Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[RyanBlack]

The evidence is there to prove the Catholic position.

When you interpret the evidence from a perspective that doesn’t even consider any other possible outcome but the Catholic position, then of course there is evidence to prove the Catholic position.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ryan-

Scripture tells that there is one flock and one shepherd, correct? Jesus is the Good Shepherd and we are his sheep.

But what happens at the end of John’s Gospel? Jesus tells Peter to tend and feed the sheep. Who tends and feeds sheep? A shepherd.

So, just prior to ascending to heaven, Jesus appoints Peter as the vicarious shepherd who is responsible for feeding and watching over Jesus’ flock.

Now, tie this in with what we know about Jesus giving Peter the keys as the Royal Steward (an office that continued in perpetuity even in the Davidic kingdom of ancient Judah), and we see that Peter is not merely “first among equals” but in charge of the household and flock of Jesus until His return.

This argument all proceeds from a set of assumptions about the texts that predetermine the outcome. That’s not to say that your particular outcome is wrong. I take these arguments seriously, I’m just not sure that they are correct.

 

[steve_b]

Eastern Orthodox recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as holding a primacy of honor. That means that he can call pan-Orthodox Councils and preside himself or through his representative. However, he must abide by the decisions of these councils and has no veto power over them. He is not considered infallible and cannot on his own authority make pronouncements on the doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Even within his own patriarchate, he must abide by the decisions of the Holy Synod of Constantinople on all important matters. He also has no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy.

iow, 1st among equals (aka, primacy of honor) is a title with nothing behind it.
f:

That is the position that the Bishop of Rome had before the schism and the position that he would have in the event of reunion between Rome and Orthodoxy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Historically, Re: 1st among equals, or any equalization of the chair of Peter via a “patriarchal” system, see the following

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[steve_b]

When you interpret the evidence from a perspective that doesn’t even consider any other possible outcome but the Catholic position, then of course there is evidence to prove the Catholic position.

Every subject is about presenting evidence for one’s position…agreed?

 

[steve_b]

Now it is, I think, both necessary and profitable for us to know what the occasion was which led our Saviour’s words to this point. The blessed disciples then had been disputing with one another, “which of them was the great one:”

And we know who got them into this dispute. Jesus told them it was Satan.
C:

but the Saviour of all, as the means whereby they obtained whatsoever was useful and necessary for their good, delivered them from the guilt of ambition, by putting away from them the striving after objects such as this, and persuading them to escape from the lust of preeminence, as from a pitfall of the devil.

• Did Peter strive for the position Jesus gave him? No. There is no evidence Peter did that.
• The mother of James and John otoh, lobbied for her sons to sit on Jesus right and left hand. Positions of authority.

How did Jesus settle the apostles dispute in the upper room? Again…and it has to be stressed that AGAIN Jesus names Peter as He’s done all the times previous to this. Peter is the leader. We already know this before this episode even takes place.
C:

For He said, “he who is great among you, let him be as the youngest, and he who governs as he that serves.”

One of the titles of the pope is “servant of the servants”

As far as “governs” in your quote, the Greek word there is [ἡγούμενος (http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm)

Definition: from that link (be sure and open that link)

• to lead,
  a. to go before; b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: in particular ἡγούμενος, a prince, of regal power (Ezekiel 43:7 for מֶלֶך; Sir. 17:17), Matthew 2:6; a (royal) governor, viceroy, Acts 7:10; chief, Luke 22:26 (opposed to ὁ διακονῶν); leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, ἐν τισί, among any, Acts 15:22; with the genitive of the person over whom one rules, so of the overseers or leaders of Christian churches: Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 (οἴκου, 2 Chronicles 31:13; τῶν πατριῶν, 1 Esdr. 5:65 (66), 67 (68); τῆς πόλεως, Judges 9:51 Alex.; a military leader, 1 Macc. 9:30; 2 Macc. 14:16; used also in Greek writings of any kind of a leader, chief, commander, Sophocles Phil. 386; often in Polybius; Diodorus 1, 4 and 72; Lucian, Alex. 44; others); with the genitive of the thing, τοῦ λόγου, the leader in speech, chief speaker, spokesman: Acts 14:12 of Mercury, who is called also τοῦ λόγου ἡγεμών in Jamblichus’ de myster., at the beginning

There’s alot to that word. Therefore, this does NOT suggest Peter is just 1st among equals as the Orthodox say. This definition IMV destroys that notion. Jesus gave Peter the authority to do what He asks Peter to do. And the apostles are here listening to this so there is no confusion among THEM on what Jesus is saying.

Gee, looking at that description of govern / rule, it sure looks like the papacy to me
C:

And He further taught them that the season of honour is not so much this present time as that which is to be at the coming of His kingdom. For there they shall receive the rewards of their fidelity, and be partakers of His eternal glory, and wear a crown of surpassing honour, eating at His table, and sitting also upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. – St. Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 144 on Luke

That takes nothing away nor contradict from, the fact Jesus put One (Peter) over the others.

 

[dzheremi]

steve b:

As far as my quoting Luke, that wasn’t eisegesis

The actual quoting from the Gospel is one thing, but everything you built around it most definitely is eisegesis.

You know what I was saying. NO ONE as in no person within Orthodoxy speaks for the whole.

By this I take it that you mean that there is no one bishop who is thought of as the Latins think of their Pope, with overarching powers and jurisdiction. In that, you are correct (we are not Latins), but that does not mean that no person speaks for Orthodoxy. When my bishop speaks on some issue, he is speaking for Orthodoxy regarding that issue in so far as his comments are in conformity with the faith as passed down by the Fathers. When my priest gives some guidance, he is speaking for Orthodoxy, etc.

Then what does senior Bp mean in Orthodoxy?

That he is “First among equals” in the Church. If someone wants to appeal to the highest/most senior bishop/Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, they know they’ll want to appeal to HH Pope Tawadros II. Similarly, in the EOTC, they would appeal to HH Abune Matteous.** If there is some reason to appeal to another church in the communion** (as there sometimes is), then these would be the bishops appealed to. For example, several years ago when HH Abune Antonious, the Patriarch of the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, was deposed by a puppet synod in Asmara who replaced him with a bishop by the name of Dioskoros, the Eritrean Church first appealed to some kind of conference of its abbots (not sure if that’s the correct English equivalent; the term in Ge’ez is ichege, though Wiki only relates this to the Ethiopian Church), as these are traditionally the “second line” of authority in the Tewahedo Orthodox Church, given the deep role that its monastics have played in its history, including sometimes having to step up as de facto head of the Church during times of persecution. Finding no help for HH there, the aggrieved Eritreans appealed to the traditional head of their Church, meaning the Pope of Alexandria (HH Pope Shenouda III ordained the first Eritrean bishops, thereby recognizing their church’s autocephaly following the Eritrean victory in their civil war against Ethiopia in the early 1990s). As the Pope of Alexandria really has no authority over Eritrean affairs (particularly those that involve the government, as this one does), we responded as best as we could: By putting pressure on the government, and refusing to recognize the deposition of HH Abune Antonious, nor the “authority” of Dioskoros or the synod that elected him. This is the limit of Papal authority in the COC or the OO communion in general: The Pope cannot step in and say “I’m the Pope, and I say you should do this, so this is what you’re going to do”, but he can say, and did say, “We refuse to recognize this illegal action, and will not commune with those who do. They are outside of the Church, having broken off communion with us by this unlawful act.” Essentially, this is a modern day anathema of sorts, which the head bishop of the COC absolutely has the right to issue and make binding throughout the entire church – the entire church being everyone who see maintaining communion as more important than placating the government.

Hopefully this example makes sense.

iow, as I said, no ONE speaks for all of your churches, because you’re not one church… Each Bp speaks for his own particular church but there is no Bp who speaks for all.

The two sentences don’t belong together. We are very much one church, and that is not at all affected by our lack of a “universal bishop” in the way that RCs conceive of their Pope. If we are not one Church because we have our own Patriarchs with their own defined authority and jurisdiction, then why do any of the Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Patriarchs? Because if I move to Armenia, I will be under the jurisdiction of the preexisting Armenian bishop there, and will be communed at the local Armenian Apostolic Church just as easily as I would be in my own Coptic Orthodox Church under my own bishop here. The same is true for Catholics, no? You go to Lebanon, and it’s not like you have to seek out a Latin Catholic Church just because you’re Latin and not Maronite. The fact that there are Lebanese bishops and Chaldean bishops and Latin bishops and whatever bishops just means that there is more than one church within your communion; it doesn’t mean that you’re somehow not all Catholics, right? This is exactly the same as in the Orthodox case. HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas speaks for Orthodoxy just as much as HH Pope Tawadros II or any other Patriarch in my communion. The fact that he is not my Patriarch (in the sense of not being the Patriarch of the particular church into which I was baptized) doesn’t mean that he’s off living in space somewhere, completely isolated from everyone else just because HH Pope Tawadros II can’t tell him what to do. That’d be crazy. He’s still our beloved Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which possesses the same faith as any other OO church. Together, we are the Church. Period. The faith unites us. We are one Church. I’m sure the EO would say the same about their communion.

 

[frjohnmorris]

That contradicts the very text .

The Orthodox Church has never denied that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. However, there is no historical evidence that St. Peter ever claimed infallibility or exercised absolute authority over the Apostolic Church as modern Popes exercise over the Roman Catholic Church. Once again, I point to the Apostolic Council reported in Acts 15, where the Apostles made the decision acting as a council. St. Peter spoke, but did not deliver the decision, St. James as the local Bishop did. The letter written to Antioch informing them of the decision was not written in the name of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles, but rather in the name of the council. If it were essential doctrine that the successor to St. Peter should have the authority the Bishop of Rome now claims, it would be clearly stated in the New Testament, which it is not. In fact, from Galatians 1:11-13 we know that St. Paul did not hesitate to stand up to St. Peter to correct him, something that he would not have done had he recognized St. Peter as having the kind of authority the Popes now claim. It would also be evident from the decisions and canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils which on the contrary mandate local self-government, no universal papal jurisdiction. If the Bishop of Rome as successor of St. Peter had the ability to declare unilaterally the doctrine of the Church, all the debates and councils would not have been necessary. The history of the Church cannot be invoked to support the modern papal claims, unless one argues in favor of the concept of the development of doctrine, which the Eastern Orthodox rejects. If a doctrine cannot be based on the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers, the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the historical practice of the Church, it is not a sound doctrine. Besides, Pope Francis is not the only successor to St. Peter. Before he was Bishop of Rome, St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch. Therefore John X, the present Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is just as much a successor to St. Peter as Pope Francis.
However, in this particular context, Christ asks Peter 3 times if he loves Him because St. Peter denied him three times.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
dzeremi’s comment about James presiding at the Council of Jerusalem agrees with what I learned in college (and this was a conservative Catholic college, not Notre Dame or something like that). I’m inclined to give more weight to that than to an arbitrary discussion on an internet forum.

I don’t think I, or any of my classmates, asked. (I might be misreading, of course. One small detail from the 90s isn’t so easy to recall.)

 

[Peter_J]

Oh. Well, over in the apologetics forum, I have to be the charitable Catholic host with infinite patience answering dumb questions about Maryology and purgatory over and over for every evangelical who drops by to get a few Catholics saved.

Interesting, I didn’t realize it was like that over there.

My suggestion (which I’ve given to others on a number of past occasions) is to start using the built-in “Ignore” feature. (Although I admit I don’t generally use it myself. For me, deciding which posts to read and which ones to ignore is more of an art than a science.)

 

[Peter_J]

So, how is it that I take a tough apologetics approach to engaging my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ in the apologetics forum, and no one raises an objection in seven years, but I come to this forum, and suddenly, I’m a bad guy to my Eastern brothers and sisters?

For what it’s worth, I think a lot of ECs can relate to what you’re saying, since we’ve had similar experiences (in reverse).

But more importantly, I believe your sincerity. I actually think there’s a bit of a (dare I say?) epidemic in Catholicism, of attacking Orthodoxy in the name of “ecumenism”. I would guess that many of us on this forum were once “afflicted” by that epidemic but have since “recovered”.

 

[Peter_J]

Ryan-

Scripture tells that there is one flock and one shepherd, correct? Jesus is the Good Shepherd and we are his sheep.

But what happens at the end of John’s Gospel? Jesus tells Peter to tend and feed the sheep. Who tends and feeds sheep? A shepherd.

Exactly. That’s how we know that Peter was really Jesus in disguise.

Oh wait …

 

[frjohnmorris]

For what it’s worth, I think a lot of ECs can relate to what you’re saying, since we’ve had similar experiences (in reverse).

But more importantly, I believe your sincerity. I actually think there’s a bit of a (dare I say?) epidemic in Catholicism, of attacking Orthodoxy in the name of “ecumenism”. I would guess that many of us on this forum were once “afflicted” by that epidemic but have since “recovered”.

Attacking instead of trying to understand Orthodox does not further the cause of ecumenism. I have really tried very hard not to be insulting or overly confrontational during my responses but neither have I failed to defend the Orthodox Church. First we need to understand each other then we can work on patiently and diplomatically seeking common ground.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[filipino_friar]

**His question was: “The Melkite, Antiochan orthodox, maronite or Syrian Catholic one?” Which one is the one belonging to the Latins?

And my understanding of brotherly communion was that there would no longer be such thing as Easterners and Latins, but just the elders of the Church. Furthermore in case of reunion all would agree that the Church of Rome presides in charity - to what degree of primacy is something we do not know yet, but probably not as we in the Latin Church understand it.

“I think it is impossible for that to happen because it is already a big difference in their tradition whether historically or in matters of rite”**

 

[Wandile]

That contradicts the very text .

Exactly! Man the amount of scriptural acrobatics and eisegesis I’m seeing in this thread from some Orthodox posters is astonishing

 

[Cavaradossi]

Exactly! Man the amount of scriptural acrobatics and eisegesis I’m seeing in this thread from some Orthodox posters is astonishing

That is a funny statement, considering that the Orthodox posters have given the most patristic exegeses of scripture to support their understanding of the primacy of Peter.

 

[Wandile]

That is a funny statement, considering that the Orthodox posters have given the most patristic exegeses of scripture to support their understanding of the primacy of Peter.

Dude, nothing you have posted, from the fathers, contradicts catholic doctrine:shrug: .

Where as our residents priests’ interpretation of Christ’s conferring of shepherdhood to Peter as merely forgiving sins is clearly eisegesis If that’s all he interprets that event to signify.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dude, nothing you have posted, from the fathers, contradicts catholic doctrine:shrug: .

Where as our residents priests’ interpretation of Christ’s conferring of shepherdhood to Peter as merely forgiving sins is clearly eisegesis If that’s all he interprets that event to signify.

The exegeses of the fathers I posted clearly show that it was a common doctrine that Peter’s role among the apostles was that of a president and a first among equals (a concept which several posters in this thread have mocked needlessly), for the apostles equally were what Peter was (according to the Venerable Bede and St. Cyprian), and were equally given Christ’s command to Peter to feed His sheep (according to St. Basil, St. Augustine, and the Venerable Bede), with the distinction being made that Peter was the first among them, being given a certain presidency among them, which is why Christ spoke to him, to show forth the unity of the Church.

Fr. John’s exegesis of the event is actually quite in line with several patristic exegetes, like St. Cyril, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Augustine, St. Epiphanius, and St. Ambrose, all of whom interpret the passage as Christ rehabilitating Peter with his threefold questioning after Peter’s threefold denial (exactly as Fr. John wrote).

 

[Wandile]

The exegeses of the fathers I posted clearly show that it was a common doctrine that Peter’s role among the apostles was that of a president and a first among equals (a concept which several posters in this thread have mocked needlessly), for the apostles equally were what Peter was (according to the Venerable Bede and St. Cyprian), and were equally given Christ’s command to Peter to feed His sheep (according to St. Basil, St. Augustine, and the Venerable Bede), with the distinction being made that Peter was the first among them, being given a certain presidency among them, which is why Christ spoke to him, to show forth the unity of the Church.

Fr. John’s exegesis of the event is actually quite in line with several patristic exegetes, like St. Cyril, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Augustine, St. Epiphanius, and St. Ambrose, all of whom interpret the passage as Christ rehabilitating Peter with his threefold questioning after Peter’s threefold denial (exactly as Fr. John wrote).

Jesus never said stuff without it having purpose. This passage gives Peter a chance to atone for the three denials (What the fathers touch on) as well as conferring on him the primacy of the Church ( feed my sheep). This is given to Peter alone. Yet the fathers note that all apostles shared in this command. But how if Peter was the one whom it was given to?

The office is episcopal and the bishops and apostles are a college. They work together. Peters primacy is shared with the others as he presides in love. The charge is specific to him but is shared with the others through him. The Greek word behind our English term “tend” in verse 16, pomade, means to direct, to superintend, to rule, to govern. The same word is used in Matthew 2:6 (“a ruler who will govern my people Israel”) and in Revelation 2:27 and 19:15 (“he shall rule them with a rod of iron”). Peter is told to effectively rule the flock of Christ, not as an absolute monarch, but as an older brother who rules in authority,and through love with his brothers.

So it would be eisegesis to simply state the whole purpose of this discourse in John 21 is merely for the purpose of reinstatement and nothing more. As that completely ignores the charge given to Peter after every profession of love and the significance of each charge. What effectively happened was that Christ reinstates Peter for so that he can then give him a command to feed and rule over the flock.

 

[dzheremi]

Jesus never said stuff without it having purpose. This passage gives Peter a chance to atone for the three denials (What the fathers touch on) as well as conferring on him the primacy of the Church ( feed my sheep). This is given to Peter alone. Yet the fathers note that all apostles shared in this command. But how if Peter was the one whom it was given to?

I’m not sure if I understand the logic at work here. If Christ’s command was only to Peter, so the other apostles do not therefore share in it, then why are there even any other churches besides Antioch and Rome? I mean, according to you, only Peter or his successors are to feed Christ’s sheep, since only he was given this command. Yet even the ancient Latin West is at odds with your interpreting this as establishing some kind of office; see, for instance, St. Augustine’s homily V on the first epistle of John: “What could Peter, who loved Him, render unto Him? Hear what. ‘Feed my sheep:’ i.e. do for the brethren, that which I have done for thee. I redeemed all with my blood: hesitate not to die for confession of the truth, that the rest may imitate you.” It is hard to see where the office might be passed down in this command to martyrdom.

It is important here to remember that the Fathers, like the modern Orthodox and Catholics alike, recognize St. Peter’s primacy among the apostles (St. John Chrysostom’s explanation of the passage shows this well enough in his homilies on John). Given that, it is rather telling that the Fathers very often interpret the command to feed Christ’s sheep precisely as has been interpreted in this thread by Fr. John Morris, Cavaradossi, and others, and not as establishing an office to be passed down through the Roman bishop. Another Latin, St. Ambrose, remarks in book V of his “Exposition on the Christian Faith” regarding the command: “And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason is he thrice admonished to feed the flock; thrice is he asked whether he loves the Lord, in order that he may thrice confess Him, Whom he had thrice denied before His Crucifixion.”

And for those who are most explicit about tying this command to Peter’s primacy, it is interesting to note that even your Pope Gregory, in extolling the See of Rome as the See of St. Peter (as is right to do) also famously said that it is in three places as one, referring to the understanding that Antioch and Alexandria can also be called “Petrine” sees (Alexandria through St. Mark, as it was from Peter directly that he was taught Christian doctrine). So even if you most want to connect St. Peter with the bishop of Rome, you cannot do so exclusively and pretend to be in accordance with your own Fathers – even those who were most keen to do so themselves.

 

[LionHeart777]

The exegeses of the fathers I posted clearly show that it was a common doctrine that Peter’s role among the apostles was that of a president and a first among equals (a concept which several posters in this thread have mocked needlessly), for the apostles equally were what Peter was (according to the Venerable Bede and St. Cyprian), and were equally given Christ’s command to Peter to feed His sheep (according to St. Basil, St. Augustine, and the Venerable Bede), with the distinction being made that Peter was the first among them, being given a certain presidency among them, which is why Christ spoke to him, to show forth the unity of the Church.

Fr. John’s exegesis of the event is actually quite in line with several patristic exegetes, like St. Cyril, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Augustine, St. Epiphanius, and St. Ambrose, all of whom interpret the passage as Christ rehabilitating Peter with his threefold questioning after Peter’s threefold denial (exactly as Fr. John wrote).

Yes, the other Apostles where what Peter was (i.e. they were all Apostles), but to take this and now come to the conclusion that St. Peter was merely first among equals, Catholics cannot agree with. We believe that Jesus Christ bestowed more upon St. Peter, including Petrine privelages and a unique office according to Scripture and Tradition, including the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils.

Here is just a few examples that specifically include St. John 21:17, all from Easterners:

St. John Chrysostom:

“’He says unto him, Feed My sheep.’

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, ‘If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.’” (Homily 88)

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

Bishop Asterius of Amasea:

“’In order that He may show His power, God has endowed none of His disciples with gifts like Peter. But having raised him with heavenly gifts, He has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit… The Savior confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times, ‘Lovest thou Me?’ And he received the world in charge, as one flock and shepherd, having heard, ‘Feed My lambs’; and the Lord gave, well nigh in His own stead, that most faithful disciple to the proselytes as a father, and shepherd and instructor.’”

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm

Theodore Abu Qurrah (past the age many if not all would consider belonging to the Early Church Fathers, but a pre-East-West schism author nonetheless):

“’You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.’”

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm