledge of the Orthodox Church. I knew only two
extremes at the time I converted from Protestant to Catholic. Before that, I had studied religion. During
the conversion I studied. So all in all I have spent around 6 years of study.
Like Reply 15 hrs

Erick Ybarra Good, then look under the surface of Orthodoxy before converting. You may just find the
weaknesses comparing to that of the Catholic apologetic after being in there for some years. But if that
happens, then you'd need to take your research to the next level.
Like Reply 15 hrs

Mary Lanser There are people who inform the debate who study in multiple languages for a lifetime,
and there is still no resolution. Study is not the first element of faith.
Like Reply 16 mins
Write a reply...

Benjamin Baxter Abraham was renamed. Israel was renamed. Peter was renamed. (John and James
were renamed, too, but "Boanerges" was collective and didn't catch on.)
Whatever a primacy means, it has to mean something huge.
Like Reply 15 hrs

Matthew Casilli Ashley. i suggest you visit an eastern catholic church. im not going to say that it will
answer all of your questions, but i think you will find it interesting nonetheless
Like Reply 1 15 hrs

Ashley Lewis Before considering orthodoxy I had visited 2, one of which I had started to attend more
frequently than my Roman parish. It was a Ruthenian rite Catholic Church. I had also studied the
eastern rites at length before attending a service. At the end of it all, I felt as though the Eastern Rites
had lost so much of their original Orthodoxy, that they had become a hybrid. I came to the conclusion
that if a particular Church cannot keep its entire tradition as it originally had it, with no new
innovations or impositions by a bigger church (i.e.- their theology remained wholly Orthodox despite
being in communion with Rome once more) then it was unfair and imposing.
Like Reply 15 hrs

Benjamin Baxter Please don't base your impression of Eastern Catholics on the Ruthenians.
Have you considered the TLM?
Like Reply 15 hrs

Matthew Casilli Hmm. I hear ya.

I myself see that in Australia - the melkite church i attend is struggling to retain members who have
begun attending roman catholic churches. Im on a mission from God to help the church out.
Like Reply 1 15 hrs Edited

Ashley Lewis Benjamin Baxter I have and I also attended a Ukrainian Catholic mission first that was
very Orthodox in its expression. I was not trying to base my whole impression on any one rite. But the
TLM is where I first noticed issues, and compared the two liturgies. I genuinely love the TLM. The
new mass lacks so much spirituality and is very man centered. Why can't there be unity in worship?
Why are there groups like the SSPX causing "trouble", why can't the Vatican return to tradition and
boot the modernist inventions, the new masses, the abuses, etc? The grey areas that have caused so
many Catholics to look elsewhere? To the Orthodox?
Like Reply 15 hrs Edited

Elijah Rapper

Like Reply 12 hrs

Benjamin Baxter Ashley Lewis: You and I live in an interesting time. There is no excuse for it, so I
won't make one. Such cruelty is criminal---but as sympathetic as I am I have to say that it doesn't
justify abandonment of your communion. There are TLM Masses available, right? And Ukranian
Catholic Divine Liturgies?
Like Reply 1 12 hrs

Helen Tedcastle Ashley Lewis - the SSPX are not that big but they make a lot of noise. Have you talked
with people in your current parish about your concerns? To the priest? It might be a wise move to talk
these issues through with people on the ground first. Apologies if you have already done this.
Like Reply 5 hrs
Write a reply...

Erick Ybarra There is little doubt that Christ intended Simon's new name, Peter, to have relevance to
his commission as the Key-holder in the Apostolic College. It is interesting that there is a side-by-side
tradition in the Fathers which readily admits that the "keys of the kingdom" pertains to the powers
which come via the the order sacrament into the episcopate while at the same time having peculiar
relevance to the successors of Peter in the Roman episcopate. One cannot choose to read a single line
when there is a parallel pair.
If it were true that each of the Apostles was equal in authority in all ways, and that subsequently all
bishops have the same exact authority in all ways, then there is simply no purpose to the "keys" of the
kingdom. That is, unless one were to reduce the function of the keys to the bare act of absolving sins.
But even then, enough is implied to require a hierarchical headship.
Keys are meant to preserve security, and this requires privacy. If it were the case that everyone in the
neighborhood had the same exact key to my frontdoor and car, there is no more security preserved. I
will be working off the sheer hope that all are good-hearted and will never steal.

If it were the case that each bishop has equal rights and prerogatives, then it goes without saying that
the unification of the Church is no longer secure, and one is hoping on constant and perpetual
And is this not what the Eastern epistemic consciousness today emphasizes? That even though there
isn't some Latin machinery governing the protection of doctrine and morals, that the Eastern churches
have maintained a constant and perptual unity in faith/practice?
Like Reply 2 15 hrs Edited

Benjamin Baxter What Eastern epistemic consciousness do you mean?

Like Reply 15 hrs

Erick Ybarra Khamyakov

Like Reply 15 hrs

Benjamin Baxter ???

Like Reply 15 hrs

Erick Ybarra

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH follows of necessity from the unity of God; for the Church is not a
multitude of persons in their separate individuality, but a unity of the grace of God, living in a
multitude of rational creatures, submitting themselves willingly to grace. Grace, indeed, is also given to
Like Reply 15 hrs

Benjamin Baxter This comment thread is not terribly accessible, I'm afraid.
Like Reply 15 hrs

Erick Ybarra Oh, I will post on the main

Like Reply 1 15 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl Erick Ybarra Zizoulis makes perhaps the most trenchant criticism of Khomiakov, in
particular is inability to bridge the gap between the fullness of the Church on the one hand, and the
universality of the Church on the other. For Khomiakov, like Afanasiev, there does not seem to be any
organizational level of Church higher than the local Church or diocese, which in turn leaves very little
in the way of recourse should disputes arise.
Like Reply 15 hrs

Nick Finzer The Petrine question has two parts. The first is the nature and specifics of Peter's primacy.
The second is if and how that primacy can be applied to the See of Rome. Are they even connected, or
does Roman primacy actually come from the city's status as the original capital, with St Peter's
martyrdom being used as a spiritual/theological justification? I don't have the answer and I've not done
any serious research into the question, but I'd like to. I will say that this idea of the Bishop of Rome
holding *the* (as opposed to the indefinite article) Petrine office ex officio has never made a lot of
sense to me. Peter (like all the apostles) was a bishop everywhere he went. He was a bishop at Antioch
as well. Was he actually bishop *of* these places, or were those he ordained the actual first bishops
*of* the city? I don't ask rhetorically. So what is special about Rome that the Petrine office gets tied to
that see? The only difference I see is his martyrdom and burial there, but to me that's not a compelling
argument prima facie. So my hypothesis is that the primacy comes more from imperial primacy, but I
haven't done the research to test that hypothesis.
Like Reply 1 15 hrs
Write a reply...

Erick Ybarra Khamyakov basically endorses the view that Councils of the Church, though being
infallible, are not *known to be* by the faithful until an undesignated process of reception as been
undergone. David Dale , author of a book entitled DOGMA, a sort of primer on Orthodox
understanding of ecclesiastical authority, follows this mind-set and even posits that the Church may not
act upon a certain doctrinal definition, whether it was promulgated in Council or not, until this
reception by the *whole Church* has been complete. Not everyone in the Orthodox world has
embraced this. For instance, Archbishop of Australia, Bp Stylanios has written a book entitled
"Infallibility in the Orthodox Church". He has criticized Khamyakov.
Like Reply 15 hrs Edited

Benjamin Baxter ... so how does this relate to the Catholic-Orthodox split? In your first comment, you
appear to be conceding the elements of the Catholic case until you make a sharp turn into saying
something like "but the East hasn't needed that anyway." Or by Eastern epistemic consciousness do you
mean the Eastern Catholic Churches?
Like Reply 1 15 hrs Edited

Erick Ybarra Benjamin Baxter,

Oh I didn't mean to defend the reality of the Eastern Orthodox maintaining one single belief at all time
hitherto. I was being a bit sarcastic. If I were to give my opinion, I think that ecclesial unity must be
safeguarded by officers of Christ who can freely deliberate with divine authority in real time, and that it
can be known as such.
Like Reply 1 15 hrs

Mary Lanser What?

Like Reply 13 mins
Write a reply...

Michael Perigo Both are true but beyond human understanding.

Like Reply 15 hrs

Enrique Crosby The idea of the papacy was not immediately clear and absolute. Like the doctrine of
the Trinity the seed had to germinate and develop to clarity.
I have found this video of interest on the topic. One of the first clear exercises of Papal authority was
Pope Victor I when he stepped in to settle the Easter date debate with the quatrodecimans. He
threatened to excommunicate many of the Eastern bishops but was cautioned against this by St.
Irenaeus. Eventually the Eastern bishops came into agreement with the West. I can't find any record
where the Eastern bishops wrote that he did not have the authority to excommunicate them. This was
around 190AD. Again the below video has many points that would need to be addressed in this topic.
It seems much headway is being made in the theological discussions happening among Catholic and
Orthodox leadership. Most of the time this discussion in leadership is much more charitable than what
occurs on social media forums.
Like Reply 2 15 hrs Edited
Hide 14 Replies

Stuart L. Koehl "One of the first clear exercises of Papal authority was Pope Victor I when he stepped
in to settle the Easter date debate with the quatrodecimanarians. "
You mean when Pope Victor got too big for his britches and threatened to break the Church, against the
advice of Irenaeus of Lyons. Fortunately, Victor did have the good sense to die before he could do
irreparable harm.
Unlike Reply 3 15 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl I will also point out, once again, that in the first century, and in the first two decades of
the second century, Rome did not have a monarchial episcopate, and was governed by a council of
presbyters, which means (a) Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome, nor the first Pope; and (b) any
attempt to build an argument for Papal supremacy on the argument of Peter's position as Bishop of
Rome rests on a foundation of sand.
Like Reply 3 15 hrs

Enrique Crosby It's strange that Peter had primacy among the 12 but after his death Christ wanted a
type of democracy without a primacy. Also, Moses had a special place among the 70 for the harder
disputes. Strange.
About Pope Victor I, can you show me the record that his death is the reason the Eastern bishops were
not excommunicated? It was my understanding that he himself backed down. Eusebius seems to
comment in this way and writes that St. Irenaeus and others wrote that Pope Victor was being rash and
SHOULD not excommunicate rather than COULD not. I'm not saying Pope Victor wasn't being rash,
I'm noting that I find no commentary from this time stating that he didn't have this kind of authority.
"Among them was Irenus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he
presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the
Lords day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he SHOULD not cut off whole churches of God which
observed the tradition of an ancient custom."
Why didn't Eusebius comment more on Victor trying to assert an authority he didn't have? Again, this is
not about Pope Victor's rashness, just his authority.
Please provide any quotes, or documents where any bishop stated Pope Victor was mad to think he had
this kind of authority. Yes, they rebuke him for being rash, but I can't find where they question his
Like Reply 4 14 hrs Edited

Mikhael Naddaf Stuart L. Koehl Where can I find a source that mentions this? This is interesting.
Like Reply 12 hrs

Enrique Crosby

Eusebius - The Quartodeciman Controversy
Like Reply 11 hrs

Joshua S. Adido Stuart you had links to articles/papers on this topic, could you link them?
Like Reply 8 hrs

Helen Tedcastle Stuart L. Koehl - I wonder why Constantine bothered to build an enormous basilica
over the Vatican burial ground where Peter's body lay. He should have just ignored it as Peter wasn't
that significant... just a fisherman mate of Jesus who ended up in Rome who no one much remembers...
Like Reply 1 4 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl Helen Tedcastle Should I even dignify that with an answer, Helen? Did I say Peter
wasn't significant? No, I did not. I have consistently affirmed the existence of a Petrine Ministry, one
which is exercised through the primacy of the Church of Rome. That's an historical reality. Does that
mean that the manner in which that primacy is exercised today is correct or good for the Church? Well,
that's the question Pope John Paul II wanted us to ask.
Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl Mikhael Naddaf See these:
Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl

Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl

Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl See also:

Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries
Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Mikhael Naddaf Thank you, much appreciated!

Like Reply 2 hrs

Joshua S. Adido Cheers Stuart!

Like Reply 2 hrs
Write a reply...

Erick Ybarra For those who are just looking into the data on Papal primacy in the first 5 centuries of
the Church, I recommend Dr Bereford Kidd, "The Roman Primacy until 451 ad". He started off antiCatholic, and remained anti-Catholic through and through. However, he deals very objectively with the
data we do have. I don't agree with him on everything, and at times, I would say he gets it flat out
wrong. But the tone of the book will be more engaging for those who have already been fed up with the
typical online Catholic apologetic that gets easily disproven just by reading the last ommitted line from
every quote that is provided.
Like Reply 1 15 hrs

Nick Finzer I will definitely look into that, thanks!

Like Reply 1 15 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl I'm thinking more along the lines of Bernard Green's "Christianity in Ancient Rome:
The First Three Centuries":

Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries
Like Reply 2 15 hrs
View more replies
Write a reply...

Joshua Greve There isnt one homogenous Orthodox view on this nor has there ever been.
Like Reply 1 14 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl There isn't one homogenous Catholic view, either.

Like Reply 2 14 hrs

Joshua Greve Exactly

Like Reply 4 hrs
Write a reply...

Nick Chinappi I've posted this here and there on forums. These are the conclusions I've drawn from
personal study. Some agree. Some don't. No skin off my nose either way. I may be right. I may be
wrong. God knows the truth.
Rome held a primacy from the get-go
this primacy was the result of Ss Peter and Paul being martyred there, the city itself and the
persecutions which occurred and continued to occur in the city
Rome's Orthodoxy was simply assumed on the basis of its Apostolic foundations
biblical exegesis led the Bishops of Rome to see St Peter as a figure of their place in the church, so we
begin seeing emphasis on him alone and scripture being quoted to explain the role of leadership
assumed by the Roman Church and its bishop
over time, this began being understood as an actual Petrine office within the church, but still, not one
of *immediate* and *universal* jurisdiction. Rather, it seems it was understood as a universal appellate
court which could issue definitive verdicts.
through the 8th to the 11th centuries, these claims began being understood differently. It went from an
appellate court to a Dictatus Papae styled supremacy. Note that I'm not saying the entire Western
Church bought Dictatus Papae, I'm just saying the primacy claimed and acted out resembled that much
closer than, say, the papacy of the 4th century. Figures like Hildebrand and Innocent III come to mind.
I think at the last era I pointed out, you have that "Unam Sanctam" tendency in the Roman Church
(which many read back into history, pointing out docs like the Formula of Hormisdas and some others).
But, thankfully, the recent Popes seem to back off that a bit and Pope Francis seems to have put the
kibosh on it for good when he elevated Gregory of Narek to doctor of the church. Eugene IV turned
over in the papal crypt on that one.
Like Reply 4 14 hrs Edited
Hide 19 Replies

Max Jensen I like your bullet points Nick Chinappi but could you elaborte on this
"over time, this began being understood as an actual Petrine office within the church, but still, not one
of *immediate* and *universal* jurisdiction. Rather, it seems it was understood as a universal appellate
court which could issue definitive verdicts. "
Isn't the idea of universal appellate the same thing as universal jurisdiction? Like the papacy as the
supreme court of the Church?
Like Reply 2 hrs

Nick Chinappi theres a difference between a full, immediate and universal jurisdiction and an appellate
court operating at the universal level.

Like Reply 1 hr

Max Jensen Nick Chinappi Could you elaborate because I don't think I understand the difference?
Like Reply 1 hr

Nick Chinappi Well on one hand you have a full, immediate and universal jurisdiction that isn't
mediated or dependent on anything. An appeals court is far different in that you'd have to lawfully
appeal to it and it would have to respond.
Like Reply 1 hr

Max Jensen Yes, but isn't that how the papacy functions now? I mean I can't go directly to the pope
with an issue I have in my parish, likewise the pope declares dogma in concert with his bishops, which
are the other "lower" courts of the church.
Like Reply 1 hr

Nick Chinappi That may be one of the ways the Papacy operates today, yet Vatican I states that the
Pope has full, immediate and universal jurisdiction. That means there is no appeal necessary.
An appeals court is exactly that: a court of appeals.
Like Reply 1 hr

Nick Chinappi This is from the article "Pope" found in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"It is further added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly or
collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by reason of any
delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who acknowledge in the pope any
primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call
for discussion. That the papal authority is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question.
Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he
is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate
superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not immediate but
mediate. That the pope's jurisdiction is not thus restricted appears from the analysis already given of
Christ's words to St. Peter. It has been shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church,
which is universal in its scope, extending to all the Church's members, and which needs the support of
no other power. A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct authority
over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral commission, "Feed my sheep".
The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all the sheep of his flock. Every member of the
Church has been thus committed to Peter and those who follow him."
Like Reply 1 hr

Erick Ybarra So Rome did not have the right to summon the deposed Alexandrian bishop and his
accusers for trial? We are forgetting that an appellate jurisdiction is consistent with the definition at

Vatican 1. There doesn't need to be an opposition between the two.

Like Reply 1 hr

Nick Chinappi Who's placing opposition between the two? I'm well aware that Rome has an appellate
prerogative in the Catholic Church.
Like Reply 1 hr

Nick Chinappi Erick

Could you be a little more specific in your question on Rome summoning a deposed Alexandrian
bishop and his accusers?
Like Reply 1 hr

Erick Ybarra You are asserting that Rome had merely one and not the other in the first centuries . Let's
ask this. What mediated between the accused (with the court that condemned or justified the accused)
and the irreversible judgement of the Roman See once an appeals process is followed through ?
Like Reply 1 hr Edited

Nick Chinappi Erick,

Could you explain how this relates to a full, immediate and universal jurisdiction over all?
Like Reply 1 hr

Nick Chinappi And claiming the judgement was irreversible isn't an historical reality, regardless of
what Popes said of themselves.
Like Reply 1 hr

Erick Ybarra Well you are claiming that Rome held mediate, extraordinary, and indirect primacy. So I
ask , what gave Rome her direction, ordinariate, and mediation when she judged that which no one can
Like Reply 1 hr

Nick Chinappi Erick

Could you explain how this relates to a full, immediate and universal jurisdiction over all?
Like Reply 1 hr

Erick Ybarra I gotta get going here. But what I would say just off the top js that just because a reopened
case requires a lodging of an appeal does not mean that once Rome finalizes her judgement on a matter,
that it is mediated. Councils have their precedural requirements. That does not mean that in the end, the
Council only has mediated authority .
Like Reply 1 hr Edited

Nick Chinappi That doesn't mean the Pope had a full, immediate and universal jurisdiction over
everyone either.
Like Reply 57 mins

Nick Chinappi Listen, Erick, I know where you stand. You know where I stand. I'm not going to debate
you every day for the rest of my life.
Like Reply 54 mins

Erick Ybarra I can't comment a reaponse. But real quick. We can respectfully disagree , but it is worth
the time examining whether we know each others views. In this case, I'm wondering what you think the
Vatican means by direct, full, and immediate . Catch ya later
Like Reply 41 mins
Write a reply...

Anton Usher Chalcedon was awarded with honorary-only seniority at the ecumenical synod there.
But it had to be specified as onomati monoi, in name only.
Like Reply 14 hrs

Erick Ybarra I can't but help to notice how this sort of revisionism of the origins of Papal-power
requires the interjection of "we begin...", "over time", "this began", "but still", "these claims began", "It
went from".
Like Reply 14 hrs

Craig Ostrowski Stuart L. Koehl

Those claims reveal little or no knowledge of Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great.
Like Reply 1 14 hrs

Erick Ybarra As if it can be so reduced to an explanation which respects the intelligence of the persons
involved, but cannot but help to explicate how artificial and aberrant the Papal teachings are. One needs
not to see Papal power *in action* before we receive its positive claim both said and justified by the
Like Reply 1 14 hrs Edited

Erick Ybarra When you have a Pope in the primitive centuries teaching that the occupants of the
Roman see hold the "plentitude of power" over all other shepherds of the Church, it should be just as

abominable as when a Pope from the 2nd-millenium *acts upon that*.

Like Reply 2 14 hrs Edited

Sean McAskill *comment

Like Reply 14 hrs

Rogelio Raya Ashley Lewis, this might help:

The Early Church Fathers I Never Saw - The Coming Home Network
Like Reply 1 14 hrs Edited

Nicholas Nelson In the Clementine fragment Clement quotes Eusebius as writing in Book 7 of his
Ecclesiastical History "To James the just, and John, and Peter, the Lord after his resurrection imparted
St Augustine wrote "Peter was only first among apostles as Stephen was first among deacons" (Sermon
3:16). This idea is also held by Origen(Upon St John) and St Cyprian(71st letter to Quint.).
No Church Father has ever singled out the Apostle Peter as having any title or jurisdiction of absolute
authority over the Church. Christ forbade his Apostles from taking any title in relation to themselves or
to call any man "Master, Father, Rabbi" or "Pope" which signifies the same thing. St Cyprian seems to
have also held this idea as he writes "For no one sets himself up as Bishop of Bishops".
We know from scripture that Christ is the chief cornerstone the head of the Church the chief shepherd
the stone as designated by the prophets and the rock (Eph. 2:20-22, Eph. 4:15-16, 1Peter 5:1, Matthew
21:22, Luke 20:17,18, 1Cor 10:4, 1Peter 2:7,8)
Papalists have misused the various eulogians used by Leo and other Fathers while not understanding
that even literally understood they do not constitute Vatican I papalism. Papalists seem to ignore the
exalted language used by the Fathers in reference to other Apostles.
I will quote a few here.
St John Chrysostom gave the same titles applied to Peter to the other Apostles. "Angels often receive
the mission of guarding the nations, but none ever governed the people confided to Him as Paul
governed the whole universe. The Hebrew people were confided to Archangel Michael, and to Paul
were confided the earth, the sea, the inhabitants of the universe- even the desert." (Panegyric upon St
Paul, 2nd Homily)
St John Chrysostom also writes "In the kingdom of heaven it is clear that no one will be before Paul."

(Upon St Matthew, 65th Homily). He further calls Paul the pilot of the Church, vessel of election, the
celestial trumpet, the leader of the spouse of Christ (Homily upon the words, May it please God that ye
be patient awhile). He evidently places Paul above Peter.
Hesychias wrote of James "How shall I praise the servant and brother of Christ, the chief captain of the
New Jerusalem, the chief of the priests, the exarch of the Apostles, the corypheus amongst the heads,
the one who surpasses in splendour the lights who is superior amongst the stars." (In Jacobem Fratrem
St John Chrysostom wrote that John is the pillar of the Churches throughout the world who has the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Homily I. 25)
Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to all the Apostles employing the same terms that he
had used promising it to Peter. See Matthew 28:18.
This view is supported by Origen in Upon St Matthew, St Cyprian On the Unity of the Church, St
Augustine Tracts 50 and 118 Upon St John sermon 205 upon the nativity of Peter and Paul, St Ambrose
88th Psalm, and Pacian 3rd letter to Sempronius.
St Augustine "For these keys not one man but the unity of the Church received. Hereby, then, is the
excellence of Peter set forth as an emblem of the Church in its universality and unity when it was said
to him I give to thee what was given to all. For that ye may know that the Church did receive the keys
of the Kingdom of Heaven hear in another place what the Lord said to all of the Apostles "Receive the
Holy Ghost" and then instantly "Whosoever sins you remit they are remitted and those that you retain
they are retained" (St John 20. 22,23) "This appertaineth to the keys of which it was said "Whatsoever
you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (St Matthew 28:18) But this was said to Peter so
that you will know that this represents the whole Church. Hear what is said to him, that to all, if he will
not hear thee tell it to the Church "Verily I say to thee whatsoever thou shall bound on Earth shall be
bound in heaven". (St Augustine, Sermon ccxcv cap. II)
And again.
"As in the Apostles, the number itself being 12, that is 4 divisions into 3, and all being asked, but Peter
alone answered, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And it is said to him, I will give to thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as if Peter alone had received the power of binding and loosing, the
case really being, that he singly said that in the name of all, and received this together with all, as
representing unity itself, therefore 1 in the name of all, because unity is in all." (Tract. John, cxviii, .4)
"Whether then, did Peter received the keys and not Paul? Did Peter receive them and did not John and
James receive them? But in signification Peter represented the person of the Church, that which was
given to him was given to the Church. Peter then represented the Church, the Church is the Body of
Christ (St Augustine, Sermon cxlix, cap.7 P.L. xxxviii. 802).
From these quotations it is clear tlrs Augustine viewed that Christ spoke to Peter in a representative
capacity of the rest of the rest of the Apostles and especially with regards to where the unity of the
Church lies. The view that the keys were given to all the Apostles was also held by Origen, Ambrose,
Theophylact, Gaudentius, the Venerable Bede, and Jerome. Here are a few of their's:
"But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, altogether the same thing is done in another place

upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the solidity of the Church
is established equally upon all." (St Jerome, S. Hieron. Adv. Jovin. I. Cap. xxvi P.L. xxiii. 247).
"Therefore the Lord gave the Apostles that which was previously part of his own juridical authority.
Hear him saying I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bound on
earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. To
thee he says I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that you may bind and loose... What
he says to Peter he says to the Apostles. (St Ambrose, Enarratio in Psalm xxxviii. 37. P.L. xiv. 1037).
"They who had obtained the grace of the episcopate as Peter had the authority to remit and bind, for
though, "I will give thee", was spoken to Peter alone, yet the gift has been given to all the Apostles.
When? When he said, Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted, for this I will give thee indicates a
later time, the time, that is, after the Resurrection." (Theophylact, Enarratio on Matthew, cap. xiv. 19.
P.G. cxxiii. 320).
"All the Apostles when Christ is rises receive the keys as Peter, Nay! Rather, they, receive the keys of
the Kingdom of Heaven with Peter when he saith Receive the Holy Ghost, whosoever sins you remit
they are remitted." (St Gaudentius Bresciae Epistle, Sermon xvi. P.L. xx. 959).
"And I will give to thee the keys, this power without doubt is given to all the Apostles, to whom by him
after resurrection is said generally, receive the Holy Ghost; to the bishops and also the priests, and to
the whole Church, the same office is committed. (Venerable Bede, Matthew xvi. Expositio, lib. III. P.L.
xcii 79.)
Like Reply 4 14 hrs

Erick Ybarra Nicholas Nelson I recommend the books that I've mentioned up above. Another good
article is "LEO I AND THE THEME OF PAPAL PRIMACY"- Journal of Theological Studies (1960)
XI (1): 25-51 doi:10.1093/jts/XI.1.25
If you'vIe not read it, it is indispensible reading. If you are close to a local seminary, they will surely
have it. Give it a scan.
Like Reply 14 hrs

Erick Ybarra Also, Ashley Lewis, it would be good to keep in mind that the Catholic Church continued
to believe that the power of the "keys" given to Peter pertains to all members of the Episcopal network.
It was stated very explicitly at the Lateran Council 1215, hundreds of years after the West was
explicitly *Papal*:
"There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which
Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the
altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by
God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from
God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly
ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their
successors. But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided
Trinity namely Father, Son and holy Spirit and brings salvation to both children and adults when

it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church. If someone falls into sin after
having received baptism, he or she can always be restored through true penitence. For not only virgins
and the continent but also married persons find favour with God by right faith and good actions and
deserve to attain to eternal blessedness."
Like Reply 14 hrs Edited

Nicholas Nelson Erick if you have read it, and it has anything good in it, I am sure it has been
regurgitated by you before, so in that case I see know need to waste any energy on it, because I have
seen your best in this debate, and also your worst- claiming you will respond in a timely manner, then
delaying for hours, then afterwards blocking people because you cant respond to why you won't offer
any refutation. And I will not be surprised if you block me here. Let it be witnessedLike Reply 14 hrs Edited

Erick Ybarra Now, those are statements about my person. What of that has anything to do with
historical & theological data?
Like Reply 2 14 hrs

Nicholas Nelson Erick I have made no statements about your person. Only my overall negative
experience with your debating habits
Like Reply 13 hrs Edited

Peter Gammo Chalcedon, Canon 28:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been
just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of
Constantinople, which is N...See More
Like Reply 1 13 hrs

Erick Ybarra Nicholas Nelson Those are statements about my person. Namely, what my person *did*.
I'm not here to contest you on that, even though I'd disagree with you.
Like Reply 13 hrs

Erick Ybarra Peter Gammo,

The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy

A. St. Leger Westall, The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy, The Dublin Review, CXXXII (JanuaryApril
Like Reply 1 13 hrs

Peter Gammo Terrible article overall. It attempts to make a point (or 4), but those points are lost the
moment they're "made." Unfortunately, it is a collection of presupposed thoughts. Thanks for the
reference though.
Like Reply 13 hrs

Mary Lanser Peter: Be nice to get a little more substance from you.
Like Reply 10 mins
Write a reply...

Nicholas Nelson Erick there is a difference between your person and what you simply did. Whether
you think what you did defines your or not is your prerogative. Talk about irrelevance, this is irrelevant.
So leave it at that. There will be no respect for crocodile tears
Like Reply 13 hrs

Erick Ybarra Nicholas Nelson

So what I *did* in person has nothing to do with my person? Gotcha. And my intention was to show
you that instead of engaging the issues, you've nibbled around the edges and avoided doing so on the
basis of what you think I did in person. I disagree with you. I blocked you a while ago because you
were acting like a child.
If you are interested in engaging the issues, then you will dispense with "hey, you did this" or "hey, you
did that", and rather will say "Your position X is weakened because of Y-reason".
Like Reply 1 13 hrs Edited

Nicholas Nelson Erick you cant accuse anyone of avoiding the issue if you cant take the quotes, one by
one, and offer an explanation for them. Don't do it for me, do it for Ashley Lewis. Leave it to him to
decide if your explanations are convincing
Like Reply 13 hrs Edited

Nick Chinappi The problem is that quotes, by themselves, aren't an argument. They are supporting
evidence. If papal claims are undermined by the quotes you offered, Nicholas, you would have to
explain how. Asking Erick to deal with each and every quote you posted is shifting the burden unto him
and therefore not a real argument. I don't want to appear to be taking sides, but that's how it goes in
Like Reply 1 13 hrs Edited

Erick Ybarra It is better if someone has read some of the commonly known secondary literature on
these subjects. If they have not, then a discussion on this will be pre-mature. This is why I asked you if
you read the article by Ullman. Since you have not, and if Ashley has not, then it would be beneficial to
do so. We cannot expect everyone here to be able to dump essay-length replies to a whole bunch of
quotes. These are debatable topics, and it requires a student, not an audience.
Like Reply 1 13 hrs

Nicholas Nelson Nick Chinappi to elaborate, the quotes demonstrate how the claim by papal apologists
that "the Fathers universally taught that Peter was the head of the apostles in authority and to him alone
the keys were offered" is ludicrous
Like Reply 13 hrs

Nick Chinappi I see.

Like Reply 1 13 hrs

Nicholas Nelson Erick I didnt ask you do it for myself, based on any predisposition or personal opinion
about my "knowledge"... I asked you to do it for Ashley... if you truly have anything good to offer,
perhaps you better do it and save him from delusion? Let your next action be indicative of your
Like Reply 13 hrs Edited

Erick Ybarra Ashley Lewis,

I have a group dedicated to investigating Papal doctrines in the 1st millenium. In you research, if you
come across questions, feel free to join and post any question you'd like. You are more than welcome.
Papacy in Early Christianity
610 Members


Like Reply 1 13 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl "Doctrines"? A little premature to speak of Papal "doctrines" in the first millennium.
Like Reply 1 13 hrs
Write a reply...

Nicholas Nelson Erick why cant you do it here? For everyone to see? Why do it where you have kicked
everyone who has challenged you?
Like Reply 13 hrs

Erick Ybarra Nicholas Nelson

It will take a good 3 hours to respond to each and every quote. Would you like me to just throw a bunch
of quotes down on you? I can give you about 50 pages worth. Ashley has been given some resources to
look at. I can't make anyone drink. If Ashley has questions, I've extended an invitation to dialogue.
Like Reply 13 hrs Edited

Erick Ybarra And I've already indicated that the Catholic Church believes the power of the keys to be
transmitted to each member of the Episcopal network. That should at least be intriguing to someone
who has been hearing the wrong stuff for a while.
Like Reply 2 13 hrs

Nicholas Nelson Erick your response is fair. Therefore, do it for the last 5 quotes.
Like Reply 13 hrs

Erick Ybarra I'm working on some bigger things right now, and it doesn't seem Ashley is doing any of
the asking. Now, if you will excuse me.
Like Reply 13 hrs

Nicholas Nelson I see

Like Reply 13 hrs

Heather Scott McLemore God is one, and unchanging. God has always selected one to be leader/ the
voice/ spokes person of the faithful. Jesus directly gave the Keys to Peter, and reading through Acts we
see that Peter was indeed above the Bishops in his role of authority, but equal as men.
Like Reply 13 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl That's your story and you're sticking with it, even though, historically, it's nonsense.
Like Reply 3 13 hrs

Heather Scott McLemore What is 'nonsense''? Typically when one wants to refute a statement they give
Like Reply 6 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl Your exegesis of Scripture to fit into a previously determined position. But, Heather,
you seem to assume that I'm going to take you seriously. I'm not. I've already addressed these things
many times on various Facebook pages, and have no intention of repeating myself again.
Like Reply 3 hrs
Write a reply...

Giacomo Alessandro The Pope is always seen as "First among equals" in the Orthodox
there is no contradiction here.
Like Reply 13 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl The problem is, most Orthodox do not understand the true meaning of the term--just as
they do not understand "primacy of honor".
Like Reply 3 13 hrs
Write a reply...

Nicholas Nelson Heather Scott McLemore i refer you to my quotes above. The fathers disagree with
Like Reply 13 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl The problem with proof texting--whether one cuts and pastes one's way through
Scripture, or the Fathers, or the Councils, is such documents are almost meaningless removed from
their historical context.
Like Reply 3 13 hrs

Nicholas Nelson Stuart L. Koehl, however, it must be pointed out that whether or not they are
meaningless when removed from context depends entirely on what they are being used to demonstrate.
If we use them to, for example, prove that the fathers did not universally teach that Peter alone received
the keys, there is not much placing them in context would change
Like Reply 1 12 hrs Edited

Heather Scott McLemore Nicholas Nelson - I posted several early Church Father quotes below (main
thread) that demonstrate how they understood that Seat, what Jesus meant when He gave Peter the
Keys, when He named him "Kephas" (Petros,, Peter, Rock), for which Jesus stated He would build His
Church upon. I hope that helps.
It is following perfectly how God has always led. The Seat of Moses was transferred to Peter, and
Peter's successors under the New Covenant.
Like Reply 6 hrs Edited

Nicholas Nelson Heather Scott McLemore unfortunately I dont think you even read your own quotes;
see my response below.
Like Reply 3 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl Nicholas Nelson Most of the time, they are used to demonstrate that someone knows
how to cut and paste.
Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Nicholas Nelson I didnt cut and paste mine. I typed them out. I have primary sources, and look down
on shameful copy-pastas
Like Reply 2 hrs
Write a reply...

John Madigan After having read through all the comments, I must say I am highly disappointed. This is
a group that is supposed to be dedicated to the union of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. This
question was an opportunity to discuss what I see as the biggest obstacle in that reunion. (Why I think
that is not a topic for the present discussion.) If we are truly striving for unity, we must approach this
subject with an open heart, ready to learn while also reserving our judgment until we know it cannot be
anything other than one way or another. This does not mean diserting our beliefs, but the contrary. By
debating and holding strongly to our beliefs we can bring our perspective to the ring to be tested in a
trial by the fire of the opposing or parallel arguments. We must also avail ourselves to prayer, that the
Holy Spirit may enlighten our minds to His truth, as well as remember the fraternity we the baptized
share through our brotherhood as sons of Christ. Brothers wrestle with each other, to strengthen each
other against the enemies outside the home. We must always remember this fraternity not only during
our struggles with the enemy, but in our own wrestling matches. Christos Sabastos-Christus AugustusChrist the one to be adored.
Like Reply 3 10 hrs

Heather Scott McLemore @Nicholas Nelson- (let me know if you would like more):
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with
himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And
what does he say? Behold, we have left all and have followed you [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who
Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:35 [A.D. 200]).

"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter
here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been
questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[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. 16:1819]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the
keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:910 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure
foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by
Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles;
to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and
elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which
seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter,
compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys
not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not
in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that
these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for
they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens"
(Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

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]).
Like Reply 1 6 hrs

Nicholas Nelson Your quotes actually do nothing for your argument. Clement of Alexandria is in
disagreement with the most of the Fathers, IF, that is, he is actually saying what you are saying. If he is
merely saying that Peter is first among apostles as Stephen was first among deacons, which is a
possible interpretation, (St. Augustine says this), then your quote means nothing. So either he is in
disagreement with most fathers, or your quoting out of context.
Your quote from Tertullian actually agrees with me, and says everyone will carry the keys with Peter if
he has the same faith as saint Peter, which also proves that the prerogative of Peter being the "rock"

was his faith and not his person, ALSO taught by the Fathers.
The second quote of Tertullian doesn't doesnt do anything. There is no context, it is simply a requoting
of Matthew...
Notice Clement says Peter was set apart *for the sake of his true faith*. The Orthodox position is that
all bishops who confess the same strong faith of St. Peter, i.e. "You are the Christ..." then all bishops
hold the keys equally...
Your quote from Origen doesnt work. The only way it works is with the inserted context by way of
brackets... the second class is only the apostles if that context is inserted with brackets so it isn't
explicit. It merely says Peter received the key. It doesnt say the other apostles didnt also. You cant take
quotes like these and then ignore the exalted language used in reference to other apostles.
Even your own quote from St. Cyprian says "although he assigns the same power to all the
apostles...indeed the others were *that also what Peter was [the apostles]* ... the flock is fed by *all the
Apostles in single minded accord*... he goes on to say that *FAITH* of Peter is the rock upon the
Church will be built...
I dont think you even read these quotes, nor did the person who posted it on the blog you got it from.
Try reading the primary sources, eh?
Like Reply 1 3 hrs Edited
Write a reply...

Nick Chinappi Heather

How'd you come up with that list of quotes?
Like Reply 6 hrs

Heather Scott McLemore Collecting them.. Lol.. (Usually for Protestants).

Like Reply 6 hrs

Nick Chinappi Ok so collecting them from the works themselves or from a place like
The reason I ask is because quote bombing doesn't cut the mustard in the long run. Nicholas said that
his quotes demonstrate that the Fathers didn't *universally teach* that Peter was granted sole headship
and universal leadership (or something like that). What do your quotes demonstrate?

Fish Eaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism

Like Reply 6 hrs

Heather Scott McLemore I don't usually use Fish Eaters. I typically go for original sources. Or neutral
Sources. Early Church Fathers writings, or similar.
Like Reply 6 hrs Edited

Heather Scott McLemore Protestant will not acknowledge "Fish Eaters"

Like Reply 6 hrs

Heather Scott McLemore But, yes.. Either from the actual documents, or, as I come across them.
The quotes back up scripture, and the understanding of who Peter was, and that the authority/ Primacy
that Peter held (which most Orthodox will acknowledge (typically) that much), did not stop w/ Peter.
Like Reply 6 hrs

Heather Scott McLemore Nick Chinappi - 5 quotes isn't typically quote bombing (I mean, I was very
Like Reply 6 hrs

Nick Chinappi Yeah but quoting without an argument is quote bombing. You're basically quoting
thinking they themselves will do the work for you. I mean, Nicholas quoted a bunch of people too. So
now what?
Like Reply 1 6 hrs

Heather Scott McLemore Nick Chinappi - I got cha. It was actually in response to a response he made
under my first post. Was going to post it under that thread, but then thought it might be better to do so
as a stand alone (thus, seen more easily by all).
Like Reply 6 hrs
Write a reply...

Heather Scott McLemore Jesus foreshadows Peters' denial of Him, and then states:
Luke 22:31-32
Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your
own faith may not fail; and ONCE you HAVE TURNED BACK, you MUST STRENGTHEN your

When we take all of scripture regarding Authority, & how God has given such, as well as the giving
Peter the Keys, naming Simon, Peter (Kephas)- which literally means Rock, then Jesus telling Peter to
feed/ guide/ lead, and understanding the Royal context of "Key Holder", and how Jesus is described as
the King of Kings. When all these are taken in full context, and understanding, the Primacy of that Seat
shines through.. (I had struggled w/ this, myself; but it was due to my own prejudice, and self afflicted
Like Reply 6 hrs

Nicholas Nelson These do not say a single thing for your argument. This method is like a protestant...
taking a quote from scripture, letting them stand alone, and forgetting any context with them. Even
literally understood, they do prove Vatican I papalism.
Like Reply 3 hrs Edited

Stuart L. Koehl I'm only interested in the history of the Roman primacy--that is, what the Church
actually did--not how the Church retrospectively justified what it was doing.
Like Reply 1 3 hrs

Nicholas Nelson Yes it is clear that the ancient Popes did not practice any authority even remotely
similar to that of the post-schism, especially in the Renaissance and later Vatican I. What happened is
when the one Apostolic see in the west broke away and became it's own see, it had free reign over its
own jurisdiction and the popes became powerful.
Like Reply 3 hrs Edited

Stuart L. Koehl Nobody broke away from anybody. Let us be quite clear of that. The estrangement was
mutual, and there is plenty of blame to go around on all sides.
Like Reply 2 3 hrs
Write a reply...

Harold David Rennie You could start from the assumption that they are both patriarchal institutions, in
both the traditional sense and the more modern meaning of the term, and that both churches exclude
women from formal positions of influence, both East and West. After that, the differences are largely
splits in the ruling power structure that depend on post-hoc interpretations of selective texts.
Like Reply 3 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl If you believe women are excluded from positions of influence in the Church, you
really haven't been paying attention. In any case, the Church most certainly isn't about power, and those
who posit their arguments in such secular terms completely misunderstand Christianity.
Like Reply 3 2 hrs

Nicholas Nelson Sounds like this person is pro-women clergy...

Like Reply 2 hrs

Harold David Rennie Yes. What was your first clue?

Like Reply 2 hrs

Stuart L. Koehl He has trouble with the "scandal of particularism".

Like Reply 1 2 hrs

Harold David Rennie ?? Now that's a new one on me. Feel free to educate me on what that is or was.
Like Reply 2 hrs

Nicholas Nelson LOL Stuart... but seriously I am of the "particular" that these folks would see no
problem in setting a precedent for adding modern/leftist elements with no historical basis for them
Like Reply 2 hrs Edited

Harold David Rennie Well, now you're throwing labels around. The assumption that modern/leftist
elements have no historical basis is in itself an ahistorical assumption. Let's stick with demographics
for now, shall we?

Fatherless Churches
Almost fifty years ago, when the Catholic Church unveiled its new rite of Mass in the|By Aaron Taylor
Like Reply 2 hrs
Write a reply...

Thomas Hopko This book contains several essays on Orthodox conceptions of the primacy of Peter and
what it means.

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
Like Reply 1 2 hrs Edited