PART 2:
-
Did Peter have more authority than the other Apostles?
ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDENTS’ MAGAZINE “OUR ACTION”. Issues 450-451 June-July 2007 – pages 234-235
Α. “Who is greater?” and the 12 thrones
The three concise Evangelists have recorded a question which had given rise to discussions and arguments between the Disciples of Christ: Who of them was (or would prove to be) the greater i. e. superior among them. The Lord admonished them for their ambitious thoughts and recommended that they pursue the virtue of humility. (Matthew 18: 1-4, Mark 9: 33-37 and Luke 9: 46-48 and 22: 24)
It is important to note that this incident took place after Peter’s familiar admission of Christ’s Divinity. If the Lord had indeed presented the Apostle Peter as the (supposed) head of the remaining Apostles - and in their presence – then what would have been the point of such a query-argument by the Disciples? And why didn’t Christ respond to their query by stating that Peter was indeed their superior? Not only did the Lord not mention anything like Peter’s primacy, but He actually reassured them that during His Second Coming, all twelve of them would be seated on twelve thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mathew 19: 28, Luke 22: 30).
Therefore there was absolutely no discrimination between the twelve Apostles, on the part of Christ.
-
Β. The Apostle Peter and the primeval Church.
In the first Church – that of Jerusalem – the Apostle Peter may have been a protagonist, however HE NEVER ACTED ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, BUT ALWAYS IN COLLABORATION WITH THE OTHER APOSTLES OR AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. A characteristic example is the election of Matthias. Peter did NOT appoint Judas’ replacement on his own initiative; he summoned ALL HIS BROTHERS so that they might together choose the appropriate person, after praying together and by voting. (Acts 1:24-26). The divine Chrysostom lauds this action by Peter, with the following words: “Observe how he does everything ALWAYS upon a MUTUAL DECISION; NOTHING AS AN AUTHORITY, NOTHING AS A LEADER. ”(Όρα αυτόν μετά ΚΟΙΝΗΣ πάντα ποιούντα ΓΝΩΜΗΣ. ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΥΘΕΝΤΙΚΩΣ, ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΡΧΙΚΩΣ) (John Chrysostom, On Acts 3: 1, PG 60: 34). Nowadays, the Pope of Rome appoints bishops of the Papist “church” on his initiative. This act – which is diametrically opposed to the Apostle Peter’s act – is a more than obvious one.
Furthermore, the election of the 7 deacons was also an act of the ENTIRE Church, upon the proposal of all the Apostles. Their ordination was likewise performed by ALL OF THE APOSTLES (Acts 6: 1-6).
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[Did Peter have more authority than the other Apostles?]
OF COURSE. THE BEARER OF THE KEYS IS GREATER THAN THE OTHER. AND THE 11 OTHERS RECOGNIZED IT BECAUSE RIGHT AFTER THE ASCENSION THEY RECOGNIZED THE AUTHORITY OF THE BLESSED PETER.
[ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN STUDENTS’ MAGAZINE “OUR ACTION”. Issues 450-451 June-July 2007 – pages 234-235
Α. “Who is greater?” and the 12 thrones]
PETER HAS A THRONE JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE APOSTLES. BUT HE HAS THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM THAT OTHERS DO NOT HAVE.
[The three concise Evangelists have recorded a question which had given rise to discussions and arguments between the Disciples of Christ: Who of them was (or would prove to be) the greater i. e. superior among them. The Lord admonished them for their ambitious thoughts and recommended that they pursue the virtue of humility. (Matthew 18: 1-4, Mark 9: 33-37 and Luke 9: 46-48 and 22: 24)]
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS OUT. ACTUALLY THE BORN AGAIN ARE USING THE SAME ARGUMENT. I'M VERY GLAD THAT YOU AND THE BORN AGAIN, AS WELL AS THE JEHOVA WITNESS THAT WE HAVE DEBATED ARE USING THE SAME ARGUMENT. HOW NICE ISN'T IT? HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE MORE IN COMMON WITH THEM.
[It is important to note that this incident took place after Peter’s familiar admission of Christ’s Divinity.]
SO WHAT! AS YOU'VE STATED ABOVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE APOSTLES WERE FRUIT OF THEIR AMBITIONS. THAT IS SINFUL THOUGHTS - THEY WANT TO RECEIVE GLORY GREATER THAN WHAT THEY DESERVE. THAT AMBITIOUS THOUGHT IS DRIVEN BY PRIDE AND SELFISHNESS.
IT HAPPENED AT THE TIME WHEN THE APOSTLES WERE WEAK AND CLOUDED BY SIN OF PRIDE.
-
[ If the Lord had indeed presented the Apostle Peter as the (supposed) head of the remaining Apostles - and in their presence – then what would have been the point of such a query-argument by the Disciples?]
HA, HA, HA... A VERY CHEAP ARGUMENT.
1. SATAN ALREADY KNEW THAT THERE WAS A GOD ABOVE HIM YET BECAUSE OF PRIDE HE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF GOD OVER HIM. HE REBELLED IN HEAVEN.
2. ADAM AND EVEN KNEW THAT THEY ARE CREATURES OF GOD YET THEY WANTED TO BE LIKE GOD.
3. KORAH KNEW OF THE CLEAR AUTHORITY OF MOSES AND AARON YET HE WANTED TO USURP THE POWER OF THE PRIESTS.
THE LESSON IS: EVEN IF THERE IS A CLEAR AUTHORITY WHEN ONE IS DARKENED BY PRIDE ONE WILL QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF THE OTHER AND REFUSE TO OBEY OR RECOGNIZE IT. IN FACT, EVEN IN COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS A PRESIDENT OR PRIME MINISTER WELL ESTABLISHED THERE ARE STILL SOME WHO ARE ASPIRING AND DESIRING AND QUESTIONING THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEADER.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE APOSTLES WERE EFFECTS OF SIN, OF AMBITION. AND FOR THAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING WERE CLOUDED BY DARKNESS. BUT WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME UPON THEM IT WAS PETER WHO ROSE TO LEAD THE CHURCH WHILE THE OTHERS WERE SILENT EXCEPT IN FEW INSTANCES THAT JOHN, PHILIP AND JAMES WERE MENTIONED.
[ And why didn’t Christ respond to their query by stating that Peter was indeed their superior?]
OF COURSE THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT WHAT HE HAD ALREADY STATED. WHAT HAS BEEN DECLARED HAS BEEN CLEAR ALREADY. BUT WHAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS THAT EVEN IF THINGS IS CLEAR WHEN ONE IS IN STATE OF SIN THERE IS BLINDNESS TO THE TRUTH. WHAT IS LACKING IS NOT THE DECLARATION OF JESUS PROCLAIMING THE AUTHORITY OF PETER BUT THE SINS IN THE HEART OF THE APOSTLES THAT TIME.
EVEN IN FAMILIES WHERE THE HEIR IS ALREADY DECLARED THERE IS STILL INFIGHTING WHEN SIN IS PRESENT IN THE HEART OF PEOPLE.
[Not only did the Lord not mention anything like Peter’s primacy, but He actually reassured them that during His Second Coming, all twelve of them would be seated on twelve thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mathew 19: 28, Luke 22: 30).]
HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE DECEIVING HERE. YOU JUMPED FROM MATTHEW CHAPTER 18 TO CHAPTER 19. THAT IS FOUL. NO, NO, NO...
WHAT JESUS DID IS THAT HE TOOK A LITTLE CHILD PLACED HIM IN THEIR MIDST AND TAUGHT THE APOSTLES LESSON OF HUMILITY -- TO BE LIKE A LITTLE CHILD:
Matthew 18:1-4
1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
WHAT JESUS DID IN RESPONSE TO THEIR SINS OF PRIDE IS TO TEACH THEM THE VIRTUE OF HUMILITY. OF COURSE, IT IS USELESS AT THIS TIME TO TEACH THEM THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY. WHAT IS NEEDED IS HUMILITY TO COUNTER THE SIN OF PRIDE.
THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO PETER REMAINS UNTIL THIS VERY DAY.
[Therefore there was absolutely no discrimination between the twelve Apostles, on the part of Christ.]
INDEED THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE THE PRIMACY OF PETER IS A PRIMACY OF SERVICE NOT OF SUPERIORITY, HOWEVER, IT IS ABSOLUTELY BASELESS TO CLAIM THAT THE SEE OF CONSTANTINOPLE IS EQUAL WITH THE SEE OF PETER. IF PETER HAS NO PRIMACY THEN ANDREW HAS NO PRIMACY ALSO. THEN, WHERE WILL YOU GET THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE SEE OF CONSTANTINOPLE? NOTHING. CONSTANTINOPLE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS THE SECOND CAPITAL OF THE EMPIRE AFTER ROME, THUS IT IS CALLED THE NEW ROME. IF THE FIRST ROME IS NOTHING, THEN THE NEW ROME IS GARBAGE. IF THE FIRST ROME HAS PRIMACY THEN THE SECOND IN RANK HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER.
HA, HA, HA... YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VERY CHEAP.
-
[Β. The Apostle Peter and the primeval Church.
In the first Church – that of Jerusalem – the Apostle Peter may have been a protagonist, however HE NEVER ACTED ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, BUT ALWAYS IN COLLABORATION WITH THE OTHER APOSTLES OR AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.]
EXCUSE ME. ST. PETER DECIDED TO REPLACE JUDAS ISCARIOT WITHOUT CONSULTING THE OTHER APOSTLES. AND ST. PETER DECIDED TO DELIVER THE FIRST SERMON AFTER PENTECOST OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER APOSTLES AS THEIR LEADER. THERE WAS NO VOTING AND THERE WAS NO PRE-ARRANGED AGREEMENT THAT PETER WAS TO REPRESENT THEM. O NO, NO, NO... PETER CAN DECIDE IN THE CHURCH AS ITS HIGHEST LEADER AFTER CHRIST. THE FACT THAT HE WAS CONSULTING OTHERS IN SOME INSTANCES SHOWS HIS GREAT LEADERSHIP BUT HE CAN DECIDE ALONE IF HE WANTED TO AND HE DID.
AFTER JESUS, THERE I NO OTHER PERSON AS PROMINENT AS PETER. NO OTHER. JAMES AND ANDREW PALE IN COMPARISON WITH PETER. AND THE BELOVED APOSTLE ACTS IN AN OBVIOUS SUBORDINATION EVERY TIME HE IS WITH PETER.
[ A characteristic example is the election of Matthias. Peter did NOT appoint Judas’ replacement on his own initiative;]
IT WAS PETER WHO PERSONALLY DECIDED TO HOLD THE ELECTION. HE WAS NOT REQUESTED OR COMMANDED BY ANY ONE ELSE TO REPLACE JUDAS. THE FACT THAT PETER DECIDED TO HAVE AN ELECTION SPEAKS WELL OF HIS RESPECT FOR HIS FELLOW APOSTLES. BUT NOBODY QUESTIONED HIS DECISION TO CALL FOR ELECTION.
THE DECISION TO REPLACE JUDAS IS AN ACT ARISING FROM A SINGULAR AND SUPREME AUTHORITY OF PETER. IF ANDREW IS THE HEAD AND DESERVING OF YOUR LATER INVENTED 'ALL-HOLINESS' TITLE HE SHOULD BE THE ONE CALLING FOR ELECTION AND NOT PETER. BUT HE WAS SILENT. JAMES WAS SILENT. HA, HA, HA... YOUR POSITION IS BASED ON SILENCE. HA, HA, HA...
[he summoned ALL HIS BROTHERS so that they might together choose the appropriate person, after praying together and by voting. (Acts 1:24-26).]
IT MEANS THAT PETER HAS THE POWER TO SUMMON HIS BROTHERS. WHEN PAUL WAS QUESTIONED BY THE JUDAIZERS HIS DECISION NOT TO REQUIRE CIRCUMCISION WAS DISOBEYED. I WANTED TO SEE IF IT WAS THE OTHER APOSTLES GIVING ORDER IF THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY AS THAT OF PETER.
THAT IS WHY OUR POPE CAN SUMMON AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL BUT YOUR PATRIARCHS ALL COMBINED WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO. THEY WILL ONLY MAKE A FOOL OUT OF THEMSELVES CALLING FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT HEED THEIR CALL.
-
[ The divine Chrysostom lauds this action by Peter, with the following words: “Observe how he does everything ALWAYS upon a MUTUAL DECISION; NOTHING AS AN AUTHORITY, NOTHING AS A LEADER. ”(Όρα αυτόν μετά ΚΟΙΝΗΣ πάντα ποιούντα ΓΝΩΜΗΣ. ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΥΘΕΝΤΙΚΩΣ, ΟΥΔΕΝ ΑΡΧΙΚΩΣ) (John Chrysostom, On Acts 3: 1, PG 60: 34).]
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM PRAISES ST. PETER FOR HIS ACT OF HUMILITY. BUT DOES IT MEAN THAT PETER IS NOT THE LEADER? O NO, NO, NO... YOU ARE DISTORTING ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND THE FATHERS:
“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM IS CLEAR AND CATEGORICAL. ST. PETER IS THE FOREMOST OF THE APOSTLES AND CHIEF HERALD OF THE CHURCH. FOREMOST AND CHIEF. WELL, AS FAR AS I KNOW ST. CYRIL IS FROM THE EAST. HE, HE, HE...
"Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures." Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).
SO, WHO IS GIVEN 'AUTHORITY OVER ALL THE TREASURES OF CHRIST'? ST. PETER. THAT IS ACCORDING TO ST. EPHRAIM.
HA, HA, HA... DON'T TELL ME THAT IT IS ST. ANDREW. O NO, NO, NO... THE AUTHORITY OF PETER IS WELL ESTABLISHED BIBLICALLY AND PATRISTICALLY. YOURS IS BASED ON SILENCE AND NOTHINGNESS.
“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).
YOU SEE, PETER IS PLACED 'BEFORE ALL THE APOSTLES'. HA,HA, HA... AND THERE IS NO STATEMENT THAT: "AND ANDREW IS PLACED EQUAL WITH PETER". O NO, NO, NO...
[ Nowadays, the Pope of Rome appoints bishops of the Papist “church” on his initiative.]
O NO, NO, NO... LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. BEFORE THE POPE CHOOSES A BISHOP THE CANDIDATE IS ALREADY CHOSEN ON THE LOCAL LEVEL BY CONSULTATION. IN FACT, THE POPE ONLY RELIES ON THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THE ORTHODOX ARE ONLY ENVIOUS OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE. HA, HA, HA...
[ This act – which is diametrically opposed to the Apostle Peter’s act – is a more than obvious one.]
O NO, NO, NO... THE APOSTOLIC SEES SUCH AS THE OLD PATRIARCHATES ARE ALWAYS FREE TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN BISHOPS. AND THAT IS ALSO TRUE FOR THE EASTERN CHURCHES. THE POPE APPOINTS BISHOP ONLY ON THOSE THAT BELONGS TO THE ROMAN CHURCH. UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU THE CHURCH OF ROME HAS GROWN BIGGER THAN ALL OF YOU COMBINED. THAT IS WHY THE ORTHODOX ARE SALIVATING ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE.
BECAUSE OF THEIR FRUSTRATIONS THEY HURLED ATTACKS AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER.
[Furthermore, the election of the 7 deacons was also an act of the ENTIRE Church, upon the proposal of all the Apostles. Their ordination was likewise performed by ALL OF THE APOSTLES (Acts 6: 1-6).]
BECAUSE PETER DIDN'T OPPOSE IT. HE DECIDED DO IT IN COLLEGIALITY WITH HIS FELLOW APOSTLES. BUT PETER COULD HAVE DECIDED IT SINGLE-HANDEDLY. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR POPE IS DOING TODAY. THERE ARE REGULAR SYNOD OF BISHOPS TO HELP HIM GOVERN THE CHURCH. BESIDES, THERE IS STILL NO SHOW OF THE SPECIAL AUTHORITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND MOSCOW IN ACTS 6:1-6. HAVE YOU SEEN ONE? NO, NADA, NOTHING. IN RUSSIAN: NYET NYET!!! HA, HA, HA...
No comments:
Post a Comment