A question on Catholics view of Eastern Orthodoxy

[prodromos]

For the same reason Cyprian of Carthage said this in the mid 200s:

The Petrine ministry, which the bishop of Rome has as successor to St. Peter, is primarily to act as the visible sign of unity in the church. There is only one church, founded on Peter:

All Christian churches and traditions have maintained some degree of truth and institutional/ecclesial structures (like bishops and priests). But why settle for less? The Orthodox have maintained beautiful liturgical and spiritual practices as well as the historic faith. But the office of Pope was instituted by Christ as an essential part of that faith.

Because of Orthodoxy’s apostolic continuity, there is no reason why any Eastern Orthodox should feel they have to leave behind their spiritual, liturgical, and even theological traditions in order to claim the Pope as their own and re-join the full unity of the faith. There are Eastern Catholic traditions and churches in full communion with the church. We must pray and actively work for union between East and West.

Cyprian argued that he sat on Peter’s chair, so you are not interpreting his claims as he intended.

 

[steve_b]

Cyprian argued that he sat on Peter’s chair, so you are not interpreting his claims as he intended.

are you saying Cyprian argued that he Cyprian, sat on Peter’s chair? Do you have a reference for that, properly referenced?

 

[Rohzek]

are you saying Cyprian argued that he Cyprian, sat on Peter’s chair? Do you have a reference for that, properly referenced?

Yes, actually Cyprian explicitly argued that all sees are successors of Peter: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html

 

[prodromos]

Yes, actually Cyprian explicitly argued that all sees are successors of Peter: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html

Honestly, if they bothered to actually read Cyprian’s letters, no Catholic apologist would attempt to use His works as support for the papacy. Nothing in his writing suggest he saw the bishop of Rome on anything other than an equal footing with himself and every other bishop, and both his and Firmillian’s letters in regards to Stephen receiving heretics without baptising them puts paid to any suggestion that the bishop of Rome enjoyed any divine protection from teaching heresy.

Neither did the clergy in Rome understand anything differently, often referring to Cyprian as “pope” during the period they were themselves without a bishop.

 

[twf]

Cyprian argued that he sat on Peter’s chair, so you are not interpreting his claims as he intended.

For Catholics, it’s not necessarily mutually exclusive. Our Lord entrusted the keys to Peter in particular and the power of binding and loosing to the apostles collectively. The power of the keys is used at all levels of the Church. The local priest exercises the power of the keys when he absolves sin. Yet, the successor of Peter exercises the power of the keys in a unique manner.
The local bishop may be Peter for the local church…the Bishop of Rome is Peter for the universal Church. St Gregory the Great recognized that Alexandria and Antioch were Petrine sees and, as such, exercised primacy in Africa and Asia respectively, yet certainly professed that he exercised a unique primacy.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, actually Cyprian explicitly argued that all sees are successors of Peter: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html

I think you’re misreading Cyprian.

“The Lord speaks to Peter,3106 saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”3107 And again to the same He says, after His resurrection,” …

[snip for space]

Re: those footnotes:

• 3106 [On the falsifying of the text by Romish editors, see Elucidation II.]

My comment : anytime you see “Romish” that’s a tip off the footnote comment, is biased. Schaff is a Protestant. Keep in mind, Cyprian is a Catholic bishop. Looking at that footnote and the scripture passage it refers to, from Matthew 16:…, all we have to do is look at that passage from the Greek NT

each link is operational [the brackets are around the word “you” & “Rock/Peter”]

Mt 16:18
καγὼ δέ [σοι]](http://bibleapps.com/greek/4671.htm) λέγω ὅτι σὺ] εἶ Πέτρος ] καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

[σοι]](http://bibleapps.com/greek/4671.htm) = you, 2nd person singular, as in I Jesus (1st person singular) give you Peter, (2nd person singular)

σὺ] = you, 2nd person **singular

** Πέτρος ]=** Peter / Rock

** ἐκκλησίαν ]** = Church, **that Jesus builds on Peter

All this is said to Peter singularly. “You” is NOT plural in these passages. Only one man was Jesus talking to directly, only one man did He rename Peter/ Rock.

Footnote:

• 3107 , is still talking to Peter singularly

Mt 16:19
δώσω [σοι]](http://bibleapps.com/greek/4671.htm) τὰς κλεῖδας ] τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὁ ἐὰν δήσῃς ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὁ ἐὰν λύσῃς ] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ] ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

bracketed words for you] indicates Jesus is still talking singularly to Peter

[σοι]](http://bibleapps.com/greek/4671.htm) = you singular, as In I Jesus will give you Peter,

κλεῖδας ] the keys

δήσῃς ] whatever you Peter bind,** singular**

λύσῃς ] whatever you Peter loose, **singular

**While all the apostles are equally apostles, one apostle Peter, clearly has an exalted and unique office over the others, ergo the Church.

The rest of the answer will follow

 

[steve_b]

The rest of the answer to Rohzek forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

Concerning this link : ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html

continued from #66

"And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” 3108

my comment

“to the same” = to Peter alone

Jesus again has singled out Peter from the others. And what does Jesus tell Peter to do?

Cyprian continues (emphasis mine)

Jn 21: Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend ποίμαινε ] ]my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep."

my comment

Tend ποίμαινε ] also means to rule

Peter again, is separated from the others by Jesus and Jesus gives Peter his instructions, since it is Peter who is the leader.

Cyprian continues

“And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;”3109 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.”

my comment

Equal power to do WHAT? Forgive sins.

They are NOT equal to Peter in the Church hierarchy that Jesus established.
And I don’t think Cyprian is arguing about that either.

Cyprian continues

“Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” 3110

my comment
They all had authority and power, but ONE of them, PETER, is their leader, who is over them. And it goes without saying, Jesus expects them to follow Peter’s lead. Besides, Jesus already settled that argument the apostles were having among themselves over who is the greatest among THEM. (Lk 22) Jesus answered them and settled their argument in the upper room. Jesus said and confirmed, it was Peter who was the greatest among THEM. And it was Peter that is to help and confirm his brothers through the sifting of Satan who never gives up sifting.

 

[prodromos]

And thus steve b demonstrates clearly that he is completely ignorant of everything else Cyprian has written, following in the footsteps of Catholic apologists before him who do with the Church Fathers what Protestants often do with the Scriptures.

Congratulations steve b

 

[Rohzek]

Steve, first, your entire aside on Greek is very much meaningless. Cyprian wrote in Latin and quoted scriptures in Latin.

Second, Cyprian, if you read the letter closely, understood the keys to be the powers of binding and loosing. So when he says that all apostles have the same powers and honors like Peter, he is saying that all of them are the same. There is nothing left to distinguish Peter.

As for the Romish comment, it gives rise to caution, but no justification for dismissing the translation out of hand. Such rhetoric was part in parcel to 19th century scholarship. Furthermore, Schaff revised his translations and arguments in light of Catholic criticism, which only a sign of a true scholar, not a blind apologist.

 

[steve_b]

And thus steve b demonstrates clearly that he is completely ignorant of everything else Cyprian has written, following in the footsteps of Catholic apologists before him who do with the Church Fathers what Protestants often do with the Scriptures.

Congratulations steve b

We’re not talking about everything else Cyprian wrote, we’re talking about one writing Rohzek offered. So if you want to compare other writings of Cyprian’s to make your point, feel free to do so.

BTW, you following Orthodox apologists, never answered an old question of mine speaking of Church Fathers. When is the first time in writing, in history, we see the name “Orthodox Church” ?

Steve, first, your entire aside on Greek is very much meaningless. Cyprian wrote in Latin and quoted scriptures in Latin.

Okay that’s fair.
R:

Second, Cyprian, if you read the letter closely, understood the keys to be the powers of binding and loosing. So when he says that all apostles have the same powers and honors like Peter, he is saying that all of them are the same. There is nothing left to distinguish Peter.

looking at what he said again,

Cyprian writes
4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter,3106 saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”3107 And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.”3108

comment:
This is all to Peter. Peter receives the keys. One has to ask, why does Jesus keep addressing Peter separately? Jesus singles out Peter all the time for something He is going to do for Peter.

Cyprian continues
"And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;”3109 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.

comment:
Jesus by His authority, arranged for the “origin of that unity” and “beginning from one”, by addressing Peter directly…Peter the ‘one’ all are to be in unity with. The one Jesus said He will build His Church and give the keys to.

Cyprian continues
"Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.3110

comment:
unity with Peter is presumed.

Cyprian continues
“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 Church3112 trust that he is in the Church,”

comment:
THIS statement of Cyprian, isn’t good for ANYONE, who isn’t in union with Peter.
R:

As for the Romish comment, it gives rise to caution, but no justification for dismissing the translation out of hand. Such rhetoric was part in parcel to 19th century scholarship.

I can give you many examples where Schaff, tries to interject error via a footnote.
R:

Furthermore, Schaff revised his translations and arguments in light of Catholic criticism, which only a sign of a true scholar, not a blind apologist.

If he paid THAT kind of close attention as you describe, he wouldn’t have remained Protestant but become Catholic.

 

[prodromos]

We’re not talking about everything else Cyprian wrote, we’re talking about one writing Rohzek offered. So if you want to compare other writings of Cyprian’s to make your point, feel free to do so.

Start reading here.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.i.html
let me know when you’ve finished.

 

[steve_b]

Start reading here.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.i.html
let me know when you’ve finished.

What point(s) do you want to make?

 

[prodromos]

What point(s) do you want to make?

Same point I made in post #64

 

[steve_b]

Same point I made in post #64

What point?

neither #64 or #71 , prove anything.

 

[Rohzek]

Steve, you’re ignoring Cyprian.

Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”

1. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.

You only focus on resistance to the Church, which in fact does not presume Peter specifically at all, and then conveniently ignore the following lines thereafter.

Again, the keys are held by Cyprian to be the powers of binding and loosing. Cyprian does not view them a separate. And he explicitly says the other apostles got them. In Cyprian’s ecclesiology, the Petrine office is not distinct from other bishoprics.

If he paid THAT kind of close attention as you describe, he wouldn’t have remained Protestant but become Catholic.

So only Catholics can be scholars? What sort of joke is this?

 

[twf]

Steve, you’re ignoring Cyprian.

You only focus on resistance to the Church, which in fact does not presume Peter specifically at all, and then conveniently ignore the following lines thereafter.

Again, the keys are held by Cyprian to be the powers of binding and loosing. Cyprian does not view them a separate. And he explicitly says the other apostles got them. In Cyprian’s ecclesiology, the Petrine office is not distinct from other bishoprics.

So only Catholics can be scholars? What sort of joke is this?

As I mentioned earlier, Catholics refer to the local priest exercising the power of the keys in the confessional…so no Catholics should disagree with what you write here. We do believe that St Peter exercised a special primacy, but the entire Church exercises the power of the keys.

 

[steve_b]

Steve, you’re ignoring Cyprian.

You only focus on resistance to the Church, which in fact does not presume Peter specifically at all, and then conveniently ignore the following lines thereafter.

Again, the keys are held by Cyprian to be the powers of binding and loosing. Cyprian does not view them a separate. And he explicitly says the other apostles got them. In Cyprian’s ecclesiology, the Petrine office is not distinct from other bishoprics.

Here is an examination of Cyprian’s thinking based on his writings and quotes, and also what other Catholic bishops closer to his time, said about his writings

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num44.htm
R:

So only Catholics can be scholars? What sort of joke is this?

you’re soooooo dramatic

A large number of converts to the Catholic Church, include in their stories, reading the ECF’S that led them home to the Catholic Church.

Therefore, when I said

Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*If he (Schaff) paid THAT kind of close attention as you describe, he wouldn’t have remained Protestant but become Catholic.
*
THAT is the basis for my comment

 

[steve_b]

As I mentioned earlier, Catholics refer to the local priest exercising the power of the keys in the confessional…so no Catholics should disagree with what you write here. We do believe that St Peter exercised a special primacy, but the entire Church exercises the power of the keys.

Re: the keys and what the Church teaches

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=keys&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

note: of those 9 entries, these qualification mentioned in the following

567 , Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

881 , under the primacy of the Pope.

1444, united to its head

 

[prodromos]

Here is an examination of Cyprian’s thinking based on his writings and quotes, and also what other Catholic bishops closer to his time, said about his writings

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num44.htm

I assume it must comfort you to read what other Catholics have to say about Cyprian rather than actually reading Cyprian for yourself.

 

[Rohzek]

Here is an examination of Cyprian’s thinking based on his writings and quotes, and also what other Catholic bishops closer to his time, said about his writings

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num44.htm

you’re soooooo dramatic

A large number of converts to the Catholic Church, include in their stories, reading the ECF’S that led them home to the Catholic Church.

Therefore, when I said

Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*If he (Schaff) paid THAT kind of close attention as you describe, he wouldn’t have remained Protestant but become Catholic.
*
THAT is the basis for my comment

The only problem with your link to the Catholic apologetics page concerning Cyprian is that almost all of its quotes/evidence of pro-papal sentiments are interpolations. In other words, they aren’t original to the work. They were added centuries later.

See both note 3110 of Schaff and my comments about it:

Take note that Cyprian explicitly states that the rest of the apostles were given like authority of both power and honor. Now many of my Catholic readers might notice something missing in this translation that I have taken from the CCEL above. Notably, the following words are missing from the excerpt:

**And the primacy is given to Peter, that there might be shown one Church of Christ and one See; and they are all shepherds, and the Rock is one, which is fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent.

He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded.**

According to footnotes 3110 and 3112 of the CCEL translation, the above excerpts are interpolated and spurious. In other words, it is missing from the earliest of manuscripts. I encourage the reader to click on the linked translation above and check the footnote for themselves…So let us look at the original Latin in the Patrologia Latina:

Hoc erant utique et caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et testatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur. Et pastores sunt omnes, et grex unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur, ut Ecclesia Christi una monstretur. Quam unam Ecclesiam etiam in Cantico canticorum Spiritus sanctus ex persona Domini designat et dicit: Una est columba mea, perfecta mea, una est matri suae, electa genitrici suae(Cant. VI, 9). Hanc Ecclesiae unitiatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit? Qui Ecclesiae renititur et resistit, qui cathedram Petri, super quem fundata est Ecclesia, deserit, in Ecclesia se [Col.0501A] esse confidit? quando et beatus apostolus Paulus hoc idem doceat et sacramentum unitatis ostendat dicens: Unum corpus et unus spiritus, una spes vocationis vestrae, unus Dominus, una fides, unum Baptisma, unus Deus(Ephes. IV, 4-6).

The bold underlined blue segments are the interpolated and spurious additions to the text. The footnote linked to the portions state the following:

Uncinis includuntur haec verba ac spuria in notis dicuntur ab edd.

Within the brackets these words are included, and are said to be spurious in the notes by the editor.

et plures edd. Resistit, in Ecclesia Oxon.,

Many editors [have] “resists the Church, confesses to be in the Church himself?”

And if anyone doubts the sincerity of the editor referenced in the PL, his name was Étiene Baluze, an 18th-century Catholic secretary to a French archbishop. He also had minor orders. So any accusation of bias against him is unfounded. It would have been in his interest not to acknowledge the spurious interpolation.