C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Except they always have, because a synod has always been recognized to have more power than any one bishop.
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
Doesn’t it say below and in many similar writings that the Roman church holds the succession of the primacy of Peter?
6- “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus3 [A.D. 382]).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not sure what the actual point was guan, Tertullian presents the same argument, I assume this is where this is coming from.
“Montanist Tertullian believed genuine Church authority was confined to men called pneumatici who were thought to be filled with the Holy Spirit in a way that Catholics were not. Catholics, instead, were referred to as psychici or animal-men. The true Church therefore was the Montanist Church as opposed to the Catholic. With this in mind, it can be seen that Tertullian reprimanded the pope for usurping power for himself, properly belonging to the Montanist pneumatici, to be used for all Churches closely connected with Peter. In other words, the pope was accused of usurping power to be used over those Churches in communion with the See of Peter, that is, over the Catholic Church.” Fr Hardin
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The Roman church does holds the succession of the primacy of Peter.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
So the question becomes this, is there a divinely authorized primacy of jurisdiction?
The fact that disbelief, disobedience and misunderstanding has been a on-going reality only indicates a refusal to obey legitimately constituted authority, thus these points shouldn’t be taken as proof of absence of the above point.
The fact that disbelief, disobedience and misunderstanding has been a on-going reality only indicates a refusal to obey legitimately constituted authority, thus these points shouldn’t be taken as proof of absence of the above point.
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
I think a balanced pastoral interfence by the Pope into the affairs of the east is okay,wasn’t it becoming an issue in Photius’ time and they didn’t want papal interference?
Was this the beginning of rebellion or the beginning of a rule that never existed before?
Both sides will see things differently but God is still with us wanting us all to become holy as he is and we must work towards forgiveness and reconciliation and peace.
I’m convinced enough personally to know the Pope played a role in eastern affairs when needed in the early centuries,but how it is now with the east completely off the Popes radar,I don’t think that that is the will of Christ or St Peter and the way things are now are not how Christ intended his church to be.
Any reunion efforts by both churches must be welcomed and prayed for that the Christians on earth might be one as Christ wants.
7- “Rome the See of Peter, which has been made to the whole world the head of the pastoral office.” St. Prosper of Acquitaine (450 A.D.)
- St. Prosper of
- Victor of Vita
- St. Pope
- St. Pope
G
GodHeals
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
Your position confirms the adage my grandpa use to share" PETER HAD SPOKEN!
“your much more likely to find trouble when you go looking for it”
Your giving your OWN opinion.
The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Continued Blessings,
*
A
andrewstx
Guest
Niether are arch bishops or cardinals, what does that proove? Nether Catholics or Orthodox are in the least solo-scriptura.
S
sharpag
Guest
I’m not denying that Peter was given keys. I am denying that the keys were solely given to Rome as there are at least three Petrine Sees (Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria). My point was that I don’t understand how the primacy of Peter is limited to Rome when even you have pointed out he was given “keys” and not a “key.”
B
brb3
Guest
Yes, in 1438 …Council of Ferrara. Agreed to a lot, including Papal Primacy …but, sadly the Eastern Church would not agree with their Patriarchs decisions.
M
Mickey
Guest
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Proof texting is completely ineffectual as an apologetic tactic, because it marks a lack of understanding of the position of the opponent. For example, what purpose does it serve to present proof texts concerning Peter’s primacy to Orthodox Christians, who do not deny that Peter possessed a primacy among the apostles? Similarly what purpose does it serve to illustrate to Orthodox Christians that Rome was afforded a primacy of sorts in the first millennium, when nobody denies this? The difference is that the primacy of Rome, according to the Orthodox was neither inalienable, nor did it guarantee indefectibility to the Church of Rome. Similarly, while we understand the historical primacy of Rome to be based on the primacy of Peter, we understand in accordance with the great Eastern exegetes like the Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril and even some Western exegetes like St. Augustine, and St. Leo of most-blessed memory that the power and type of Peter is proposed to all pastors of the Church. That is to say, primates are primates in virtue of having received the power of Peter, possessed by all bishops, in their ordination.Your position confirms the adage my grandpa use to share" PETER HAD SPOKEN!
“your much more likely to find trouble when you go looking for it”
Your giving your OWN opinion.
The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church. . . [list of proof texts has ben omitted to save space]
This then renders about half of those texts (the ones taking about Peter’s primacy) meaningless in the context of discussion with the Orthodox, because we don’t even deny the primacy of Peter. Now for the Epistle of Clement, neither does this pose a problem for Orthodox Christians, because Rome had a long standing canonical right to appellate jurisdiction. It is also interesting to note that not once does the author of the Epistle of Clement mention the scriptural Petrine texts which would become the center point of the papacy’s claim to monarchal power during the Gregorian Reforms. Similarly one must recognize the ambiguity of that passage from the Latin translation of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies. By convenire does the translator mean agree or have recourse? The Latter is consistent with the canonical tradition, while the former interpretation seems not to have any support in the canonical tradition of the first millennium. The letter of St. Ignatius to the Romans is far too vague to support the modern Roman Catholic interpretation of primacy in favor of the Orthodox interpretation of the Roman primacy, as teaching and instructing are functions of all bishops, and not just of the bishop of Rome
As for Ss. Cyprian and Optatus, they must be interpreted in continuity with the whole of the Carthaginian tradition, namely St. Cyprian’s understanding that there is one Peter and one Episcopate in which all bishops are participants. Rome acts as a unifying beacon, but not as the sole possessor of the Episcopacy and Petrine ministry. This is how St. Cyprian could write glowing words of praise for the see of Rome on one hand, and take a defiant stand against St. Stephen on the other. St. Optatus similarly must be interpreted in the context of his debate with the Donatists. The Donatists argued that the marks of the Church were six (in contrast to Catholic Christians, who argue and continue to believe that the marks of the Church are four, that she is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic). St. Optatus (perhaps by way of concession) grants them five of their six marks, and proceeds to show that the Catholic Christians possess all of them, while the Donatists possess none. One of these marks is the Cathedra (chair), and this, St. Optatus argues that the Catholic Church possesses, because the Donatists began their sect by schism, by trying to establish a second Cathedra. This passage is of limited apologetic value for two reasons. Firstly, it has never been a belief of Catholic Christians that ‘Cathedra’ is a mark of the Church, so to compare the East-West schism to the situation described by St. Optatus with the Donatists would be inadmissible. Secondly, even if we were to grant, against the perfect and unblemished faith expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, that there existed a fifth mark of the church, Cathedra, St. Optatus clearly does not mean to say that the Cathedra is immutably attached to the city of Rome, but only that this city is where Peter first obtained the Cathedra, and through him, the entire Church gained this mark (though again, it must be stressed that this has never been a belief of Catholic Christians that Cathedra is a mark of the Church).
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
The pope doesn’t have, nor does he claim authority over the other Patriarchs. He has authority, through the Holy Spirit, over Catholic doctrines of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra. It then becomes the privilege of the others to agree or disagree with the Holy Spirit’s revelation to the pope.
We, that is the Catholic Church, need a pope because, in addition to the Body and Blood of Christ, the papacy is the unifying factor that keeps the Church one in faith; one Body of Christ as He and the Father are one.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
What do you see as the differences? (Apologies in advance if this question is asked and answered in later posts.)
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
St. James decision was to accept St. Peter’s decision. He made his declaration as the presider of the Council by virtue of the Council’s being conducted in his diocese. That’s the way it works to this day.
James’ speech was directed primarily to the Jews of Jerusalem, who were insistent that converts to Christianity adhere to the ancient Levitical laws.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
The keys to heaven? The authority to bind and loose (to Peter first, then to the rest)? Feed my sheep? Strengthen your brothers? Seems clear to me.
“As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” (Citation omitted.) and John 16:13.
- Status