Church History - was Peter Bishop of Rome?

[steve_b]

This is a Roman legate talking about Rome, and giving the standard Roman view of it. That no one objects is hardly a surprise, since doing so would be extremely impolite.

Don’t kid yourself. Someone would have said something.

• If the Legate was in error, that would NOT have gone untouched. Someone would have said something.
• Ephesus was an ecumenical council. Given where it took place, the numbers of Eastern bishops in attendance would FAR outnumber Western or “Roman” bishops as you put it. Regardless of lopsided %, when a pope ratifies a council as ecumenical, i.e. speaking for the entire Church, then it speaks for the entire Church.

M:

Pope Coelestine’s own letter

[snip for space]

The reaction of the council is likewise interesting, especially in regard to the comparison between Coelestine and Cyril of Alexandria: “And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Coelestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Coelestine the guardian of the faith! To Coelestine of one mind with the synod! To Coelestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Coelestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!”

[snip for space]

The very short version is that the occasionally-voiced idea of a Roman bishop ruling over the whole Early Church is inaccurate,

whilst that of the Roman bishop being pre-eminent in honour is (mostly) accurate.

Other than Coelestine, who else in the synod of bishops was compared to Peter the apostle? NONE!

Was St Peter in the council writings portrayed as 1st among equals or actual head of the Church? Head of the Catholic Church

And Coelestine is seen taking Peter’s place

"the Holy Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true and magnificent encomiums, concerning the dignity of the Apostolic See, and “Peter the head and pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, and by Christ’s authority administering the keys, who to this very time lives ever, and exercises judgment, in his successors.”

“Philip the 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 ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) 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: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod…”
M:

Yes, Augustine implicitly refers to Peter as bishop of Rome, writing in AD 400, more than 330 years after the event. This tells us what Romans subsequently felt, not what title was used in Peter’s own day.

It’s then the 5th century. The ecumenical council of Ephesus didn’t have problems recognizing the title.

So…are you denying Peter was a bishop? Or are you denying he was bishop of Rome? Or both?

 

[steve_b]

This is a Roman legate talking about Rome, and giving the standard Roman view of it. That no one objects is hardly a surprise, since doing so would be extremely impolite.

Don’t kid yourself. Someone would have said something.

• If the Legate was in error, that would NOT have gone untouched. Someone would have said something.
• Ephesus was an ecumenical council. Given where it took place, the numbers of Eastern bishops in attendance would FAR outnumber Western or “Roman” bishops as you put it. Regardless of lopsided %, when a pope ratifies a council as ecumenical, i.e. speaking for the entire Church, then it speaks for the entire Church.

M:

Pope Coelestine’s own letter

[snip for space]

The reaction of the council is likewise interesting, especially in regard to the comparison between Coelestine and Cyril of Alexandria: “And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just judgment. To Coelestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Coelestine the guardian of the faith! To Coelestine of one mind with the synod! To Coelestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Coelestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!”

[snip for space]

The very short version is that the occasionally-voiced idea of a Roman bishop ruling over the whole Early Church is inaccurate,

whilst that of the Roman bishop being pre-eminent in honour is (mostly) accurate.

Other than Coelestine, who else in the synod of bishops was compared to Peter the apostle? NONE!

Was St Peter in the council documents portrayed as 1st among equals or actual head of the Church? Head of the Catholic Church

And those docs attest Coelestine takes his place

"the Holy Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true and magnificent encomiums, concerning the dignity of the Apostolic See, and “Peter the head and pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, and by Christ’s authority administering the keys, who to this very time lives ever, and exercises judgment, in his successors.”

“Philip the 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 ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) 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: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod…”
M:

Yes, Augustine implicitly refers to Peter as bishop of Rome, writing in AD 400, more than 330 years after the event. This tells us what Romans subsequently felt, not what title was used in Peter’s own day.

It’s then the 5th century. The ecumenical council of Ephesus didn’t have problems recognizing the title.

So…are you denying Peter was a bishop? Or are you denying he was bishop of Rome? Or both?

 

[Mystophilus]

Someone would have said something.
If the Legate was in error, that would NOT have gone untouched. Someone would have said something.

You need to read more from the period: colourful descriptions of people’s significance are very common in all sorts of directions, any objection to them was extremely impolitic, and all of this at a time when tensions were running high.

Given where it took place, the numbers of Eastern bishops in attendance would FAR outnumber Western or “Roman” bishops as you put it.

Roman legates, not Western bishops: the two are not identical, and Philip was not a bishop. However, since the Council accepted the Roman legates as representing the whole of the West for the purpose of its voting (Cyril says, the legates “have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West”), the legates’ agreement with the Eastern bishops made the Council’s decision catholic, i.e. universal.

Other than Coelestine, who else in the synod of bishops was compared to Peter the apostle?

As already noted, the Council compared **both **Coelestine **and **Cyril with St. Paul.

Was St Peter in the council writings portrayed as 1st among equals or actual head of the Church? Head of the Catholic Church

Actually, no. While Philip, the Roman legate, keeps making that connection, the Council do not.

Read Cyril’s letter to Nestorius, which refers to “Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples”. Since the Council then describes this letter, in its own communication to “the most holy and our fellow-minister Coelestine,” as “approved as being **orthodox **and without fault, and in no point out of agreement either with the divinely inspired Scriptures, or with the faith handed down and set forth in the great synod of holy Fathers”, the Council writings identify Peter as equal in honour with John.

If you carefully read what the Council says, you may notice that they noticeably avoid addressing Philip’s claims about the role of Rome.

So…are you denying Peter was a bishop? Or are you denying he was bishop of Rome? Or both?

To repeat, usage several hundred years later does not tell us what title was used in Peter’s own day.

 

[Abu]

The Catholic Intellectual | Fr. Stanley L. Jaki | Ignatius Insight
Nothing shows the strength of the bishops’ awareness of that need more forcefully than the fact, again a fact, that from the earliest times they looked at the sin of heresy as a crime worse than idolatry. Such was the view of Alexander, the martyr bishop of Alexandria. In the West, Augustine of Hippo took the view that there could be no just necessity whatsoever to break the unity of the Church. Augustine also gave a pregnant expression to the concrete criterion of being in unity with the whole or the catholike. In saying that the criterion consisted in being in unity with the actual bishop of Rome as a successor of Peter, the first bishop of that city, Augustine merely echoed a famous phrase of Irenaeus, the martyr bishop of Lyons, about the obligation of all churches to convene around that Church.
ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/sjaki_intellectual_mar08.asp

As Fr Stanley Jaki notes: “the emphatic recall of the bishop of Lyons of the fact that the holy apostles Peter and Paul ‘handed over to Linus the episcopal office’ and that when during Clement, who succeeded Linus’ successor Anacletus ‘no small dissension arose among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a powerful letter to the Corinthians, urging peace on them and rekindling their faith, and reminding them of the Apostolic tradition it had received.’ ”

Fr Jaki continues: “St Cyprian……acknowledged the force of an appeal, however unjust in his eyes, ‘to the chair of Peter’ (ad cathedram Petri).” The Keys of the Kingdom, The Franciscan Herald Press, 1985, p 55, 185,186].

As Dr Warren H Carroll in A History of Christendom, *The Foundation of Christendom *Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican

‘Eusebius, in his “History of the Church”, Book 5, c. 58, says that Pope Victor, the successor of Eleutherius, “was the thirteenth Bishop of Rome after Peter.” ’
[See DR RUMBLE “QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK”, Chevalier Books, 1972].

 

[steve_b]

You need to read more from the period: colourful descriptions of people’s significance are very common in all sorts of directions, any objection to them was extremely impolitic, and all of this at a time when tensions were running high.

You need to quote more. I already know your opinion.
M:

Roman legates, not Western bishops: the two are not identical, and Philip was not a bishop.

And He was reading from what pope Coelestine wrote.
M:

As already noted, the Council compared **both **Coelestine **and **Cyril with St. Paul.

As already noted, the council record shows Coelestine is the only one referred to as successor to Peter
M:

Actually, no. While Philip, the Roman legate, keeps making that connection, the Council do not.

Then it (the connection) would have been removed or denied from the record.
M:

Read Cyril’s letter to Nestorius, which refers to “Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples”. Since the Council then describes this letter, in its own communication to “the most holy and our fellow-minister Coelestine,” as “approved as being **orthodox **and without fault, and in no point out of agreement either with the divinely inspired Scriptures, or with the faith handed down and set forth in the great synod of holy Fathers”, the Council writings identify Peter as equal in honour with John.

If you carefully read what the Council says, you may notice that they noticeably avoid addressing Philip’s claims about the role of Rome.

To repeat, usage several hundred years later does not tell us what title was used in Peter’s own day.

Didn’t Dmar already address all this? #18 & #19

 

[steve_b]

To repeat, usage several hundred years later does not tell us what title was used in Peter’s own day.

Re: your point

Getting one issue out of the way upfront, Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though Peter, is the head apostle, The Rock Jesus will build His Church on, being given the keys of the kingdom, Peter wasn’t disavowing he had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

To prove that let’s look at a few points.

I’m letting scripture texts define a first century bishop, their office, including Peter’s office. That goes for Peter being bishop of Rome

Taking this in bites, where is Episkopos and Episkope used, referring to a “supervisor, overseer, superintendent, i.e. bishop” in the New Testament?

• Episcopos :Acts 20:28 , Philippians 1:1 , 1 Timothy 3:2 , Titus 1:7 , 1 Peter 2:25
• Episkope: 1 Timothy 3:1 in connection with the use of episkopos in 1 Timothy 3:2, . Also found in Acts 1:20, Luke 19:44, and 1 Peter 2:12.
• In addition, episkopein meaning “to supervise, oversee, inspect, care for” as occurring in 1 Peter 5:2 and Hebrews 12:15 . The challenge is to compose a first century definition of a bishop, his office, and his function by considering all of these occurrences

While we’re at this, we have to consider also that any discussion of a bishop automatically implicates terms of pastor / shepherd. Thus, NT references to Church leaders as shepherd / pastor must also apply to bishops as well, especially when considering the role of Peter (John 21:15-17)

Then there is the term presbyter which in 1 Timothy 5:17, indicates a tendency to use presbyter and bishop somewhat interchangeably.

in Acts 1:20, Peter calls for the replacement for Judas. Peter quotes the Psalms where it says “His office let another take.” “Office” is translated = episkope referring to the office of bishop. Episkope is the same word used in 1 Timothy 3:1: “If anyone aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.” 1 Timothy 3:2 then continues this line of thought by using episkopos in the familiar passage: “Now a bishop must be above reproach.

in Acts 1:20, Peter ties the office of apostle vacated by Judas to the office of supervisor or bishop. The same word used by Peter in Acts is then used in 1 Timothy to refer to a local church leader. This convergence contradicts the attempts by some to totally divorce the functions of an apostle from that of a bishop.

to the mission of bishops to maintain “sound doctrine” and “to confute those who contradict it,” as described in Titus 1:7-15. It is a role that Peter dramatically carried out in Acts 5:1-6, in “striking down unworthy members of the community”.

Also in 1 Peter is the reference to Christ as “the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25). Note " Guardian " =ἐπίσκοπον = bishop (the links are operationl)

Also Consider this,

Since episkopos is applied to Christ that becomes even more plausible that Peter vicar of Christ, leader of the apostles, ergo leader of the Church, not just in one location but worldwide, would have been called episkopos in the first century, and yes also bishop of Rome.

Calling Christ bishop is also significant, because in John 21:15-17, Christ commissions Peter to feed, tend, rule his sheep. Accordingly, it would be natural to view Peter, who succeeds Christ as shepherd of the sheep, shepherd of the shepherds, and as vicar of Christ, and also succeeds Christ as… episkopos.

Not to mention, 1 Peter is written from Rome.

 

[Mystophilus]

Its Tradition and it evolved.

 

[Mystophilus]

You need to quote more.

As I stated, that will come when I have had time to go through it all (which I have mostly done now). That Council was not simple event, and its background demonstrates quite a lot about the operations of the Church at that point.

As already noted, the council record shows Coelestine is the only one referred to as successor to Peter

More precisely, the Council record shows that the only one who refers to him as such is his own legate, not the Council itself.

Then it (the connection) would have been removed or denied from the record.

Read more of the councils. Their records include all manner of comments and actions, many of them only passingly relevant to the main business, but they also specify precisely what each Council approves: in this case, they specify that the Council approved Cyril’s views, not Philip’s.

Didn’t Dmar already address all this?

He has raised some issues about it, and they fall into the same category as the background to the Council: the history of this is going to need its own post.

the term presbyter which in 1 Timothy 5:17, indicates a tendency to use presbyter and bishop somewhat interchangeably

The rest of what you describe in terms of the usage of επισκοπος/επισκοπη merely demonstrates that it was possible for such a term to have been used for someone in such a position, not that the term was *necessarily *used for such a person.

This tendency towards interchangeability is a major part of the problem: Clement and Ignatius also show us that πρεσβυτερος and επισκοπος were being used with little differentiation in the C1st, i.e. those terms were not being used in precisely the rigorous ways in which they were used later. Meanwhile, Peter was also an αποστολος (which is how he identifies himself), and so we cannot logically conclude that he identified or was identified as επισκοπος or in his own lifetime. It was quite possibly as J. J. I. von Dollinger puts it: “The Episcopate slept in the Apostolate” (The First Age of Christianity and the Church, 2.130).

Much the same actually applies to Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, since our first reference to them under that title is apparently Irenaeus. While there is no reasonable doubt that they were leaders of the church in Rome, Evaristus may well have been the first one to be called “bishop” in his own time.

Peter, is the head apostle, The Rock Jesus will build His Church on … Peter vicar of Christ, leader of the apostles, ergo leader of the Church

At this point, you are reading later ideas back into C1st usage.

 

[Mystophilus]

Take your time. I would love to know what you think of my points.

Thank you very much for your patience.

I should have it all together tomorrow: in order to do the topic justice, I have to try to cover several centuries and to include what a lot of people outside of Rome said about Rome’s position.

 

[Mystophilus]

That post on the history of this is finally up.

There was a fundamental difference between how East and West viewed the role of Rome. What you describe is very much the Roman view: supervening pre-eminence and universal jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the Easterners just did not feel the same way: they held Rome in a position of honour, but often ascribed that honour to Rome’s secular greatness. Further, they vested authority in individual bishops within their own sees, and then in councils. The conciliar view essentially meant that a council ratified whatsoever it defined in its own resolutions, not every idea expressed by every person who spoke.

That is particularly noticeable here, in the council’s specific validation of Cyril’s views, and its starkly contrasting silence about Philip’s. It is also visible in the subsequent treatment of the Council versus the Roman Pope in the matter of Acacius.

So, while Roman jurisprudence can (and does) look to such occasions as this council to demonstrate that Rome has long claimed such jurisdiction, I am afraid that the history of the Church demonstrates that the claims did not persuade the East, hence the eventual and inevitable schism which took the Filioque as a flashpoint.

 

[Mystophilus]

You need to quote more.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=943428

That should be more than anyone needs in order to see the huge difference between how Rome thought and how others, especially in the East, thought.

 

[steve_b]

the Council record shows that the only one who refers to him as such is his own legate, not the Council itself.

Incorrect. The council agreed. That’s why it’s part of the council docs. And it was ratified by the pope making it an ecumenical council i.e. this applies to the whole Church.

If the pope didn’t ratify the council then technically it would have been a local council and the results of that council would then apply to only those who are represented and shepherded by those bishops at the council and THEIR diocese…
M:

Read more of the councils. Their records include all manner of comments and actions, many of them only passingly relevant to the main business, but they also specify precisely what each Council approves: in this case, they specify that the Council approved Cyril’s views, -]not /-] AND Philip’s.

Just a correction, It’s NOT either/ or, It’s NOT one but not the other…it’s both
M:

The rest of what you describe in terms of the usage of επισκοπος/επισκοπη merely demonstrates that it was possible for such a term to have been used for someone in such a position, not that the term was *necessarily *used for such a person.

my previous post makes it probable and actual.
M:

This tendency towards interchangeability is a major part of the problem: Clement and Ignatius also show us that πρεσβυτερος and επισκοπος were being used with little differentiation in the C1st, i.e. those terms were not being used in precisely the rigorous ways in which they were used later.

Actually Ignatius was quite specific in identifying a bishop

Chapter 8.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. .

Chapter 9.
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.

From Epistle to the Smyrnæans

As an aside,
Ignatius was made bishop of Antioch ~69 a.d. He was a disciple of St John
M:

Meanwhile, Peter was also an αποστολος (which is how he identifies himself), and so we cannot logically conclude that he identified or was identified as επισκοπος or in his own lifetime.

My previous post shows how illogical that argument is.
M:

It was quite possibly as J. J. I. von Dollinger puts it: “The Episcopate slept in the Apostolate” (The First Age of Christianity and the Church, 2.130).

Slept? How is Dollinger using that in context?
M:

Much the same actually applies to Linus, Anacletus, and Clement, since our first reference to them under that title is apparently Irenaeus. While there is no reasonable doubt that they were leaders of the church in Rome, Evaristus may well have been the first one to be called “bishop” in his own time.

Irenaeus says that information that he is writing about in “Against Heresies” came directly from Peter and Paul in Rome AND from those faithful bishops of Rome down to his day who passed the information on. Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3
M:

At this point, you are reading later ideas back into C1st usage.

You’re denial of Catholic history is noted.

 

[Abu]

Another excellent post.steve b.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The supremacy is very evident, the denial of which shows the denial of history and of Christ’s mandate to St Peter over His Church.

 

[Mystophilus]

Incorrect. The council agreed. That’s why it’s part of the council docs. And it was ratified by the pope making it an ecumenical council i.e. this applies to the whole Church.

Actually, it is only part of the Acts of the Council, not part of the Decrees, and so its inclusion thus only demonstrates that the Council agreed that it happened. Cyril’s words, in stark contrast, are explicitly “approved as being orthodox and without fault”. Nowhere does the Council say any such thing about Philip’s comments.

This difference is further corroborated by the subsequent usage of Cyril’s anathemata in Acacius’ Henoticon, by the whole process of the “Robber Council” of 449, and also by the Easterners’ treatment of Leo the Great’s demands at Chalcedon in 451. The East did not accept Philip’s claims as truth.

If the pope didn’t ratify the council then technically it would have been a local council

Only if “local” means “for the whole Greek-speaking East”, as was true for the 28th canon of Chalcedon in 451, and, indeed, for Constantinople in 381.

my previous post makes it probable and actual.

Sorry, but your posts do not change the nature of the past.

Actually Ignatius was quite specific in identifying a bishop

My apologies. Ignatius is the one who shows that difference, yes.

My previous post shows how illogical that argument is.

Sorry, but that is not an argument; it is just an unsubstantiated claim.

Slept? How is Dollinger using that in context?

“'The office afterwards called episcopal was not yet marked off; the Episcopate slept in the Apostolate.” In other words, he acknowledges that there was not yet a distinct usage to επισκοπος. There is a useful article on this here

Irenaeus says that information that he is writing about in “Against Heresies” came directly from Peter and Paul in Rome AND from those faithful bishops of Rome down to his day who passed the information on.

He says that information was passed down, yes. He does not specify which information, and he certainly does not say, “The Apostles passed down a record of Peter’s being called επισκοπος in his own day.”

You’re denial of Catholic history is noted.

Your polemical attempt at an unsubstantiated accusation of prejudice is noted.

For the record, my now-mysteriously-deleted post was composed primarily of Catholic sources, referenced as such. Von Dollinger and Bossuet, whom I have quoted here, were Catholics. The Documenta Omnia Catholica, which I use frequently on this forum, is a Catholic website. If I disbelieved Catholic history, I would not quote Catholic historians or editors as authorities on times and texts.

What I disbelieve is the projection of modern Catholic views back onto the whole history of the Catholic Church, as if there had never been any development, and I even more strongly disbelieve the projection of modern Catholic views back onto the Greek-speaking East, who demonstrate very different approaches to such things as the role of the bishop of Rome. There are, however, plenty of Catholic scholars who are well above making that sort of mistake.

 

[steve_b]

Actually, it is only part of the Acts of the Council, not part of the Decrees, and so its inclusion thus only demonstrates that the Council agreed that it happened. Cyril’s words, in stark contrast, are explicitly “approved as being orthodox and without fault”. Nowhere does the Council say any such thing about Philip’s comments.

It’s ALL approved or it wouldn’t be there.
M:

This difference is further corroborated by the subsequent usage of Cyril’s anathemata in Acacius’ Henoticon, by the whole process of the “Robber Council” of 449, and also by the Easterners’ treatment of Leo the Great’s demands at Chalcedon in 451. The East did not accept Philip’s claims as truth.

schism from the apostolic see, the chair of Peter did ultimately happen. But not at the time we’re talking about
M:

Only if “local” means “for the whole Greek-speaking East”, as was true for the 28th canon of Chalcedon in 451, and, indeed, for Constantinople in 381.

Parts of a council can be rejected by the pope. And that is duely noted when it happens.
M:

Sorry, but your posts do not change the nature of the past.

if you want to refute what I wrote with documentation of your own, then do that.
M:

My apologies. Ignatius is the one who shows that difference, yes.

and since he was bishop from ~69 a.d., and since he was a direct disciple of St John, we know where he got the name of the only Church he and the apostles know, i.e. the Catholic Church. And might I add

Ignatius wrote

Ch 3
Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].

Ch 7
For though some would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is not deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes, John 3:8 and detects the secrets [of the heart]. For, when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice: Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.

Epistle to the Philadelphians

So, Re: unity, that also goes for being united and remain united to the apostolic see, the chair of Peter as well
M:

“'The office afterwards called episcopal was not yet marked off; the Episcopate slept in the Apostolate.” In other words, he acknowledges that there was not yet a distinct usage to επισκοπος. There is a useful article on this

Are you even reading what is coming from documents written by a bishop DURING apostolic times?
M:

He says that information was passed down, yes. He does not specify which information, and he certainly does not say, “The Apostles passed down a record of Peter’s being called επισκοπος in his own day.”

Read it again, He DID specify what came from Peter & Paul.
M:

Your polemical attempt at an unsubstantiated accusation of prejudice is noted.

Actually another Anglican (Schaff) was having the same problem you’re having in this same section of Irenaeus’s "Against Heresies (Bk 3 Ch 3 vs 2-3) . He admits in his footnote, he was trying to find a better way to translate Ireneus (in this very section) because it was problematic for him as a Protestant to read it.
(footnote 3313, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html#fna_ix.iv.iv-p2.4)
M:

For the record, my now-mysteriously-deleted post was composed primarily of Catholic sources, referenced as such. Von Dollinger and Bossuet, whom I have quoted here, were Catholics. The Documenta Omnia Catholica, which I use frequently on this forum, is a Catholic website. If I disbelieved Catholic history, I would not quote Catholic historians or editors as authorities on times and texts.

I can’t speak to what I didn’t see.
M:

What I disbelieve is the projection of modern Catholic views back onto the whole history of the Catholic Church,

Modern? All my quotes so far go back to docs that date from the 1st century to 4th century. What’s modern about THAT?
M:

as if there had never been any development, and I even more strongly disbelieve the projection of modern Catholic views back onto the Greek-speaking East, who demonstrate very different approaches to such things as the role of the bishop of Rome. There are, however, plenty of Catholic scholars who are well above making that sort of mistake.

Go back and read the exerpts from Ignatius I quoted. Particularly the East and their proclivity to division.

The Church of Rome with her succession of bishops from Peter, **is **the chair of Peter. THAT’s history.

 

[Mystophilus]

It’s ALL approved or it wouldn’t be there.

This assertion is a/ unsubstantiated, and b/ ridiculous given that the Council documents routinely discriminate between their acts and their decrees. You are ignoring the fact that the Council explicitly approves one, and only mentions the other as having occurred without validating it anywhere.

schism from the apostolic see, the chair of Peter did ultimately happen. But not at the time we’re talking about

This is incorrect. Communion lapsed between Rome and the whole East in 195 (over Easter), and again in 256 (over Carthage), and again from 477-512 (over the Henoticon), as well as between Rome and Constantinople from 407-415 (over Chrysostom) and from 449-450 (over Dioscurus), and between Rome and Antioch from 375-398 (over Meletius) and from 407-417 (over Chrysostom) (for these, see Hefele, or Schaff, or Burn-Murdoch). Churches demonstrated a willingness to ignore what the bishop of Rome wanted, although that did not necessarily provoke mutual excommunications.

Parts of a council can be rejected by the pope. And that is duely noted when it happens.

As noted above and previously, claims by the bishop of Rome were ignored by other churches. As also noted previously, you are projecting a **modern **view (“can”) back into a different time period.

if you want to refute what I wrote with documentation of your own, then do that.

I have no need to disprove a claim (that the term επισκοπος was used of Peter in his own lifetime) which has not been substantiated. All that you have shown thus far is conjecture.

Read it again, He DID specify what came from Peter & Paul.

Read my comment again: he does specify whence he ultimately got information, but not what information he got.

He admits in his footnote, he was trying to find a better way to translate Ireneus (in this very section) because it was problematic for him as a Protestant to read it.

This is incorrect. He states that it is difficult to translate, but does not say that anything about his own faith caused the difficulty. It is so tricky that Burn-Murdoch notes twelve different scholars’ conjectures on it (Development of the Papacy, p.93).

I can’t speak to what I didn’t see.

So, you did not see the link which I posted to Bossuet or the quotation of von Dollinger, both of those in this very thread, but you did decide to accuse me of prejudice? Wow.

What’s modern about THAT?

Your *anachronistic *view of the role of Rome in early Church ecclesiology (cf. your inability to distinguish between what Ephesus ratified and what it merely recounted, the cases already mentioned, Anicetus’ inability to persuade Polycarp (Eus 2.24.16), Rome’s not being invited to the Council of Constantinople in 381, Carthage’s councils overruling bishops of Rome in 254-7 and 418-24, bishops of Rome citing the Councils rather than themselves as authorities in 340, 404, 451, and, of course, Gregory the Great’s “I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel”).

 

[steve_b]

This assertion is a/ unsubstantiated, and b/ ridiculous given that the Council documents routinely discriminate between their acts and their decrees. You are ignoring the fact that the Council explicitly approves one, and only mentions the other as having occurred without validating it anywhere.

good grief!!!

Quote the part of the documents that were NOT approved?
M:

This is incorrect. Communion lapsed between Rome and the whole East in 195 (over Easter),

It was NOT the whole East. It was primarily those in or from, Asia Minor who did NOT celebrate Easter on Sunday. As we know, that practice evaporated anyway.
M:

and again in 256 (over Carthage), and again from 477-512 (over the Henoticon), as well as between Rome and Constantinople from 407-415 (over Chrysostom) and from 449-450 (over Dioscurus), and between Rome and Antioch from 375-398 (over Meletius) and from 407-417 (over Chrysostom) (for these, see Hefele, or Schaff, or Burn-Murdoch). Churches demonstrated a willingness to ignore what the bishop of Rome wanted, although that did not necessarily provoke mutual excommunications.

Re: the Easter controversy

IV. Easter Controversy
o 4.1 A. FIRST PHASE
o 4.2 B. SECOND PHASE
o 4.3 C. THIRD PHASE
o 4.4 D. POINTS OF OBSCURITY

Pope Victor I, Saint

This “controversy” didn’t tear communion apart, East from West…
M:

As noted above and previously, claims by the bishop of Rome were ignored by other churches. As also noted previously, you are projecting a **modern **view (“can”) back into a different time period.

You’re wrong again
M:

I have no need to disprove a claim (that the term επισκοπος was used of Peter in his own lifetime) which has not been substantiated. All that you have shown thus far is conjecture.

I gave you proof using Catholic Church sources. And since Peter and the apostles were building the Catholic Church, that’s all the proof I need.

I realize you not being Catholic, you’ve got problems with this. I can’t help that.
M:

Read my comment again: he does specify whence he ultimately got information, but not what information he got**.**

He identifies specifically what he received

• apostolic succession from Peter and Paul, of the bishops of Rome
• those bishops take on the place of government held by the apostles Peter and Paul
• Out of all the Churches pedegrees, the authority of ONE Church is preeminent, such that all must agree with the Church of Rome

For they (the apostles) were desirous that these men (bishops they instituted) also were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; .
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. 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.

Then Irenaeus names 12 bishops of Rome down to his day.
M:

This is incorrect. He states that it is difficult to translate, but does not say that anything about his own faith caused the difficulty. It is so tricky that Burn-Murdoch notes twelve different scholars’ conjectures on it (Development of the Papacy, p.93).

C’mon

For space, Here’s a fuller explanation of what I’m talking about #[5 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11484473&postcount=5)

 

[steve_b]

So, you did not see the link which I posted to Bossuet or the quotation of von Dollinger, both of those in this very thread, but you did decide to accuse me of prejudice? Wow.

That comment was in response to your following statement

Originally Posted by M
For the record, my now-mysteriously-deleted post was composed primarily of Catholic sources, referenced as such. Von Dollinger and Bossuet, whom I have quoted here, were Catholics. The Documenta Omnia Catholica, which I use frequently on this forum, is a Catholic website. If I disbelieved Catholic history, I would not quote Catholic historians or editors as authorities on times and texts.

you tell me your post was deleted, and I tell you I can’t comment on something I haven’t seen, now you’re busting my chops for not responding to something that isn’t there?
M:

Your *anachronistic *view of the role of Rome in early Church ecclesiology (cf. your inability to distinguish between what Ephesus ratified and what it merely recounted, the cases already mentioned, Anicetus’ inability to persuade Polycarp (Eus 2.24.16), Rome’s not being invited to the Council of Constantinople in 381, Carthage’s councils overruling bishops of Rome in 254-7 and 418-24, bishops of Rome citing the Councils rather than themselves as authorities in 340, 404, 451, and, of course, Gregory the Great’s “I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel”).

What post does this refer to so I can answer it properly?

 

[Abu]

[Mystophilus #27
Linus, Anacletus, and Clement……While there is no reasonable doubt that they were leaders of the church in Rome, Evaristus may well have been the first one to be called “bishop” in his own time.

It is noteworthy that Pope St Clement, the third bishop of Rome, in the First Epistle of Clement (1 Clem) speaks of Peter and Paul as of “our own generation” and wrote to the disorderly in the Church at Corinth by reminding them that the Apostles ordained bishops and deacons warning that “the effort to depose men from the episcopacy” is no “small sin.” He stresses that “The Apostles are from Christ….they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them through the Spirit – to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers.”

“Ancient testimonies, the Didache, the Letter of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, to the Pauline community of Philippi, and in letters attributed to Barnabas and Diognetus….cover the evidence in the early Church from the time of the Apostles up to about 150 A.D. They demonstrate that by the turn of the first century all Churches for which there is information were led by officials called bishops, presbyters, and deacons.”
The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p77-8].
[/quote]

 

[Mystophilus]

Quote the part of the documents that were NOT approved?

The parts which were approved by the Council are the parts which the Council says were approved: the decree against Nestorius passed by the Council, the canons passed by the Council, the contents of the Council’s letter to Coelestine, and the items specifically referred to in those parts as approved (e.g., Cyril’s letters). Nothing else is identified by the Council as having been approved, merely as having happened.

It was NOT the whole East.

Okay, that is fair: Eusebius just says “all Asia” (3.24.9), and others in that list include events in which the lines of fractured communion run across provinces. Nonetheless, the historical record very frequently demonstrates the inability of the bishops of Rome to force, and even sometimes to coax, compliance with their will.

This “controversy” didn’t tear communion apart, East from West.

It did between Rome and Asia, creating one of the many situations in which diocese A was in communion with diocese B but not with diocese C, whilst B and C were in communion. It was not as complete a schism as some of the later ones, but it was the reason why the later ones happened.

I gave you proof using Catholic Church sources. And since Peter and the apostles were building the Catholic Church, that’s all the proof I need.

Actually, no: you cited examples, none of which included the term being used for Peter in his own time; you then conjectured that it was used for him. Conjecture is not proof.

Then Irenaeus names 12 bishops of Rome down to his day.

Yes, he does: 2 apostles, whom he describes as working together, and then a succession of 12 bishops, whom he presents as a distinct group from the apostles. He draws no connection between that succession and Peter in particular. This does not support your argument. Tertullian comes closer, saying that Peter ordained Linus, but still separates the apostles from the bishops (32).

I am curious, however, as to why you think that this is such a big deal. We have no evidence of “pope” being used at that time either, but of it later being used for non-Romans (e.g., Cyprian of Carthage and Athanasius of Alexandria), and so the description of Peter as “the first pope” is also anachronistic.

For space, Here’s a fuller explanation of what I’m talking about

By all means, if you think that you can explain the relationship between convenire ad (or convenire) and συμβαινεν, necesse est and αναγκη and δει, potentiorem and 'ικανωτεραν (and the related issue of potiorem and εξαιρετον or διαφορωτεραν), principalitas and αυθεντια or πρωτεια or αρχη or αρχαιοτης, the puzzle over undique, and whether in qua is εν 'ηι or 'ηι, be my guest, because your linked quotation from Berington and Kirk does not even begin to address the linguistic complexities there.

now you’re busting my chops for not responding to something that isn’t there?

Of course, it is *entirely unreasonable *of me to object to your accusing me of bias against Catholic history when I had only cited two Catholic historians up to that point! How very foolish of me to think that unsubstantiated personal attacks are inappropriate! I have clearly been hanging out with the wrong kind of people!

What post does this refer to?

It refers to your representation of the Early Church as operating on the same ecclesiological principles as the modern Catholic Church (q.v. “can be rejected by the pope”) and to your presumption that Philip’s pro-Roman comments at Ephesus were automatically accepted, despite the Council’s never having said anything about them.