[quote:2omx1mr3]Vic, you talk to me, quite rightly of prefigurations in the Old Testament, that are leading us to the New Testament. I agree with you, and Orthodox Christians believe that there is great prefiguring in the Old Testament indeed that the Old Testament cannot be adequately understood without the New Testament. You tell me that St. Peter, “being the strongest” was prefigured in Isaiah 22, “the keys of the house of David”. Well, we know that the keeper of the key of David, prefigured in Isaiah 22 is Christ Himself (Apocalypse 3:7). In Isaiah 22:22 it is a messianic reference to someone who may judge in God’s name and admit or exclude from the City of David. In fulfillment, this is a prophecy of Christ the Lord. The Lord is clearly referring to Himself as keeper of the key. It’s unfortunate that Roman Catholics feel that Orthodox in denying this, try to minimize St. Peter. St. Peter, together with St. Paul, is called PROTOCORYFAIOS in our Church, that is PRE-EMINENT. We laud and herald the blessed St. Peter. It’s funny that Roman Catholics think that just because we don’t believe all the extras that they have tacked on to the blessed saint, that we seek to minimize him. [/quote:2omx1mr3]
In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21). Apocalypse 3:7 is speaking of David being an analogy of Christ cause he owns the house and owns the keys. David let the keeper carry the keys because he gave him the authority to open and close (bind and loose). If your interpretation is correct is would seem to be interpreted as God giving himself authority. Is this how you meant it? How can Christ be owner of the home and keys and still be the keeper when he steps out of the house? I do not see how you interpreted that Ted. The keeper is clearly speaking of someone that is given authority over the household.
All the extras? I’m trying to understand Ted. If you equate doctrinal development as extras then I can at least have a point of reference on what to clarify and discuss with you.
What prefigurations does the Orthodox Church see about Peters role in the OT? By the way, does the Orthodox Church believe in some form of doctional developement? Am I incorrect in noting that there has been NO development in the Orthodox Church for the last 1,000 years?
BTW, I was snooping around in the library and wanted to get your thoughts on something. I scanned this off a book called [u:2omx1mr3]The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (edited by JohnMeyendorff)[/u:2omx1mr3]:
The Primacy of the Roman See is a well-established fact of Church history that was even attested to by Orthodox scholars Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff and Fr. Alexander Schmemann. They did not concede everything on the matter that the Catholic Church claims of course. However, it is important to notice how what they do say is perfectly consistent with the development of doctrine paradigm. This is concerning the Catholic doctrine of primacy of the Roman See as well as Rome being the final court of appeal in the early Church. In discussing the topic of St. Peter’s Primacy, we will start with Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff. Fr Afanassieff was a professor of canon law and church history at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. The quotations from him and Fr. Alexander Schmemann were taken from an Orthodox source titled The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (edited by JohnMeyendorff):
[i:2omx1mr3]As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since [b:2omx1mr3]Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government.[/b:2omx1mr3] And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that [b:2omx1mr3]our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy…[/i:2omx1mr3][/b:2omx1mr3]
[i:2omx1mr3]The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. [b:2omx1mr3]So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches.[/b:2omx1mr3] Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches… Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument. [/i:2omx1mr3]
Is this accurate?