How do you see Peter ?

[Pierre-Nicolas]

Hello all,

I'm new to this forum. I'm a roman catholic who is interested about orthodoxy. I know some peoples in this forum were catholics who converterd to orthodoxy. Sometime I think orthodoxy is the true faith, but I don't see a lot of different with the catholic faith. Why really did you convert to orthodoxy ? What is the real difference between the orthodoxy and catholicism. Is it really the dogma about the filioque ?

Maybe it's the papal infaillibility. If it is, How to you see Peter ?

How to do see Peter and this phrase in the Gospel :
16] Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed [this] to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
[18] "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
[19] "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

I don't want to make a big debate or to offence anyone, but I just want to know the orthodox faith.

May god bless you,

Pierre-Nicolas

[Nikodemus]

Dear seeker

I was a Roman Catholic for ten years before God led me to the Orthodox Church and before that I was a lutheran, born i the swedish ultra liberal state church.

When I was ninteen years old I converted to the Catholic Church, looking for authenticity and stability. I converted through the conservative organisation Opus Dei, and they are extreme in their loyalty to the pope, so I understand your question.

When I was catholic I thought like this:

To be a good christian is to be humble to the Gospels and the Gosples says that St Peter is the rock upon Christ build his church and the pope is St Peters successor and thetefore I must be obedience to the pope.

When I began to be interested in Church history, however, I founded that there exist another intepretation of this Gospel quote, namely, the orthodox understanding. But before this, consider some facts:

All local churches before the papal claims in the end of the first millenia, were autonomous, self governing...When questions arised concerning doctrines bishops appeales to authoritative centers of christianity. The fist authoritative center were the patriarch of Antioch, and later also the patriarch of Alexandria. Later the roman pope became famous for his orthodoxy. But it was only becasue of his orthodoxy that he became famous, not because he was the roman pope. To prove this, conseder that many roman popes became heretics and were condemned as such by some general councils, for example pope Honorius.

It is clear then that it was the council that was the highest organ for questions about faith.

And how doíd the church fathers interpret this gospel...that is the important question. The majority of Church Fathers interpret Christ saying to Peter as a confirmation of Peters Faith: You are the Son of God. Now, This faith is the foundation of the Church, namely, faith in Christ and his teachings. Christ gave also equal authority to all apostles, not just one of them and he said: The one who wants to be first among you, be the others servant.

DUring the middle age the pope named themselves with untraditional names like: Vicarius Christi or Caput Ecclesiae. Such name has no foundation in the Genreal COuncils, nor are they signs of pity.

[Nikodemus]

I can also recommend reading of Abbe Guette: The Papacy.

[joasia]

I was born into a Catholic family. I started seeing the difference between the Western and Eastern churches, when I started reading the history of the church.

What is the real difference between the orthodoxy and catholicism. Is it really the dogma about the filioque ?

Let's start with the basics. The bishop of Rome had no right to allow the inclusion of the filioque. To state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, is in complete and total error of the teachings passed down from Christ Himself. It is also a false teaching opposed to the Nicene Creed of the First Ecumenical Council.

Christ stated: But, when the Helper comes, Whom I shall send to you FROM the Father, The Spirit of truth Who proceeds FROM the Father, He will testify of Me. (John 15:26)

This is a clear statement and explanation, found in the Bible, spoken by Christ. And yet the Patriarch of Rome allowed it's inclusion in the Creed.

The other patriarchs implored the Patriarch of Rome to instruct his bishop in Spain to cease from including this filioque, but to no avail. The Patriarch of Rome, in his prideful state of mind refused. Eventually, it led to the Great Schism of 1054 A.D.

This is the first warning of heretical teachings. There was never any repentence of this teaching(and I doubt that there ever will be).

Maybe it's the papal infaillibility.

That was probably the underlying stubborness that instigated the refusal to retract an erroneous teaching. Of course, it stems again, from pride.

How to do see Peter and this phrase in the Gospel :
[18] "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

The holy fathers of the church teach that Christ was referring to Peter's statement, confession, that Christ is the Son of God. The gates of Hades cannot prevail against this truth, because the gates of Hades cannot win over the Son of God.

[19] "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The Catholics always use this arguement in order to establish what they believe to be their authority. But, if it was solely the authority of Peter then why did the other Apostles have the ability to loose and bind the sins of others? And if Peter was to be the almighty leader of the Christians, then why did he fall when he denied Christ three times?

And by the way, St. Peter was never the bishop of Rome. It was St. Linus who was the bishop at the time that St. Peter went to Rome to become a martyr. The Apostles ordained others to be the bishops so that they could be free to preach to the people. The Catholics tend to forget that little piece of history.

Read the writings of the Orthodox saints and you will see what the true teachings are...historically and spiritually.

If you have any other questions about the differences, please don't be shy to PM me. I would love to discuss the different issues.

May God guide you on this path to the truth as He has for me.

Joanna