Catholic vs. Orthodox who's right, who was first and why?

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree, and further note that the “high road” described is the road adopted by the Catholic Church in its outreach to the Orthodox. Sadly, this position is not reciprocated.

I am less enthusiastic, however, about this earlier post.

Yes anyone can reach conclusions, but it takes more skill, training, and exercise to reach sound ones, and tremendous humility to properly recognize the limits that one has in trying to reach them.

An even larger problem exists with the the remark about what it “has to be about”. No foundation is given for this dictum (is it impartial, sincere, intelligent?), nor is any reference point given from which to measure divergence.

Here’s one possibility, involving a scriptural criterion: which church has adhered best to (or diverged least from) the Great Commission? Vladimir Soloviev has some nice thoughts on this point. stmichaelruscath.org/spiritual/soloviev/nicholas-cassian.php

I agree. I notice on CAF a lot of Catholics are not afraid one bit to rip on Protestants and Protestants usually aren’t one bit shy about slamming Catholics, but, for some reason, both sides really treat the Orthodox with kid gloves and seem almost intimidated by them. The Orthodox in here are like Ross Perot during the 92 election with both Bush and Clinton trying to suck up for points lol…

 

[VARC]

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Matt. 16:18–19] 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. . . . 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 [A.D. 251]).

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I 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 in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.” Cyprian Epistle XXVI

 

[VARC]

I agree. I notice on CAF a lot of Catholics are not afraid one bit to rip on Protestants and Protestants usually aren’t one bit shy about slamming Catholics, but, for some reason, both sides really treat the Orthodox with kid gloves and seem almost intimidated by them. The Orthodox in here are like Ross Perot during the 92 election with both Bush and Clinton trying to suck up for points lol…

I tried to enage the Orthodox to see if my misgivings about Orthodoxy were reasonable. The thread died out without a resolution to my intial point which circled around the acceptence of the OO who were always regarded as heretical by the EO until modern times. I suggested that by conceding the orthodoxy of the OO, they have repudiated the Councils and Fathers of orthodoxy. Never did get answer to that.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I tried to enage the Orthodox to see if my misgivings about Orthodoxy were reasonable. The thread died out without a resolution to my intial point which circled around the acceptence of the OO who were always regarded as heretical by the EO until modern times. I suggested that by conceding the orthodoxy of the OO, they have repudiated the Councils and Fathers of orthodoxy. Never did get answer to that.

I noticed; I followed the thread for a while a bit. I just find it interesting how everyone seems scared to engage the Orthodox but they’ll take on Catholics and Protestants and vice versa. Catholics will tell Anglicans they have invalid orders without batting an eye and yet, even though orders are valid, you won’t hear Catholics very often in here backing up Benedict XVI’s statements that Orthodoxy is defective because it lacks the papacy. Just an observation. In CAF it’s good to be Orthodox lol…the Ross Perot angle lol

 

[Harpazo]

I noticed; I followed the thread for a while a bit. I just find it interesting how everyone seems scared to engage the Orthodox but they’ll take on Catholics and Protestants and vice versa. Catholics will tell Anglicans they have invalid orders without batting an eye and yet, even though orders are valid, you won’t hear Catholics very often in here backing up Benedict XVI’s statements that Orthodoxy is defective because it lacks the papacy. Just an observation. In CAF it’s good to be Orthodox lol…the Ross Perot angle lol

I’ve seen some here who are more than willing to take Orthodoxy on. Some get quite emotional. Some are willing to post anything that seems like a threat against Rome. They’ll post quote after quote without offering much of their own. This is where we get the lengthy threads of constant copy/paste argumentation.

I vaguely remember Benedict XVI talking a few years ago about the other Apostolic Churches and Rome’s relation with them. He also slammed the Protestants, too. He also made another statement in his earlier days about the Eastern Churches that from an Orthodox position seems to contradict other statements vis-a-vis the papacy.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve seen some here who are more than willing to take Orthodoxy on. Some get quite emotional. Some are willing to post anything that seems like a threat against Rome. They’ll post quote after quote without offering much of their own. This is where we get the lengthy threads of constant copy/paste argumentation.

I vaguely remember Benedict XVI talking a few years ago about the other Apostolic Churches and Rome’s relation with them. He also slammed the Protestants, too. He also made another statement in his earlier days about the Eastern Churches that from an Orthodox position seems to contradict other statements vis-a-vis the papacy.

In Christ,
Andrew

I’ve seen a few as well, but by and large it just seems that most Catholics tend to defer to and try to buddy-buddy with the Orthodox in an argument instead of arguing with them like they do Protestants. You’re right, I’ve seen a few also. And the cut-and-pasting thing DRIVES ME NUTS. I try not to do it; I try and make my points but summing up historical events or quotes, not just dishing them in the old cut-and-paste extraveganza. I hear you on that one!! Benedict has made a lot of statements that are just all over the place. He said, while still Cardinal Ratzinger, that he refused to accept that the Lutheran Eucharist didn’t have some sort of special presence about it and he talked about the beauty of their liturgy and faith. But then he smacked down Protestants calling them ecclesiastical communities, not churches in the proper sense. Then he included Orthodox as being valid in orders but defective as a Church because they lack the papacy and magesterium.

 

[John_Larocque]

Regarding Cyprian’s De Unitate here is William A. Jurgens:

Chapter four of the work is extant in two recensions, the one with so-called additions having generally been regarded as an interpolated version until in 1902 Dom Chapman established the fact that both are from the pen of Cyprian himself… His theory is now very generally accepted, with one important difference, however, that the version with the so-called primacy additions is to be regarded as Cyprian’s original, while the version without those phrases is regarded as Cyprian’s own re-casting of the work. Cyprian’s revised version, his second edition, is actually the longer; but it has omitted those phrases of the original version which were extremely favorable to the Roman claims of primacy.

According to this latter view, Cyprian’s choice of words in the original form of the work would have been read in Rome as recognition of the universal authority over the whole Church, which Rome claimed. Cyprian, indeed, recognized that the Bishop of Rome held some kind of a special and primatial position; but he had not thought of it as implying a universal jurisdiction. Bévenot puts the matter very succinctly in the introduction to his translation of the work in question, Vol. 25 of the series Ancient Christian Writers, pp. 7-8:

At Rome, where there were no doubts about its Bishop’s authority over the whole Church, Cyprian’s original text could not fail to be read as recognition of that fact. If in the course of the baptismal controversy this was, as it were, thrown in his teeth, he will have exclaimed, quite truthfully: But I never meant that! — and so he toned it down in his revised version

.

Here’s patristics scholar Johannes Quasten.

To defend ecclesiastical unity, when it was threatened by schisms, Cyprian wrote De unitate ecclesiae and many of his letters, founding it, so far as the members of the Church are concerned, on adherence to the bishop. ‘You should understand that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and that whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church’ (Epist. 66.8). Thus the ordinary is the visible authority around which the congregation is centered.

The solidarity of the universal Church rests in turn on that of the bishops, who act as a sort of senate. They are the successors of the apostles and the apostles were the bishops of old. ‘The Lord chose the apostles, that is, the bishops and rulers’ (Epist. 3.3). The Church is built upon them. Thus Cyprian interprets the Tu es Petrus (You are Peter) as follows:

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I 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 in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since then this order has been established by divine decree, I am amazed that some individuals have had the bold effrontery to write me and send letters in the name of the Church, seeing that the Church is composed of the bishop and the clergy and all who are steadfast’ (Cyprian, Epistle XXXIII, 1).

Thus he understands Matth. 16:18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord (Epist. 54.1; 68.5), thus render the Church universal a single body. ‘The Church, which is catholic and one, is not split asunder nor divided but is truly bound and joined together by the cement of its priests, who hold fast one to another’ (Epist. 66.8).

Cyprian is convinced that the bishop answers to God alone. ‘So long as the bond of friendship is maintained and the sacred unity of the Catholic Church is preserved, each bishop is master of his own conduct, conscious that he must one day render an account of himself to the Lord’ (Epist. 55.21). In his controversy with Pope Stephen on the rebaptism of heretics he voices as the president of the African synod of September 256 his opinion as follows:

“No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein’ (CSEL 3, 1, 436).

From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles because he states: hoc erant et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis (De unit. 4). No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3)."

On the other hand, it is the same Cyprian who gives the highest praise to the church of Rome on account of its importance for ecclesiastical unity and faith, when he complains of heretics ‘who dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatic and blasphemous persons to the see of Peter and the leading church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise, not realizing that the Romans, whose faith was proclaimed and praised by the apostle, are men into whose company no perversion of faith can enter’ (Epist. 59, 14). Thus the cathedra Petri is to him the ecclesia principalis and the point of origin of the unitas sacerdotalis. However, even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist- 59, 14)…If he refuses to the bishop of Rome any higher power to maintain by legislation the solidarity of which he is the centre, it must be because he regards the primacy as one of honor and the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares

 

[Hesychios]

Cyprian

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, "that you are Peter… (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

I think you may see from the development of this thread two things:

1. 
   *]The quote from Cyprian you have provided is not a very precise exposition of Cyprian’s actual position, especially when read through modern Roman Catholic filters. He himself found it necessary to nuance his own comments, realizing that they could be (and probably were already) used by others to support ideas he himself did not agree with.
   
   *]One must be extra careful when sticking solely to dedicated apologetic sources (even when they are Roman Catholic apologetic sources), since these are often cherry picked to manipulate one’s thinking, sometimes leaving out important but less flattering details.
   
   .

 

[Hesychios]

I tried to enage the Orthodox to see if my misgivings about Orthodoxy were reasonable. The thread died out without a resolution to my intial point which circled around the acceptence of the OO who were always regarded as heretical by the EO until modern times. I suggested that by conceding the orthodoxy of the OO, they have repudiated the Councils and Fathers of orthodoxy. Never did get answer to that.

I thought your initial point was addressed.

You had some friends who were not clergy or bishops that had a private opinion that the non-Chalcedonians (whom you call OO) were orthodox. That is not the formal position of any Orthodox church. Thus, I feel that your initial premise could use revision.

You should note that there are some Roman Catholics, and likely some Anglicans who also privately feel the non-Chalcedonians are not actually heretics. One might include (I am not sure) the late Pope John Paul II along with many modern theologians.

Personal opinions aside, there is no formal change in the position of any of the churches.

 

[VARC]

I thought your initial point was addressed.

You had some friends who were not clergy or bishops that had a private opinion that the non-Chalcedonians (whom you call OO) were orthodox. That is not the formal position of any Orthodox church. Thus, I feel that your initial premise could use revision.

You should note that there are some Roman Catholics, and likely some Anglicans who also privately feel the non-Chalcedonians are not actually heretics. One might include (I am not sure) the late Pope John Paul II along with many modern theologians.

Personal opinions aside, there is no formal change in the position of any of the churches.

I should state that I do not label the OO as heretics either which is the main reason I feel I cannot be EO. I would have to “formally” declare that they are.

So why does the EO church intercommune with formal heretics? Isn’t that against a litany of canons?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you may see from the development of this thread two things:

1. 
   *]The quote from Cyprian you have provided is not a very precise exposition of Cyprian’s actual position, especially when read through modern Roman Catholic filters. He himself found it necessary to nuance his own comments, realizing that they could be (and probably were already) used by others to support ideas he himself did not agree with.
   
   *]One must be extra careful when sticking solely to dedicated apologetic sources (even when they are Roman Catholic apologetic sources), since these are often cherry picked to manipulate one’s thinking, sometimes leaving out important but less flattering details.
   
   .

1. 
   Hey Michael,
   
   I especially agree with point number two. I’m not a cut-and-paste fan myself and you’re correc thtat Catholic Answers and other apologetics sites are cherry-pickers to be sure. It’s best to have a healthy library at one’s house full of early Church history with volumes of narrative and quotes from which to cite. I see things get taken out of context a lot in here both Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. And I hear the Cyprian quote that went something like, "one cannot have God for their Father who did not first have the Church for their mother, " or something like that. For Roman Catholics, they are internalizing that to mean the Roman Catholic Church but the Orthodox view it from Cyprian’s vantage point at the time, the conciliar early Church that was undivided without the modern RCC view of ecclesiology.

 

[Hesychios]

I should state that I do not label the OO as heretics either which is the main reason I feel I cannot be EO. I would have to “formally” declare that they are.

So why does the EO church intercommune with formal heretics? Isn’t that against a litany of canons?

Do you have any more information on this intercommunion? The term ‘intercommunion’ implies an agreement of some sort.

I know there is no concelebration.

 

[VARC]

Do you have any more information on this intercommunion? The term ‘intercommunion’ implies an agreement of some sort.

I know there is no concelebration.

The EO will allow an OO Christian to receive communion in a EO church without requiring the OO to recant of the heresy if there is no OO church around. Such and action begs the question…What other heretics are allowed to receive communion if there isn’t a “heretical” church around? I don’t think that RCs have formally been declared to be heretical by the EO but they are not given such a courtesy.

“While you may choose to not enter into the communion of the “Eastern” Orthodox Church, you may participate in many of our ministry programs (such as our Adult Religious Education programs, youth programs, etc). These generally would not involve matters where the difference between Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy matters. Normally, you would not receive Holy Communion at Saint Demetrios or participate in other sacraments, though under very special and limited circumstances–such as the inability to attend a parish of the Oriental Orthodox tradition–this may be permitted by our Metropolitan (bishop).”

[stdemetrioshammond.org/ParishMinistries/JoiningSaintDemetrios.dsp](http://www.stdemetrioshammond.org/ParishMinistries/JoiningSaintDemetrios.dsp)

Why does the EO give communion to some heretics and not others?

 

[VARC]

Hey Michael,

I especially agree with point number two. I’m not a cut-and-paste fan myself and you’re correc thtat Catholic Answers and other apologetics sites are cherry-pickers to be sure. It’s best to have a healthy library at one’s house full of early Church history with volumes of narrative and quotes from which to cite. I see things get taken out of context a lot in here both Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. And I hear the Cyprian quote that went something like, "one cannot have God for their Father who did not first have the Church for their mother, " or something like that. For Roman Catholics, they are internalizing that to mean the Roman Catholic Church but the Orthodox view it from Cyprian’s vantage point at the time, the conciliar early Church that was undivided without the modern RCC view of ecclesiology.

I agree. Cherry picking quotes to prove one’s religious convictions is a fallacy called stacking the deck. I see this fallacious reasoning all the time at CAF. One cannot cite a quote from a person in isolation from everything else he wrote and did to prove that person held a particular belief. I cut and paste quotes from the Fathers only in reaction to a card stacking argument to show that many of the deeply held beliefs of modern catholics were not held so firmly by Fathers. Quite the contrary, they were often conflicted about certain ideas.

Case in point, Augustine is often cited as a big proponent of papal supremacy and misquoted as stating “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”. This quote is thrown up without any consideration of his opposition to Pope Zosimus and his retraction that the church was built on Peter. So it fallacious to cite an isolated quote as proof for Augustine acceptance of modern papal views without even acknowleging that Augustine himself opposed the Pope after Pope Zosimus had ruled in the case of communion of Pelagius.

 

[josie_L]

I think you may see from the development of this thread two things:

1. 
   *]The quote from Cyprian you have provided is not a very precise exposition of Cyprian’s actual position, especially when read through modern Roman Catholic filters. He himself found it necessary to nuance his own comments, realizing that they could be (and probably were already) used by others to support ideas he himself did not agree with.
   
   *]One must be extra careful when sticking solely to dedicated apologetic sources (even when they are Roman Catholic apologetic sources), since these are often cherry picked to manipulate one’s thinking, sometimes leaving out important but less flattering details.
   
   .

1. 
   Hi Hesychios, here’s what I originally said to John Larocque:
   
   “I don’t recollect St. Cyprian of Carthage saying that all the bishops of the Church possess the “Chair of Peter”.”
   
   Did St. Cyprian believe all bishops of the Church “possess the chair of Peter”? I’m not acquainted with anything that I have read that states such, and furthermore doesn’t this affect the whole primacy issue (that most Orthodox believe the See of Rome in that time possessed) if he did indeed believe this? I mean if it’s a primacy role that he has how can all bishops possess it, i.e., the chair of Peter?

 

[John_Larocque]

For Cyprian, the unity of the church is the bishops. If you depart from that unity, you have become schismatic and cut yourself off from the Church. You have essentially deserted the Chair of Peter.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

1. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity…
2. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.”For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”

This is a selected and isolated quote. I wouldn’t mind finding a full citation and link, but others have cited it.

“Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5)

 

[josie_L]

For Cyprian, the unity of the church is the bishops. If you depart from that unity, you have become schismatic and cut yourself off from the Church. You have essentially deserted the Chair of Peter.

Who seats in the chair of Peter?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

St. Cyprian was wrong about invalid baptisms with regard to heretics (as long as they were said in the trinitarian form and water was utilized they were valid). This is accepted by Catholics and Orthodox (although I believe there are a couple of exceptions).

This is a selected and isolated quote. I wouldn’t mind finding a full citation and link, but others have cited it.

“Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5)

They are both, as per scripture. I believe St. Cyprian is wrong.

 

[Arandur]

So Cyprian believes in a democracy of faith? Who then, between the Orthodox and the Catholics, is maintaining his standard of “unity?” Seemed like a fairly even split during the Great Schism.

It seems that Cyprian’s admonitions are directed at individual bishops who separate themselves from the rest of the episcopate. Apart from being very difficult to apply as a standard in the Great Schism, there are a variety of other schisms that would have been very difficult for the standards presented in his reasoning to resolve, notably the Arians (who at times outnumbered the true Church by a great amount and would thus seem to have been the benchmark for “unity”), the Donatists, the Montanists, and the Monophysites.

So it seems to me that Cyprian here refers to the clear error of individual bishops presuming sufficient independence to separate themselves from the wider, unified episcopate. I don’t see much that is applicable or useful in larger disputes.

Also, what is the context and backup for:
“Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter?”

Even many Protestants agree that the Rock, whatever else it may be, is also Peter–hence his very name. If the “Rock” is the “unity of faith,” (despite no unity being presented in the context of the Lord’s words–it was only Peter who spoke) then Peter, named “Rock,” is the obvious, intended, and ordained sign of that unity. Which is exactly how we Catholics see the position. God did not change people’s names without purpose. God-given names carry both meanings and offices/vocations.

 

[John_Larocque]

It seems that Cyprian’s admonitions are directed at individual bishops who separate themselves from the rest of the episcopate. Apart from being very difficult to apply as a standard in the Great Schism, there are a variety of other schisms that would have been very difficult for the standards presented in his reasoning to resolve, notably the Arians (who at times outnumbered the true Church by a great amount and would thus seem to have been the benchmark for “unity”), the Donatists, the Montanists, and the Monophysites.

So it seems to me that Cyprian here refers to the clear error of individual bishops presuming sufficient independence to separate themselves from the wider, unified episcopate. I don’t see much that is applicable or useful in larger disputes.

That last letter was actually correspondence on Pope Stephen. He declared Pope Stephen a heretic and schismatic for having broken away from the what he called elsewhere the Unity of Faith. He also didn’t like it when they intruded in the African jurisdiction on the matter (Augustine also resisted Rome’s attempts to arbitrate a dispute and even threw out a text Rome claimed was part of Nicea but was part of a disputed council).

If you caught the reference in the letter, Stephen was already citing the Matthew text as being the (unique) successor of Peter. So even though Cyprian was departing from this view (at least in the Pope Stephen period), it is implicit evidence that as far back as the Cyprian/Stephen dispute, Rome was using it as a proof text for the papal authority. Cyprian, by stating that John and the other apostles were equal in authority, seems to be taking an alternate view, essentially that the bishops of the church are successors of Peter as well. This is the Quasten’s interpretation of Cyprian’s views. His deference to Rome indicates a primacy, but of honour, not of jurisdiction, as "first among equals. The author of “His broken body”, in citing Quasten, called Cyprian “proto-Orthodox.”

The bit about episcopal unity and democracy isn’t as cut and dried on the Orthodox side of the fence. It seems from my reading that there were times when the bishops came together and agreed to things which weren’t accepted by a minority of bishops nor by the faithful (the sensus fidelium so to speak). And then there’s the role of the Holy Spirit in keeping everything together to prevent the church from falling into error. The Orthodox view of the Great Schism essentially places the pope of the day in the same position that Cyprian placed Stephen, for departing from the unity of the church.

Also, what is the context and backup for:
“Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter?”

I suspect it is a mistranslation or a commentary on the second version of the Unity of the Catholic Church. I was scanning the Latin yesterday. It appears to be an interpretive comment, not an actual Cyprian quote.

I agree with Dr. Hahn (and against Augustine of Hippo) that the semantic differences for Rock in Greek don’t exist in Aramaic, so Augustine’s argument simply doesn’t apply. Augustine’s view of the Matthew text is in essence the Reform view.

 

[josie_L]

That last letter was actually correspondence on Pope Stephen. He declared Pope Stephen a heretic and schismatic for having broken away from the what he called elsewhere the Unity of Faith. He also didn’t like it when they intruded in the African jurisdiction on the matter (Augustine also resisted Rome’s attempts to arbitrate a dispute and even threw out a text Rome claimed was part of Nicea but was part of a disputed council).

If you caught the reference in the letter, Stephen was already citing the Matthew text as being the (unique) successor of Peter. So even though Cyprian was departing from this view (at least in the Pope Stephen period), it is implicit evidence that as far back as the Cyprian/Stephen dispute, Rome was using it as a proof text for the papal authority. Cyprian, by stating that John and the other apostles were equal in authority, seems to be taking an alternate view, essentially that the bishops of the church are successors of Peter as well. This is the Quasten’s interpretation of Cyprian’s views. His deference to Rome indicates a primacy, but of honour, not of jurisdiction, as "first among equals. The author of “His broken body”, in citing Quasten, called Cyprian “proto-Orthodox.”

The bit about episcopal unity and democracy isn’t as cut and dried on the Orthodox side of the fence. It seems from my reading that there were times when the bishops came together and agreed to things which weren’t accepted by a minority of bishops nor by the faithful (the sensus fidelium so to speak). And then there’s the role of the Holy Spirit in keeping everything together to prevent the church from falling into error. The Orthodox view of the Great Schism essentially places the pope of the day in the same position that Cyprian placed Stephen, for departing from the unity of the church.

I suspect it is a mistranslation or a commentary on the second version of the Unity of the Catholic Church. I was scanning the Latin yesterday. It appears to be an interpretive comment, not an actual Cyprian quote.

I agree with Dr. Hahn (and against Augustine of Hippo) that the semantic differences for Rock in Greek don’t exist in Aramaic, so Augustine’s argument simply doesn’t apply. Augustine’s view of the Matthew text is in essence the Reform view.

I thought that Saint Augustine also viewed Peter as the rock.