Divine Institution of the Papacy

[MilesVitae]

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“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: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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 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 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]).

I must say, I have always had trouble with this passage because I find it difficult to understand Cyprian’s language, though the translation here is a little different from the one I am used to, and a little more clear in the meaning it conveys. The following is more familiar to me, and a little different. The emphasized part I have always found rather vague in its meaning:

1. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; " John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church,

In any case, I was reading an article on this recently, which argued that this passage is referring to the episcopacy as a whole, not the papacy. For instance, in the immedately following passage, he speaks of the unity of the episcopacy. Consider this in conjunction with another passage from Cyprian, from epistle xxvi:

1. 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 you, That you are 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 you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you 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 this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.

Here, he seems to be connecting the words to Peter in Matthew 16 not with the papacy, but with the whole episcopacy, making no mention of Rome (as he does not in the passage from On the Unity of the Church).

Thoughts?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

I’d like to discuss not merely the evidence (primarily from the patristic period, as well as Scripture) for primacy/supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but the evidence that this primacy belongs to him in virtue of an office instituted by Christ as a perpetual part of His Church.

It appears you want to discuss four specific topics:
(1) That Christ instituted an office of primacy (Scriptural evidence).
The usual Scriptural evidence (the assignment of the name “Peter” to Simon; the specific prayer of Christ for Simon personally to strengthen the faith of his brethren; the personal directive to “feed my sheep/lambs”; according to St. Peter’s own acts and testimony, that it was through him that God would permit the Gentiles to join the People of God; etc. ) need not be repeated. I would add (as we have discussed in the past, I think) the parable of the wise and faithful servant (Mt 24:45-51; Luke 12: 41-48). It is relevant that Jesus presents the parable in specific response to a query from St. Peter.

(2) That Christ instituted an office of primacy (patristic evidence).
That St. Peter was instituted by Christ as head of the Apostles is a certain, unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church.

(3) That Christ insituted this office as a perpetual part of His Church (Scriptural evidence).
The primary scriptural evidence is the parable of the wise and faithful servant. Here we see that the head servant is presumed to exist until the return of the Master. Unless one wants to believe that the head servant insituted by the Master is immortal, the obvious meaning is that it refers to the office of head servant that will exist and be occupied by someone until the Last Days (when the Master returns). To repeat, it is significant that the parable is given as a response to a query from St. Peter. ZZ912 (post #10) also gave a great exegesis of the relevant principle of apostolic succession.

(4) That Christ institued this office as a perpetual part of His Church (patristic evidence).
St. John Chrysostom interpreted the head servant in the parable mentioned above as referring to St. Peter and his successors. I have not had the time to investigate too many patristic commentaries on these verses. IIRC, the parable is sometimes interpreted in a very general sense about the stewardship of priests and bishops. I believe it is noteworthy that St. John Chrysostom comes from the Syriac Tradition, which, to this day, has maintained, along with Catholicism, a belief in the doctrinal import of the primacy.

But I believe the actions of the Church Fathers, moreso than their writings, are a greater witness to their recognition of this perpetual primatial office. The question is: Is there a recognition in each century from the first until the Great Schism - and beyond - that there was a primarcy in the Church universal? Was there a bishop to whom other bishops from all over Christendom (East and West) often appealed? Was there a bishop in every Ecumenical Council from whom the other bishops sought confirmation?

These are just preliminary statements. I believe much of the content may lie in (1) analyzing the actions of the Church Fathers demonstrating a recognition of this universal primacy in each century; (2) quotations from the Fathers specifically connecting the bishop of Rome to St. Peter; (3) a refutation of the non-Catholic arguments against the Catholic position on those four points.

I see that the discussion on quotations from the Fathers is already ensuing. I will join that soon (my attention will be occupied primarily in clarifying some things in the “keys” thread and in that other obligation I have for another poster I mentioned to you).

Hopefully, non-Catholics or non-Latin Christians will join the discussion. But before anything else, let me point out right now that I am a Catholic High Petrine advocate. One of our principles is that the Pope is not above correction by his brother bishops (though we deny that an Ecumenical Council is above the Pope – of course, just as the Pope is not above an Ecumenical Council). Citations of correction of Popes by his brother bishops are irrelevant to High Petrine advocates because we believe that is a natural part of the consitution of the Church. Primacy does not mean that the head bishop cannot be corrected. Thus, it would be illogical to claim that evidence of correction can disprove papal primacy in the Church universal. I should also point out that I am an Oriental Catholic who came from the Oriental Orthodox Communion. To Orientals, the term “supreme” does not necessarily carry the connotations of absolute or unilateral power that certain Westerns and Easterns imagine. So the oft-used argument from critics of the papacy that “primacy is not the same thing as supremacy” really does not have an impact on my beliefs in ecclesiology.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

I must say, I have always had trouble with this passage because I find it difficult to understand Cyprian’s language, though the translation here is a little different from the one I am used to, and a little more clear in the meaning it conveys. The following is more familiar to me, and a little different. The emphasized part I have always found rather vague in its meaning:

In any case, I was reading an article on this recently, which argued that this passage is referring to the episcopacy as a whole, not the papacy. For instance, in the immedately following passage, he speaks of the unity of the episcopacy. Consider this in conjunction with another passage from Cyprian, from epistle xxvi:

Here, he seems to be connecting the words to Peter in Matthew 16 not with the papacy, but with the whole episcopacy, making no mention of Rome (as he does not in the passage from On the Unity of the Church).

Thoughts?

You’re supposed to connect the dots, i.e., Peter = Rome (at the council of Ephesus it was said Peter lives forever in his successors at Rome), therefore what is said of Peter is connected to the papacy because the office of Peter is in perpetuity.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

So far the one relevant quotation I could find by Aphraates connects Jesus and Peter to David and Solomon. It is from Demonstrations…

Marduk, was this the one you were thinking of?

If that’s the one in the first volume of Ante-Nicene Fathers, that would be it. I do think Aaphrates rings a bell, so I’m 90% sure that’s it.

From sister Josie:

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 (exarchos) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (themelios) 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 today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc."

Remember that the Eastern Fathers of the Ecum Councils were in the habit of including in their Acts only those things to which they agreed. At times, they would even revise certain statements from the Latin Church in their own copies. So this extract from the Acts of the 3rd Ecum is pretty clear, don’t you think?

The quotes provided by brothe Randy and sister Josie from St. Cyprian’s Letter 55, Pope St. Damasus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, Pope St. Leo, Pope St. Innocent, Pope St. Gregory, St. Theodore the Studite, and St. Maximos are also pretty clear about the perpetuity of the office, and the connection of St. Peter to the bishop of Rome.

That was an incisive critique of the quote from Tertullian, btw.

As far as the quotes from St. Cyprian, you indicated you had some questions with the excerpt: “yet, that He might set forth unity, * He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power;but the beginning proceeds from unity.*”

To me, this indicates a particular office given a particular responsibility - to preserve unity. This principle is followed on every level of the hierarchy (local, metropolitan, patriarchal, universal). So the bishop and then the head bishop on each successive level of the hierarchy represent an office of unity in their respective jurisdictions. The basis for this unitive principle is St. Peter (hence, the nomenclature I use on the Petrine views). It is in large part according to this understanding that St. Cyprian states that all bishops are as St. Peter was - because all bishops are a principle of unity in their own diocese. But is there no unity on the metropolitan level? What about the patriarchal level? Or - more to the point - what about the universal level? Is that what you think he is saying - that there is no principle of unity on the universal level?

As far as the quote from Cyprian’s Epistle 26, my immediate reaction is “so what if it does not mention the bishop of Rome?” His main point, I believe, is that the local bishop holds the keys (which is true, according to Catholic teaching, not the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates - like in the Mt 16 thread - that ONLY the Pope holds the keys) in his local Church. There were some lapsi who were establishing themselves as a Church with their own priests without the authority of the local bishop, and they were writing to St. Cyprian either to inform him or to request his support. He is saying that since the local bishop holds the keys in the diocese, they should not form their groups without his authority. Simple as that. How or why this can be immediately translated as an opposition to the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church is a mystery.

Looking forward to further (name removed by moderator)ut from you, brother Miles.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Protestor]

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter
Origen (248 A.D.)
“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
*

I am so interested in that I used this exact same passage to explain something else and I was told that it was not a part of tradition and that Origen was not an EFC so I could not just quote whatever I found from him to prove that it was a part of tradition. This was in reference to one key or many keys.

 

[MilesVitae]

Thanks Josie, Marduk, Randy, and zz (and anyone I’ve missed) for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am reading your posts and intend to reply, I’m just busy and also trying to decide how to tackle the selection of quotations you have provided.

Remember that the Eastern Fathers of the Ecum Councils were in the habit of including in their Acts only those things to which they agreed. At times, they would even revise certain statements from the Latin Church in their own copies. So this extract from the Acts of the 3rd Ecum is pretty clear, don’t you think?

Are there multiple “versions” of the councils (translation from the Eastern “edition,” and translations of the Latin “edition”), or is this the universally accepted version?

I am going to reply regarding Cyprian et al., but I want to think about it and look into it a little more. Maybe I over think some things, but I want to be as careful as possible in what conclusions I draw from these passages…

 

[josie_L]

Thanks Josie, Marduk, Randy, and zz (and anyone I’ve missed) for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am reading your posts and intend to reply, I’m just busy and also trying to decide how to tackle the selection of quotations you have provided.

Are there multiple “versions” of the councils (translation from the Eastern “edition,” and translations of the Latin “edition”), or is this the universally accepted version?

I am going to reply regarding Cyprian et al., but I want to think about it and look into it a little more. Maybe I over think some things, but I want to be as careful as possible in what conclusions I draw from these passages…

The councils were written in Greek and Latin (translated into arabic too), but I’m not sure how that will change anything (the translations don’t change anything vital), i.e., do you know Greek or Latin? I believe the version I posted is valid as I’ve never seen another version (and I’ve used this multiple times with the EO).

p.s. I’m having a hard time understanding what the purpose of this thread is, i.e., we give you evidence that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter in perpetuity, but now you’re not sure if what we’re using is the correct edition/translation? Really? Hmmm!

God bless!

 

[MilesVitae]

The councils were written in Greek and Latin (translated into arabic too), but I’m not sure how that will change anything (the translations don’t change anything vital), i.e., do you know Greek or Latin? I believe the version I posted is valid as I’ve never seen another version (and I’ve used this multiple times with the EO).

I wondered if there were Eastern records of the council which excluded/included/reworded things which in Western records of the council were included/excluded/worded differently. I seem to recall having come across such a difference (between Eastern and Western records) with one of the councils, though I can’t recall which, and have not yet been able to find it. So far, this is the only version of this council I can find.

p.s. I’m having a hard time understanding what the purpose of this thread is, i.e., we give you evidence that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter in perpetuity, but now you’re not sure if what we’re using is the correct edition/translation? Really? Hmmm!

The purpose of this thread is to examine the evidence (or lack thereof) for the divine institution of the papacy. I asked about the translation because I had a legitimate reason for wondering about it. If it were the case that the eastern record downplayed the legates’ claims for the bishop of Rome (which I seem to recall being the case with the above mentioned discrepancy - though, atm, I cannot back that up) that would certainly call into question the universal acceptance of those claims and strength of Philip’s statements as evidence for widespread patristic-era belief in the papacy as Catholicism understands it.

 

[MilesVitae]

As far as the quotes from St. Cyprian, you indicated you had some questions with the excerpt: “yet, that He might set forth unity, * He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.* Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power;but the beginning proceeds from unity.”

To me, this indicates a particular office given a particular responsibility - to preserve unity. This principle is followed on every level of the hierarchy (local, metropolitan, patriarchal, universal). So the bishop and then the head bishop on each successive level of the hierarchy represent an office of unity in their respective jurisdictions. The basis for this unitive principle is St. Peter (hence, the nomenclature I use on the Petrine views). It is in large part according to this understanding that St. Cyprian states that all bishops are as St. Peter was - because all bishops are a principle of unity in their own diocese. But is there no unity on the metropolitan level? What about the patriarchal level? Or - more to the point - what about the universal level? Is that what you think he is saying - that there is no principle of unity on the universal level?

My first question is this: what was Cyprian’s main concern here? Was it to demonstrate the necessity of communion with the Pope, or merely to demonstrate the unity of the church and the need to avoid schism from that unity. From what I have read, my impression was was the latter - he was primarily concerned here with refuting those who break union with the local bishop and demonstrating the unity of the Church.

(Incidentally, if it is the latter, that might answer one of the issues brought up with Josie - why does Cyprian not connect this passage explicitly to Rome? Because his main concern here is not Rome as head of the Church, but simply the unity of the Church.)

In any case, I agree it is rather to hard to interpret this passage, on its own, in any way other than the Catholic way. I am tempted to say that Jesus makes Peter merely a sign/symbol/image of the Church’s unity. I am not sure this is a strong response, however, in light of Cyprian’s stating that Christ established a “reason for” and “(intrinsic) source of” (either or both, depending on the version) that unity. This would seem to make unity in someway dependant on Peter, not merely signified by him.
In a Catholic interpretation, I think, his purpose here is still simply to demonstrate the unity of the Church (again, correct me if I’m mistaken about the historical facts) - none the less, in doing so, it would seem he references Peter as the principle of unity in the Church (and, after Peter, successors to this position as principle of unity).

Continued…

 

[MilesVitae]

…Continued.

At the moment, the one very viable alternative to the Catholic interpretation I can think of would be the claim made by those in the Eastern Orthodox Church who hold to Eucharistic ecclesiology, in which the catholic Church is the local church, presided over by a bishop - in this conception, every local church, in union with its bishop, is the Church in its fulness (as opposed to what some call universalist ecclesiology, in which every local church is a part of the world-wide church, which is the catholic Church). Many claim that every bishop is a “successor” to Peter/sits in Peter’s chair/holds his place, etc… A response along these lines to the Catholic explanation of Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Church might argue that Peter held first place among the Apostles, presiding at the Eucharist when he was locally present in the early Church, but that this does not imply a universal (i.e. worldwide) successive office thereafter, since each local church is the Church in its fulness. Once local churches were established with (non-Apostle) bishops, each bishop can be said to hold the place of Peter in his local church, presiding at the Eucharist, having primacy among the clergy there, and acting as principal of unity in the local Church.

This seems to conform well with the quotation from epistle xxvi:

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 you, That you are 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 you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you 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 this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.

Here he explicitly says that Christ was describing the place of the bishop in the order of the Church.

In response to Josie, I don’t think it is sufficient to say we are simply meant to connect the dots (although that might be individually said about some of the other patristic passages which speak of Peter but not Rome). The problem here, Marduk and Josie, is not simply that Cyprian fails to mention the bishop of Rome. Rather, it is (to repeat) that he explicitly says that the purpose of Christ’s words here are to describe the order of the Church as founded on the bishops. Yes, in Catholicism the bishops holds the keys also, are the foundations of the Church, but that not is the point - I’m not assuming an Absolute Petrine understanding of Catholic teaching, Marduk . The point is that, contra the Catholic claim that this passage (the primary passage on which Catholic claims for the papacy are based) has to do with the order of the Church in regards to its foundation on Peter, this Father says that it has to do with the ordering of the Church as founded on the bishops. This seems to place Peter, not primarily as precedent to the bishop of Rome, but precedent to every bishop.

 

[josie_L]

I wondered if there were Eastern records of the council which excluded/included/reworded things which in Western records of the council were included/excluded/worded differently. I seem to recall having come across such a difference (between Eastern and Western records) with one of the councils, though I can’t recall which, and have not yet been able to find it. So far, this is the only version of this council I can find.

It seems to me anyways that you are refuting on the basis of a mind already made up, i.e., given that you asked for the quotes in the first place, it’s rather surprising to hear you say (now that the quotes in question confirm the perpetuity of Peter’s office via the bishop of Rome) , that you question the veracity of the translation.

The purpose of this thread is to examine the evidence (or lack thereof) for the divine institution of the papacy. I asked about the translation because I had a legitimate reason for wondering about it. If it were the case that the eastern record downplayed the legates’ claims for the bishop of Rome (which I seem to recall being the case with the above mentioned discrepancy - though, atm, I cannot back that up) that would certainly call into question the universal acceptance of those claims and strength of Philip’s statements as evidence for widespread patristic-era belief in the papacy as Catholicism understands it.

And there is a preponderance of evidence supporting the divine institution of the papacy, starting with the Bible (even the Orthodox agree with papal primacy, i.e., within a limited scope, but they still believe in it). Moreover, nothing that was said at the council of Ephesus contradicts what has been said by other Church fathers, i.e., unless you want to make the assumption that all texts were tampered with. As I said before, I’ve used this quote countless times, so if there was any tampering with the translation, the EO would be the first to point this out, i.e., whatever it is that you read probably isn’t true (or why else would it have gone unnoticed by the Orthodox bishops and laity, who have much to reap from such a revelation).

God bless!

 

[josie_L]

I wondered if there were Eastern records of the council which excluded/included/reworded things which in Western records of the council were included/excluded/worded differently. I seem to recall having come across such a difference (between Eastern and Western records) with one of the councils, though I can’t recall which, and have not yet been able to find it. So far, this is the only version of this council I can find.

I believe that the council in question is the Council of Nicea, i.e., there was a set of canon in arabic that was purported to be a part of Nicea but was not (also the canons of Sardica were often confused with those of Nicea).

 

[josie_L]

…Continued.

At the moment, the one very viable alternative to the Catholic interpretation I can think of would be the claim made by those in the Eastern Orthodox Church who hold to Eucharistic ecclesiology, in which the catholic Church is the local church, presided over by a bishop - in this conception, every local church, in union with its bishop, is the Church in its fulness (as opposed to what some call universalist ecclesiology, in which every local church is a part of the world-wide church, which is the catholic Church).

Here’s a little excerpt from “Called to Communion” written by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (it deals with Catholic ecclesiology vis a vis the Orthodox and Protestant view).

"We must now attempt a further step. The rediscovery of the eucharistic character of the Church has led in recent times to a strong emphasis on the principle of the local Church. Orthodox theologians have contrasted the eucharistic ecclesiology of the East, which they hold up as the authentic model of the Church, to the the centralistic ecclesiology of Rome. In every local Church, they maintain, the whole mystery of the Church is present when the Eucharist is celebrated, because Christ is wholly present; there is thus nothing more to be added. Given this premise, the inference is drawn that the idea of a Petrine office is contradictory; it resorts to a worldly pattern of unity that is opposed to the sacramental unity represented in the Church’s eucharistic constitution. Of course, this modern Orthodox eucharistic ecclesiology is not defined in purely “local” terms, since the point from which it is constructed is the bishop, not the place as such. If one considers this fact, it becomes obvious that for the Orthodox tradition the mere celebration of the liturgical act in the given locality does not suffice to constitute the Church, a complementary principle is needed. . . The Church is Eucharist, as we said. This can be translated into the statement that the Church is communion, communion with the whole Body of Christ. . . Whoever receives him in Communion necessarily communicates with all his brothers and sisters who have become members of the one Body. Communio includes the dimension of catholicity by virtue of the range of the mystery of Christ. Communio is catholic, or it simply does not exist at all. . .

that the ancient Church never consisted in a static juxtaposition of local Churches (it is not a federation of churches). Catholicitiy, concretely realized in many forms, belongs to her essence from the very outset. In the apostolic period it is above all the figure of the apostle itself that stands outside the scope of the local principle. The apostle is not the bishop of a community but rather a missionary of the whole Church. The figure of the apostle is the strongest refutation of every purely local conception of the Church. He expresses in his person the Universal; he is her representative, and no local Church can claim him for her alone. Paul carried out this function of unity by means of his letters and a network of messengers. These letters are an exercise of his catholic ministry of unity, which can be accounted for only by the apostle’s authority in the Church universal. If one considers the lists of salutations in the epistles, one can further observe how mobile ancient society was; we meet Paul’s friends now here, now there. For them being a Christian meant belonging to a developing divine convocation that was one and the same wherever they found it. . .

In the apostolic period, the catholic element in the Church’s structure is obvious; the so-called Catholic Epistles likewise extend and confirm it. One can even say that the ministry concerned with the universal Church enjoys such a clear precedence over local offices that a concrete physiognomy of the latter is still overshadowed in the chief Pauline letters. It must be mentioned that the prophetic rank, invested with an equally supra-local mission, was active alongside the apostles. . . . Only when we have grasped the meaning of this statement can we fully comprehend the import of the formula that the bishops are the successors of the apostles. In the initial phase, their position as bearers of responsibility for the local Churches is clearly subordinate to the catholic authority of the apostles. The fact that in the difficult formative process of the postapostolic Church the place of the apostles was also finally ajudged to them implies that they now assumed a responsibility whose scope transcended the local principle. It means that the catholic and missionary flame must not be extinguished even in this new situation. The Church cannot become a static juxtaposition of essentially self-sufficient local Churches. The Church must remain “apostolic”, that is to say, the dynamism of unity must also mold her structure. The epithet “successor of the apostles” removes the bishop beyond the purely local and makes it his responsibility to ensure that the two dimensions of communio the vertical (local Church) and the horizontal (universal Church) remain undivided.

This is just a part of a wonderful book that deals with Catholic ecclesiology in its entirety (the petrine office, universal and local church. . . etc.). You should read it!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

The NPNF series is very good about noting the differences in the Latin and Greek texts in the Acts of the Ecum Councils. As mentioned earlier, Volume 7 of the NPNF series (on Ecum Councils) is the only one I brought with me to the Philippines . I will check if it makes any notations on the matter, and will get back to you later. I also recall an Ecum Council where the Greek Acts differ from the Latin Acts, especially with regards to the statements of the Roman legates. I will do some reading on the matter, and get back to you later with the results.

Blessings

I wondered if there were Eastern records of the council which excluded/included/reworded things which in Western records of the council were included/excluded/worded differently. I seem to recall having come across such a difference (between Eastern and Western records) with one of the councils, though I can’t recall which, and have not yet been able to find it. So far, this is the only version of this council I can find.

The purpose of this thread is to examine the evidence (or lack thereof) for the divine institution of the papacy. I asked about the translation because I had a legitimate reason for wondering about it. If it were the case that the eastern record downplayed the legates’ claims for the bishop of Rome (which I seem to recall being the case with the above mentioned discrepancy - though, atm, I cannot back that up) that would certainly call into question the universal acceptance of those claims and strength of Philip’s statements as evidence for widespread patristic-era belief in the papacy as Catholicism understands it.

 

[mardukm]

At the moment, the one very viable alternative to the Catholic interpretation I can think of would be the claim made by those in the Eastern Orthodox Church who hold to Eucharistic ecclesiology, in which the catholic Church is the local church, presided over by a bishop - in this conception, every local church, in union with its bishop, is the Church in its fulness (as opposed to what some call universalist ecclesiology, in which every local church is a part of the world-wide church, which is the catholic Church).

There are two versions of Eucharistic ecclesiology among the Orthodox:
(1) The High Petrine view - each local Church is the Church in its fullness,. But because Christ is not divided in the Eucharist no matter where the Sacrifice is offered, then the communion of the individual Churches with each other is a necessary feature of Eucharistic ecclesiology.
(2) The Low Petrine view - each local Church is the Church in its fullness, and therefore communion with any other Church is not necessary for its being.

As far as I’m concerned, the Low Petrine view is objectively wrong, unpatristic, and needs to be rejected for reunion to occur. High Petrine advocates in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have common ground in our understanding of Eucharistic ecclesiology.

I will respond to the rest of your great comments later when I have more time.

Blessings

 

[josie_L]

Here’s another quote that confirms the connection with Peter and Rome (focus on the word “head”, i.e., Peter was considered the head of the Church and so is the bishop of Rome):

Pope Boniface I (418-422) wrote to the bishops of Thessaly:

“It is therefore certain that this Church [the Roman see] is to the Churches throughout the world as the head to its members. If anyone cut himself off from this Church, not being in union with her, he is outside the Christian religion.”

“But since it would take too long to set out here the successions of all the churches, we shall turn to that great, ancient and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, and we shall show that the tradition it has received of the apostles and the faith that it preaches to men has come down to our time through the regular succession of its bishops; and thus we shall confute all those who, in whatever way, whether by self-complacency, vainglory, blindness or error, enter into unauthorized assemblies. For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence that every other church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as in this church the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who come from everywhere.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)

to be continued. . . . :yawn:

 

[Cavaradossi]

There are two versions of Eucharistic ecclesiology among the Orthodox:
(1) The High Petrine view - each local Church is the Church in its fullness,. But because Christ is not divided in the Eucharist no matter where the Sacrifice is offered, then the communion of the individual Churches with each other is a necessary feature of Eucharistic ecclesiology.
(2) The Low Petrine view - each local Church is the Church in its fullness, and therefore communion with any other Church is not necessary for its being.

No such Petrine views exist within Orthodoxy. This schema is your own invention.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My first question is this: what was Cyprian’s main concern here? .

His relationship with Pope Stephan became strained.

Cyprian wrote the first Unity of the Catholic Church in 251. the second a “revised” edition of the first in 255. In Rome there was no doubt about its Bishops authority over the whole Church and Cyprians original text cannot fail to be read as a recognition of that fact. Cyprian is standing example of the papal primacy being “implicit” in the early church. He toned down the second version though he did not repudiate what he formally held.

Cyprian never held that the Pope possessed unilateral jurisdiction. He never denied it either. In any case his two like letters represent developed doctrine, which if we acknowledge this which I see no way around, then there is also no reason not to believe the case with universal jurisdiction. The reality is according to developed doctrine that it may have been there and existed all the time, some may have realized this others may not have, though often what they say or do unconsciously implies its truth.

Cyprian is GREAT example for defined and developed doctrine and in a few instances.

Peace

PS both letters are proven to be from the hand of the Saint. Check both out.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am so interested in that I used this exact same passage to explain something else and I was told that it was not a part of tradition and that Origen was not an EFC so I could not just quote whatever I found from him to prove that it was a part of tradition. This was in reference to one key or many keys.

There was no consensus of thinking on the Keys, its apparent from numerous letters and lacking consistency of the early church fathers. His literary productivity was tremendous. HIs being a heretic is largely to the fact that so many of his writings disappeared. while much that is extant suffered interpolation, retranslation and then he fell victim to many who despised him and his work.

He taught in Alexandria, he taught Saints and died in their presence. What is certain is he remains one of the greatest scholars of Christian antiquity if not the greatest.

All believe in the authority of the Primacy of Rome and need for communion, that is self-evident in all the early church existing letters. The Keys, if one doesn’t hold the view of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, then they might as well pick and choose which-ever one you feel most fits ones own mind.

 

[GaryTaylor]

each local Church is the Church in its fullness, and therefore communion with any other Church is not necessary for its being.

As far as I’m concerned, the Low Petrine view is objectively wrong, unpatristic, and needs to be rejected for reunion to occur

You know this came to mind the other day, I believe part of this misconception starts here…

St. John Chrysostom

“Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; not long after He says, Get thee behind me, Satan. And elsewhere he said, Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

“It is a prerogative of the dignity of our city [that is, Antioch] that, from the beginning, it received as master the prince of the apostles. In fact, it was a just thing that this city - which was glorified by the name of “Christians” before the rest of the earth - should receive as shepherd the prince of the apostles. When we received him as master, however, we did not keep him forever but rather yielded him to the royal city of Rome. Therefore, we do not hold the body of Peter, but we hold the faith of Peter as we would Peter himself. As a matter of fact, as long as we hold the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.”

There’s a few inherent issues most important is he states one thing and implies another. Next he indicates the Church is established on Peters faith alone a position no longer which can be maintained in light of all the Biblical Scholars now coming forward, and which affirm the early church teaching of faith/person to be the correct understanding.