1 Corinthians 1:10-13

[Good_Fella]

In the first few hundred years of the church the rock/petra was often interpreted to be Peter’s confession of faith in Christ or Christ Himself.

I doubt it, simply by the fact that the Church Fathers knew their Greek.

As I said, Peter did not say “I believe you are the Christ…” but “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Peter’s declaration communicated a divine revelation from the Father. It wasn’t a personal profession of faith. Nor was this revelation granted to the other apostles at any time. By calling Peter “Rock”, our Lord was drawing a distinction between personal faith and the divinely constituted ability to infallibly transmit God’s word. Simon’s new name applied to the office he would hold and not to him who would be holding this office. This office would be established upon Divine protection and intervention, not on Peter’s personal faith. What he personally believed couldn’t be a guarantee that it was true or real. In his book The Biblical Basis for the Papacy, John Salza tells us that Jesus affirmed this distinction by conferring the name of Peter on Simon in response to the title he gave to our Lord. “Since Simon Peter declared a truth about the person of Jesus (calling him the “Christ”), Jesus declared a truth about the person of Simon Peter (calling him the “rock”). Therefore, when Jesus said that He would build his church ‘upon this rock’ (v.18), He was referring to the person of Peter, not his faith.” ‘Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen’ (Heb 11:1). This definition of faith applies to all believers. But Peter didn’t simply believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, but actually knew it. Peter wasn’t blessed for having seen and believed, which nullifies having faith, but rather for having received a direct revelation from God. So, Jesus designated Peter and not any faith of his as the rock foundation of his Church. His newly acquired office would ensure that our Lord’s Church would be built on solid rock: the gift of infallibility.

Jesus said that he would build his Church “upon this rock”, meaning Peter by the new name he had just given him. This name redefined his person and designated the gift he had just received. Mr. Salza informs us that the Greek for this expression is* epi tautee tee petra*. If Jesus had said, “upon the rock” (epi tee petra) or “upon a rock” (epi petra) the referent would have been less clear and could have pointed to someone or something other than Peter, viz., his faith. The Greek word tautee is a demonstrative adjective that means “this”, that which was just referred to, viz., “rock” (petra). The demonstrative adjective requires “a referent to complete the connection between it and what it is describing.” Because of what Jesus actually said, the referent can only be to Peter himself who was given his new name. It can’t be his faith, because Jesus never mentioned he had faith. Jesus didn’t mention faith at all. Peter was blessed for having received a clear vision from the Father. He didn’t assent to anything in faith by the inspiration of divine grace as all true believers do by not seeing but believing what they feel should be believed because it was right. Peter certainly didn’t hope Jesus was the Christ either. He actually knew it.

Moreover, the conjunction “and” (kai) further strengthens the connection between “Peter” in the first clause and “rock” in the second clause. The conjunction serves to join the noun “Peter” with the demonstrative adjective “this”. Simon Peter is this rock. Faith isn’t a person, but a virtue or an aspect of a believer. The personal pronoun “you” refers to Peter himself, and the demonstrative adjective refers back to the person who is clearly mentioned and not some unknown thing or aspect about the person. Jesus turned the dialogue upon the person of Peter after he confessed the revelation he had received. Simon was named “Rock” and upon “this” person who was given the name, Jesus would build his Church. The new name Simon received designated the divine office he would assume and not some personal aspect of his.

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I read through many of the quotes, but not all of them. I am unable to find the complete writings for some of the quotes. I find that lists of quotes are helpful leads, but unless you can read the context of what was being written about, it is easy to be deceived.

The extracts I provided are sufficient enough to show what the context is. Peter is the rock - not his faith. It’s explicitly spelled out.

This is a bit more of the quote:

“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you, and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound, in accordance with true salvation;”
newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm

Tertullian believed that Peter was given the keys, but he clearly did not believe that they were passed on to successors. Wasn’t this written to the Bishop of Rome (Callistus)? These 2 had a complicated disagreement. I do not think that this quote supports that Tertullian thought that the Bishops of Rome carried on a status of “Rock” or personally had Peter’s keys.

First of all, the Church as Christ intended it to be structured didn’t come to an end with the death of Peter or any of the apostles. When Jesus commissioned his apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations, he said that he would “be with them until the end of time” (Matt 28:20). By saying “them” he included all those who would succeed them in the divine office. With regard to Tertullian, this excerpt is an attack on Pope Callistus because he wrote this after 218. The orthodoxy of Callistus was challenged by both Hippolytus and Tertullian on the ground that he granted Holy Communion after due penance to those who had committed adultery and fornication. Callistus based his decree in an edict on the power of binding and loosing granted to Peter, to his successors, and to all in communion with them. But the Pope didn’t grant Communion without due sacramental reconciliation and penance. The Catholic Church sided with Callistus against the schismatic Hippolytus (who later recanted) and the heretic Tertullian, for the Pope was regarded as Peter’s successor in his Pontificate. Tertullian joined the heretical Montanist sect in 206 and was separated from the Church by 211. He merely voiced his own opinion seven years later out of communion with the Church. I agree, things should be taken into their proper context lest we deceive ourselves.

Origen did think that Peter was the first rock of the church. He did not think this was something that Peter and successive Bishops of Rome had alone. He believed that all Christians after Peter became rocks. I do not see that Origen believed that the Bishops of Rome had any special role above other bishops passed down from Peter.

“And if we too have said like Peter, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, You are Peter, etc. (Matthew 16:18) For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, (1 Corinthians 10:4) and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.”
Origen’s Commentary on Matthew Book XII Chapter 10

1 Peter 2:5

What Origen is saying does reflect what Peter writes in his First Epistle 2:5 : ‘You also, as living stones, are built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.’ Yet he clearly understood the distinction between the ordained ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of all believers. And he certainly knew that validly ordained priests by the laying on of hands of the bishops were successors of the apostles in their priestly office. The Catholic Church has never seen herself as purely pneumatic.

So, too, the apostles, and those who have become like apostles, being priests according to the Great High Priest and having received knowledge of the service of God, know under the Spirit’s teaching for which sins, and when, and how they ought to offer sacrifices, and recognize for which they ought not to do so.
Origen, On Prayer ch 18 (185-254 A.D.)

:heaven:

 

[susanlo]

Irenaeus of Lyon, second century bishop, wrote the following:

(Note thatLinuswas the second pope after Peter, Cletus was third, and Clement of Rome was fourth).

1.It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; andwe are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;*those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

------------------------------shortened for space----------------------------------------------

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

I have seen this writing cited many times. It does show that the church in Rome was of primary importance in the early centuries. He says it would be too tedious to list the succession of all of the apostolic churches, so he gives the succession of the church in Rome. In paragraph 4 of this chapter he singles out Marcion and Valentinus as heretics who were both preaching in Rome. This was a center of activity in the region and where many heretics were preaching so it makes sense that he lists Rome’s succession first. In Paragraph 4 he mentions the churches in Smyrna and Ephesus which were also founded by Apostles and continue to teach what the Apostles taught.

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

I don’t know if in the original language for “preeminent authority” means that the leader of the church in Rome had authority or control over the other churches. (Authority - 1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine. ) Or if it means that it is an established source of what the Apostles taught (Authority - 5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the leading authority on vaccines and immunizations.) - dictionary.com/browse/authority?s=t
The fact that the topic of this chapter is how to know what is true and what isn’t, as opposed to who is the leader to settle disputes, I would think that the accepted source definition would be more fitting. I wonder if there is any source that shows more details about the original language and context for the word ‘authority.’

Anyway, he claims that Rome is important because it is “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” He does not write that the church in Rome is one to follow because the Bishop of Rome was the holder of the keys passed on by Peter. In fact his understanding of history shows that Peter and Paul founded the church and then put Linus in charge. So, Irenaeus believed that Peter (and Paul) made someone else the Bishop of Rome and then moved on. Therefore, according to Irenaeus, at the time of Peter’s death, Peter couldn’t have been the Bishop of Rome – Linus was. So if Peter was alive and Linus was the Bishop of Rome, which one was the Pope? History can become confused really quickly. Paul’s letter to the Romans kind of calls into question whether Paul actually founded the church as Irenaeus claims. In Paul’s letter to the established church in Rome he says he has never been there. But, did Irenaeus think that one single person held “keys” from Matthew 16:19 as Peter’s singular direct successor? Who did he think it was? He never mentions Matthew 16:18-19 in all of this massive writing.

 

[rcwitness]

I have seen this writing cited many times.

I figured!

It does show that the church in Rome was of primary importance in the early centuries. He says it would be too tedious to list the succession of all of the apostolic churches, so he gives the succession of the church in Rome.

Ok, so succession is very important to him, right? Is it important to you?

In paragraph 4 of this chapter he singles out Marcion and Valentinus as heretics who were both preaching in Rome. This was a center of activity in the region and where many heretics were preaching so it makes sense that he lists Rome’s succession first.

Hmmm… I think you are trying to reduce Rome’s position simply because there are practical reasons for Rome to be important.

In Paragraph 4 he mentions the churches in Smyrna and Ephesus which were also founded by Apostles and continue to teach what the Apostles taught.

I take that as meaning, these churches were in Communion with Rome, and not in opposition to doctrine.

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, in as much as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Definition of preeminent

: having paramount rank, dignity, or importance: outstanding, supreme

I don’t know if in the original language for “preeminent authority” means that the leader of the church in Rome had authority or control over the other churches. (Authority - 1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine. ) Or if it means that it is an established source of what the Apostles taught (Authority - 5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the leading authority on vaccines and immunizations.) - dictionary.com/browse/authority?s=t
The fact that the topic of this chapter is how to know what is true and what isn’t, as opposed to who is the leader to settle disputes, I would think that the accepted source definition would be more fitting. I wonder if there is any source that shows more details about the original language and context for the word ‘authority.’

Sure, I can appreciate wanting to know more about the original language here.

Anyway, he claims that Rome is important because it is “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” He does not write that the church in Rome is one to follow because the Bishop of Rome was the holder of the keys passed on by Peter.

preeminent authority and keys, are one and the same.

In fact his understanding of history shows that Peter and Paul founded the church and then put Linus in charge. So, Irenaeus believed that Peter (and Paul) made someone else the Bishop of Rome and then moved on. Therefore, according to Irenaeus, at the time of Peter’s death, Peter couldn’t have been the Bishop of Rome – Linus was. So if Peter was alive and Linus was the Bishop of Rome, which one was the Pope? History can become confused really quickly. Paul’s letter to the Romans kind of calls into question whether Paul actually founded the church as Irenaeus claims. In Paul’s letter to the established church in Rome he says he has never been there. But, did Irenaeus think that one single person held “keys” from Matthew 16:19 as Peter’s singular direct successor? Who did he think it was? He never mentions Matthew 16:18-19 in all of this massive writing.

That’s an interesting claim. And it may even be one that is not opposed to Catholic Teaching! IOWs, it may be an acceptable understanding of the Succession of St Linus from St Peter. Peter may have ordained/installed Linus just before heading towards his martyrdom. I’m just not sure we know these details, or if there is an official position by the Church.

But remember, there is a difference between a Bishop and an Apostle. Peter did not make Linus an Apostle.

 

[James248]

Maybe Linus’s situation was the same as James’s. Since the Apostles’ mission was not geared toward only Jerusalem, then the Church in Jerusalem was governed by James. So Linus may have been bishop of Rome, but still took authority from Peter.

 

[Good_Fella]

This is the edition that is generally accepted by scholars. He clearly shows how the church has a symbolic unity in Peter, but that all apostles had equal honor and power.

You’re forcing your own interpretation on the text and denying what is actually stated in explicit terms. Cyprian is explaining how Church unity can be preserved.

1. On Peter Jesus builds his church.
   2.To Peter (not the Twelve) Jesus gives the command to feed his sheep.
2. The apostles have a share in Peter’s authority, yet a universal chair is assigned to Peter for the sake of Church unity.
3. The apostles are also given authority, but a primacy of authority is given to Peter.
4. There is but one Church because there is but one chair - the chair of Peter. (in the Old Covenant there was but one chair - the chair of Moses. The New fulfills the Old.)
5. All the apostles are shepherds and the flock are shown to be one by virtue of the one chair.
6. This one chair of Peter is the source of unity.
7. Those (especially bishops) who fail to hold to the unity of Peter are unfaithful.
8. Those who abandon the chair of Peter are out of communion with the Church.

This is Cyprians view of the episcopal college: On the local level, the “one Chair” is held by the local bishop. And on the regional level, the “one Chair” is held by the regional bishop (or metropolitan, which was Cyprian’s office as Bishop of Carthage: Metropolitan of all Africa and Numidia). But on the universal level, the “one Chair” is held by Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome. This was the “PRINCIPAL CHURCH,” as Cyprian calls it, in which “SACEDOTAL UNITY has its source” (Epistle 59:14).

“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 , 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*

At one point Cyprian gathered 87 bishops in Northern Africa to a council in relation to a disagreement with Bishop of Rome, Stephen. In the council the bishops write that:

“It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops

, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

I don’t think Cyprian taught that the Roman Bishop had supremacy over other bishops.

The saying “neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,” refers to the bishops attending the council not to force any other bishop in Northern Africa to go along with re-baptism. It has nothing to do with the Pope and his primacy of authority. Cyprian specifically stated that he was not attempting to impose his opinion regarding re-baptism on Bishop Jubaianus. Moreover, the deliberations of the Council of Carthage were sent to Pope Steven for approval. If the Pope had no universal jurisdiction over the Church, no deliberations would have been sent to him at all. This was a regional council but, nevertheless, the deliberations had to conform with what the entire Catholic Church taught and practiced in unity. (We don’t find this in Protestantism.) Having received the deliberations, the Pope rejected them. He made it very clear that Catholic doctrine was once baptized, always baptized, provided the proper Trinitarian formula was applied. But this wasn’t the issue. The Pope not only forbade re-baptisms but also threatened excommunication to those who performed them. By doing this, he asserted that he was the successor to St. Peter, about whom Cyprian had written about so glowingly six years earlier in 252: “When a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.” In any event, the African bishops amended their decision to re-baptize and sent a new decree to the Pope for his validation. You won’t find the whole story on anti-Catholic websites. The history there is edited.

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

In interest of time and space I won’t go through the rest of the quotes on this post. Yes, while most of the early theologians state that the rock /petra was Peter’s faith in Christ, some say that the petra was Peter. However, none state that this role of petra/rock has 1 direct successor in the Bishop of Rome. It is easy to look back in hindsight and see support for what we have come to believe. But when we look at the facts of history alone is there a strong enough case?

What can be stronger than facts? Certainly not historical revisionism that contradicts the facts. The fact is the Catholic Church has Apostolic succession. Or do you suppose the Church Fathers and Fathers of the Councils were ignorant of the fact? In other words, the same Church was ignorant about herself?

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."
Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."
Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342)

“Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons…For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.”
Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347)

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.”
Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367)

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”
Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375)

“Number the bishops from the** See of Peter** itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail”
Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393)

“The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms.”
Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429)

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.”
Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431)

“The great and holy and universal Synod…in the metropolis of Chalcedon…to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo…being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all…and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness…”
Chalcdeon to Pope Leo, Epistle 98:1-2 (A.D. 451)

:heaven:

 

[James248]

Maybe Linus’s situation was the same as James’s. Since the Apostles’ mission was not geared toward only Jerusalem, then the Church in Jerusalem was governed by James. So Linus may have been bishop of Rome, but still took authority from Peter.

Anyone want to correct my supposition.

 

[rcwitness]

Anyone want to correct my supposition.

An Apostle always had more authority than a bishop. But the Bishop of Rome is always able to provide a right judgment, even if an Apostle was still living.

I think Rome was appealed to, even though St John was living. It was probably done as not to trouble the Saint. Better to take it to a young and more active authority.

 

[James248]

An Apostle always had more authority than a bishop. But the Bishop of Rome is always able to provide a right judgment, even if an Apostle was still living.

I think Rome was appealed to, even though St John was living. It was probably done as not to trouble the Saint. Better to take it to a young and more active authority.

I think John probably operated as a retired bishop/cardinal.

 

[rcwitness]

I think John probably operated as a retired bishop/cardinal.

Well, he was forced to go to Patmos, right? And there He wrote the final Scriptures

 

[susanlo]

Ok, so succession is very important to him, right? Is it important to you?

Yes, I agree that tracing the source of teaching being presented is important. Being able to trace through the succession of bishops allowed one to know whether the leader of the church that was teaching had learned the information from an authentic source. At this time there were Gnostics who were preaching information that was outside of the Scripture and Christian teaching. These men were saying that they were given a special source of teaching right from the Apostles that only they had access to. Irenaeus says that “if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.” I see no reason to disagree with this. It sounds like he was ‘credentialing’ the leaders. (He was not speaking of the succession of special sacramental powers that were limited to certain people inside the church. This type of succession I don’t agree with or see him mention.)

Definition of preeminent

: having paramount rank, dignity, or importance: outstanding, supreme

preeminent authority and keys, are one and the same.

Preeminent authority and keys may be defined the same way by you, but they aren’t necessarily the same. He is talking about doctrines and teachings. If we had a question about a specific area of science, for example, we would find a professor in an established university who is the “preeminent authority” on that area of study. That professor would be well-known and trusted on this topic and be able to speak with ‘authority’ to resolve our question. This professor would not be an authority in the sense that he is in charge of all scientists in all universities/labs all over the world. Was Rome the ruler of all of the churches in the world? Or was it the most well-known and reliable source of true doctrine?

Why didn’t Irenaeus say that Peter came back some time later after giving Linus the office of the episcopate and transferred the ‘keys?’ If Irenaeus had believed that Peter had the ability to teach infallibly and that was clearly passed on through the Bishops of Rome, why didn’t he just say that? It would have made his books a lot shorter. I don’t think it was that clear at that time.

 

[susanlo]

You’re forcing your own interpretation on the text and denying what is actually stated in explicit terms. Cyprian is explaining how Church unity can be preserved.

1. On Peter Jesus builds his church.
   2.To Peter (not the Twelve) Jesus gives the command to feed his sheep.
2. The apostles have a share in Peter’s authority, yet a universal chair is assigned to Peter for the sake of Church unity.
3. The apostles are also given authority, but a primacy of authority is given to Peter.
4. There is but one Church because there is but one chair - the chair of Peter. (in the Old Covenant there was but one chair - the chair of Moses. The New fulfills the Old.)
5. All the apostles are shepherds and the flock are shown to be one by virtue of the one chair.
6. This one chair of Peter is the source of unity.
7. Those (especially bishops) who fail to hold to the unity of Peter are unfaithful.
8. Those who abandon the chair of Peter are out of communion with the Church.

This is Cyprians view of the episcopal college: On the local level, the “one Chair” is held by the local bishop. And on the regional level, the “one Chair” is held by the regional bishop (or metropolitan, which was Cyprian’s office as Bishop of Carthage: Metropolitan of all Africa and Numidia). But on the universal level, the “one Chair” is held by Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome. This was the “PRINCIPAL CHURCH,” as Cyprian calls it, in which “SACEDOTAL UNITY has its source” (Epistle 59:14).

“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 , 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*

We are reading 2 different versions of the same writing. I am unable to find the complete 1st edition that you are quoting from. I only see pieces of the 1st edition posted on Catholic websites. CCEL, New Advent and other sources only have the 2nd edition which I posted from. The meanings of the 2 writings are very different.

You mentioned the chair of Moses. There was actually a ‘chair of Moses’ in every synagogue. That was where Scripture was read from. It wasn’t a singular chair.
Good Fella;14492630:

The saying “neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,” refers to the bishops attending the council not to force any other bishop in Northern Africa to go along with re-baptism. It has nothing to do with the Pope and his primacy of authority. Cyprian specifically stated that he was not attempting to impose his opinion regarding re-baptism on Bishop Jubaianus. Moreover, the deliberations of the Council of Carthage were sent to Pope Steven for approval. If the Pope had no universal jurisdiction over the Church, no deliberations would have been sent to him at all. This was a regional council but, nevertheless, the deliberations had to conform with what the entire Catholic Church taught and practiced in unity. (We don’t find this in Protestantism.) Having received the deliberations, the Pope rejected them. He made it very clear that Catholic doctrine was once baptized, always baptized, provided the proper Trinitarian formula was applied. But this wasn’t the issue. The Pope not only forbade re-baptisms but also threatened excommunication to those who performed them. By doing this, he asserted that he was the successor to St. Peter, about whom Cyprian had written about so glowingly six years earlier in 252: “When a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.” In any event, the African bishops amended their decision to re-baptize and sent a new decree to the Pope for his validation. You won’t find the whole story on anti-Catholic websites. The history there is edited.

Well, Cyprian and Stephen had a very heated debate and never agreed on the issue. I think it took another century or so for the churches in North Africa to change how they handled re-baptism. It doesn’t seem Cyprian believed that there was any reason to follow what the church in Rome was doing, yet he is a 'S’aint.

 

[James248]

Well, he was forced to go to Patmos, right? And there He wrote the final Scriptures

Retired cardinals and bishops are still pretty active…they just don’t oversee dioceses.

 

[Good_Fella]

We are reading 2 different versions of the same writing… The meanings of the 2 writings are very different.

“4… you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church.… I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven… the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whosoever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosoever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21** yet, that He might set forth unity,…the origin of that unity, as beginning from one… **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? **
Ephesians 4:4

“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 , 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

The wording is different, but the meaning is the same.

You mentioned the chair of Moses. There was actually a ‘chair of Moses’ in every synagogue. That was where Scripture was read from. It wasn’t a singular chair.

God gave Moses a revelation. Moses then communicated this revelation of God to the people of Israel as directed. By doing this, God appointed Moses over the house of Israel, giving him authority over His covenant people. Moses rendered God’s judgments from his chair (Ex 18: 13-16). Also, God directed Moses to pass on the authority he was given to successors (Joshua, the judges, prophets. and finally the Sanhedrin). Thus, at the time of Jesus, the scribes and the Pharisees were the successors of Moses and the appointed teachers of Israel. The chair of Moses represented their authority to interpret and expound the Mosaic law. They stood up when reading the Scriptures, but then sat down to expound on what was read. In the synagogue, the elders who were appointed to sit in the chair would receive special graces so that God’s infallible word would be communicated to the people of Israel.

In the Catholic Church, the chair of Peter is occupied only by each Roman bishop who has succeeded the apostle. Not unlike Moses, Peter received a revelation from God. And like the scribes and Pharisees who were appointed to sit in the chair of Moses as his successors, the Roman bishops who succeeded Peter were also given the power to bind and loose sitting in his chair (Matt 16:18-19). Like Moses, Peter had the power to render the judgment of God, as would those who succeeded him and occupied his chair. Like Moses, Peter was the appointed interpreter of God’s word, as would all his successors sitting in his chair (cf. 2 Pet 3:16). Moses nourished the Israelites with water from the rock, just as Peter would nourish the Catholic faithful by being the rock of the Church. Typologically, and in principle, there is a connection between the chair of Moses and the chair of Peter, albeit the differences in ecclesiastical structure. I’m unsure whether the elders of the synagogue occupied the chair of Moses one person at a time or simultaneously exchanged places by rotating after each service. Yet Joshua and the judges who succeeded Moses occupied the chair singly. The prophets never actually sat in the chair, but they rendered God’s judgments and expounded the law with the authority of Moses. Their authority was invested in them by the chair of Moses.

In every Catholic Archdiocese, there is a cathedral, meaning the church with the chair. In all cathedrals there is a chair at the centre behind the altar which is ordinarily occupied by the Archbishop of that archdiocese. The cathedral in Rome is St. John Lateran. The Pope sits in the chair here when exercising his regional authority as the Archbishop of Rome. But when he exercises his universal authority as Chief Shepherd and the Vicar of Christ, he occupies the chair of Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica.

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Well, Cyprian and Stephen had a very heated debate and never agreed on the issue. I think it took another century or so for the churches in North Africa to change how they handled re-baptism. It doesn’t seem Cyprian believed that there was any reason to follow what the church in Rome was doing, yet he is a Saint.

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."
Cyprian, To Pope Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252)

“There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another.”
Cyprian, Letter 66 (69), 8 to Florentius Pupianus, (c. AD 254)

Cyprian never questioned the primacy of the Petrine office or the church at Rome, but was critical of one person who held this office. He thought Stephen to be unworthy of the chair of Peter. Before the rebaptism controversy ever started, Cyprian had in fact appealed to Pope Stephen to excommunicate a bishop in Gaul on a matter he perceived to be a heresy (Novatianism). This clearly shows that Cyprian recognized the bishop of Rome’s prerogative to hand out a sentence of excommunication to other bishops outside his temporal jurisdiction, viz., the Pontifical office. Unfortunately, he dismissed Stephen’s universal authority where the bishops of North Africa were concerned. Still, it could be because he regarded this matter to be a question of discipline rather than doctrine. On matters of discipline, unless there is a universally prescribed canon, regional bishops did have the final word in their own particular churches. Thus, Cyprian may have felt that the Pope was overstepping his authority and abusing his Petrine office (absolutism). Moreover, Stephen’s warning of excommunication must have incensed Cyprian. He may have felt that the Pope was acting too unilaterally and not as collegially as he should by first opening a dialogue between the Holy See at Rome and the North African episcopacy.

Mind you, not all, but a large minority of bishops along with Cyprian defied the Papal decree. And by doing so they violated Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicae ll : "Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according tot he following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Catharia or Aristeri, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation of their errors and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, ‘The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ But Eunomians…, Montanists, Phrygians, and Sabellians, and other heresies…all these…we receive as heathen…" This Canon includes the Novatians (here Cathari), who were the very ones whose valid baptisms Cyprian denied. So Pope Stephen couldn’t have exceeded his authority. As the universal pastor of the Church, he was responsible to ensure that ecclesiastical law was observed everywhere. The Catholic Church (East-West) in general sided with Pope Stephen, as did the close majority of bishops in North Africa. It was within 90 years at the most that all the bishops in North Africa finally conceded. Cyprian was canonized a saint because he died a martyr. Augustine felt that this atoned for his disobedience to the Pope.

:heaven:

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, I agree that tracing the source of teaching being presented is important. Being able to trace through the succession of bishops allowed one to know whether the leader of the church that was teaching had learned the information from an authentic source. At this time there were Gnostics who were preaching information that was outside of the Scripture and Christian teaching. These men were saying that they were given a special source of teaching right from the Apostles that only they had access to. Irenaeus says that “if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.” I see no reason to disagree with this. It sounds like he was ‘credentialing’ the leaders. (He was not speaking of the succession of special sacramental powers that were limited to certain people inside the church. This type of succession I don’t agree with or see him mention.)

Here is a more specific statement from him (which I know you have seen ):
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest —Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans8, J.R. Willis translation.

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —*Letter to the Smyrnaeans6:2–7:1

Preeminent authority and keys may be defined the same way by you, but they aren’t necessarily the same. He is talking about doctrines and teachings. If we had a question about a specific area of science, for example, we would find a professor in an established university who is the “preeminent authority” on that area of study. That professor would be well-known and trusted on this topic and be able to speak with ‘authority’ to resolve our question. This professor would not be an authority in the sense that he is in charge of all scientists in all universities/labs all over the world. Was Rome the ruler of all of the churches in the world? Or was it the most well-known and reliable source of true doctrine?

I’m sure I could create an example that would use authority the way we understand it. But I don’t think that will convince you that is what Ignatius meant. Remember, the authority of the Pope is not above Law. It has lawful conditions. He does not just say whatever he wants. He cannot Teach something contrary to the Lord, or what the Fathers, and Councils, and previous Pope’s have established before him. Not to mention, Ex-Cathedra has lawful conditions too. Not all writings and statement are equal in authority.

 

[Good_Fella]

A blessed Feast of the Chair of St. Peter to all!

Beloved:
I exhort the presbyters among you,
as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ
and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed.
Tend the flock of God in your midst,
overseeing not by constraint but willingly,
as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly.
Do not lord it over those assigned to you,
but be examples to the flock.
And when the chief Shepherd is revealed,
you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
1 Peter 5, 1-4

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi
he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter said in reply,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16, 13-19



thomryng.com/amateurmonk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Berninis-Chair-of-Peter.jpg

 

[James248]

A blessed Feast of the Chair of St. Peter to all!

Beloved:
I exhort the presbyters among you,
as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ
and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed.
Tend the flock of God in your midst,
overseeing not by constraint but willingly,
as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly.
Do not lord it over those assigned to you,
but be examples to the flock.
And when the chief Shepherd is revealed,
you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
1 Peter 5, 1-4

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi
he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter said in reply,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16, 13-19



thomryng.com/amateurmonk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Berninis-Chair-of-Peter.jpg

Beat me to it.

 

[Good_Fella]

Beat me to it.

This was from both of us.