Divine Institution of the Papacy

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

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

Yes, the terms are my invention, but the ideas behind them are real and are not an invention.

Perhaps it is not in your experience, but I have, in my own personal experience, come across this distinction, having conversed with many EO on the matter, both in real life and on the I-net…

There are EO who believe it is a necessity to be in communion with other Orthodox Churches, and there are EO who literally believe that the local Church is so self-sufficient, that there is no necessity of communion with any Church outside of its own, even other Orthodox Churches. Do you agree with this latter paradigm?

In any case, I can grant the possibility that these EO were simply intending that there is no absolute necessity of communion with the Roman Church, and were just expressing themselves very poorly. It is the same with Catholics who want to stress necessity of communion with the bishop or Rome so much that they (perhaps inadvertantly) neglect the necessity of communion with ALL orthodox Churches/bishops.

But there certainly are Catholics (holding an Absolutist Petrine view) who believe that communion with the Roman Church is the ONLY standard of orthodoxy, and I cannot discount the possibility that there are EO (holding a Low Petrine view) who actually believe their local Church is so self-sufficient that communion with other Orthodox Churches is not a necessity.

In any case, can you please clarify your own position. Namely, I want to ask - if there are two churches mutually recognized to be Orthodox, is communion between them necessary or not, according to Christ’s demand for the unity of the Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

I know its difficult to see these paradigms, and to suggest we have a preponderance of evidence which concludes exactly what they believe implicitly as a whole, is extremely difficult.

Truth is these views do exist and they are harmful though.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

I don’t find ANYthing wrong with what St. John Chrysostom stated:

“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.”

I don’t find anything wrong with that in the least. He is equating the faith of Peter with Peter himself. That’s the position of the Catholic Church. I don’t understand what you are trying to read into the citation from St. John Chrysostom.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dear brother Gary,

I don’t find ANYthing wrong with what St. John Chrysostom stated:

I don’t find anything wrong with that in the least. He is equating the faith of Peter with Peter himself. That’s the position of the Catholic Church. I don’t understand what you are trying to read into the citation from St. John Chrysostom.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yet he states in the first: “He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith”

I read the same as you also however I do believe many do not and while this isn’t a point today of contention, its something to keep in mind. . These are the letters which I’m convinced become a point of contention along with Augustine’s which flip flopped in thinking.

However I can see how the thinking of the low petrine view developed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

Ok. I see what you mean, and I agree that the danger is there - i.e., reading it in the Low Petrine sense.

When St. John Chrysostom states that it is not upon the man, to me it means that it is not upon Simon. But Peter, theologically speaking, is very different from Simon. It is significant that Popes change their name when elevated to their office (as Patriarchs often also do). They are acknowledging that their office is BEYOND their mere personal identity. Popes and other head bishops, by their name change, are acknowledging a supernatural image and responsibility that goes beyond their mere person.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yet he states in the first: “He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith”

I read the same as you also however I do believe many do not and while this isn’t a point today of contention, its something to keep in mind. . These are the letters which I’m convinced become a point of contention along with Augustine’s which flip flopped in thinking.

However I can see how the thinking of the low petrine view developed.

 

[josie_L]

Dear brother Gary,

Ok. I see what you mean, and I agree that the danger is there - i.e., reading it in the Low Petrine sense.

When St. John Chrysostom states that it is not upon the man, to me it means that it is not upon Simon. But Peter, theologically speaking, is very different from Simon. It is significant that Popes change their name when elevated to their office (as Patriarchs often also do). They are acknowledging that their office is BEYOND their mere personal identity. Popes and other head bishops, by their name change, are acknowledging a supernatural image and responsibility that goes beyond their mere person.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, I remembered a discussion I had with Jimmy, here it goes:

Jimmy:

You are going to have to take this complaint up with St John Chrysostom, who I guess willfully misinterpreted the gospel on both points. Both points are directly taken from his homilies on the gospels. Read the homilies on those two texts and you will see it clearly. And he isn’t the only father who interprets the texts like this.

Moi:

Actually, Jimmy what if it isn’t an either/or situation, i.e., what if both interpretations are correct, can one really separate the confession from the man who confessed it? The thing is, if there are Orthodox clergy who are interpreting “rock” in Matthew 18 as referring to his confession only, then they disregard the many many fathers who interpreted it as being Peter. Also, I found this from St. John Chrysostom:

Quote:
Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, “Blessed art thou, & c. '**This very Peter - and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed **- he was guilty of a deed not slight, but exceeding great, even denying of the Lord.”

So you see St. John of Chrysostom does call Peter “the rock” too!!

 

[josie_L]

Again, the connection of Peter to Rome and/or the petrine office/chair which the bishops of Rome possess (in perpetuity):

Gaius

"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, 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.

"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.

“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. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christianswas first applied, as to a new people” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Emperor Valentinian III (ca. 450 A.D.)

“The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler.”

Pope St. Gelasius (ca. 492 A.D.)

“The first See (Rome) both confirms every synod by its authority, and guards by its continuous rule, by reason, to wit, of its supremacy, **which, received by the Apostle Peter from the mouth of the Lord, the Church nevertheless seconding, it both always has held and retains. . . **We will not pass over in silence what every Church throughout the world knows, that the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter has the right to absolve from what has been bound by the sentence of any prelates whatsoever, in that it has the right of judging of the whole Church; neither is it lawful for any one to pass judgment on its judgment, seeing that the canons have willed that it may be appealed to from any part of the world, but that from it no one be permitted to appeal.”

“Although the universal Catholic Church all over the world is one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless the Holy Roman Church did not obtain the primacy by any synodical constitutions, but by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Saviour: Thou art Peter and upon this rock.”

If something is divine or instituted by Christ, do you think it can be abrogated, i.e., if something is divinely instituted like the papacy then it is must by necessity be perpetual.

 

[MilesVitae]

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.

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!

If my mind was already made up, I would not be having this discussion Rather, I am considering the possible objections to the alleged evidence.
As I’ve already said, I had reason to ask about the possibility of discrepant records of the council, having seen that to be the case with another council - I’m not just saying “Well, since it supports the papacy, there must be other versions!”
Also, to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that the version you provided (which, as far as either of us can find, seems to be the only version of the council) was tampered with or fabricated - I have every reason to assume it was authentic. Rather, the question was whether there were Eastern records of the council which omitted some of the words of Philip because of a disagreement with them, as per the practice described by Marduk. As I said, if that were the case (which doesn’t seem to be so), it would suggest that the beliefs expressed by Philip were not universally accepted.

 

[MilesVitae]

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

The couple of websites on which I read it noted no differences in the case of Ephesus.

Out of curiosity, do you have any other examples of the East omitting things they disagreed with from their records of the council?

 

[josie_L]

If my mind was already made up, I would not be having this discussion Rather, I am considering the possible objections to the alleged evidence.
As I’ve already said, I had reason to ask about the possibility of discrepant records of the council, having seen that to be the case with another council - I’m not just saying “Well, since it supports the papacy, there must be other versions!”
Also, to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that the version you provided (which, as far as either of us can find, seems to be the only version of the council) was tampered with or fabricated - I have every reason to assume it was authentic. Rather, the question was whether there were Eastern records of the council which omitted some of the words of Philip because of a disagreement with them, as per the practice described by Marduk. As I said, if that were the case (which doesn’t seem to be so),** it would suggest that the beliefs expressed by Philip were not universally accepted.**

Why would it suggest that it was not universally accepted as opposed let us say, that certain bishops/persons in the East did not accept it (are you implying that the whole of the Eastern Church was involved), i.e., those involved in the translation may have attempted to change or emit things for various reasons, i.e., ambition for one?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

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.)

Yes, I agree with that. That’s the same thing I said. He was establishing a principle of unity, which needed to be followed on all levels of the hierarchy. I left off with the rhetorical question: “is there no unity on the universal level?” I did not mention Rome, but left the question open whether St. Cyprian himself would have thought that there was no principle of unity on the universal level. St. Cyprian does answer this question, not only in the quote given, but in a later letter, which I will quote shortly.

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.

Excellent.

In a Catholic interpretation, I think, his purpose here is still simply to demonstrate the unity of the Church - 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).

We cannot definitely conclude yet at this point that he intends the “principle of unity” to be the successors of St. Peter in Rome (I mean, he might, but that is not clear from the Treatise on Unity). The passage cannot mean, as certain Protestants claim, that the unity is merely signified or symbolized by Peter (as you have ably reasoned out). It is still possible, however, that it could mean, as Orthodox claim, that it just means unity to the principle of unity who is Peter the Apostle, not necessarily his successors Catholics need to admit this possibility ---------- that is, if St. Cyprian had said nothing else on the subject.
(NOTE: Orthodox who claim that Mt 16:18 only refers to Peter’s confession, and not his person as well, do not have any support from St. Cyprian).

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).

Orthodox who claim this certainly cannot claim St. Cyprian for support. You have obviously encountered EO, as I have, who have the Low Petrine understanding of Eucharistic ecclesiology. But St, Cyprian explicitly teaches: “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?” No necessity of communion with others outside the fullness of hte local Church? No necessity of a principle of unity on the universal level? Certainly not according to St. Cyprian. Cyprian specifically states that ALL shepherds (the bishops) are one. This dictates a universal principle of unity, not just a local one.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Many claim that every bishop is a “successor” to Peter/sits in Peter’s chair/holds his place, etc…

I do not know how they could possibly conclude it from this passage from St. Cyprian. Cyprian states that while all the Apostles are as St. Peter was in power and honor, he nevertheless had a Christ-ordained role that none of the other Apostles had - namely, to be the source of unity. For Orthodox to validly claim that all bishops are as St. Peter was, it would necessitate that ALL the Apostles were as St. Peter was in ALL ways. But St. Cyprian made it clear that the other Apostles were NOT the same as St. Peter in that one, unique manner - to be the source of unity for all.

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.

It should be noted that St. Cyprian himself idoes not state this anywhere. It is simply rhetoric, not patristics, so the proper response would be to controvert it with rhetoric, as well – namely, if the bishop is the principle of unity for the local Church, and, Orthodox will admit, the Metropolitan and Patriarch are principles of unity on the subsequent levels of the hierarchy, how can it logically be stated that there is no principle of unity on the universal level, which is the level of unity Christ Himself demanded?

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.

I agree with this. However, that begs the question - is there no principle of unity for the Church universal?

This seems to conform well with the quotation from epistle xxvi:
Here he explicitly says that Christ was describing the place of the bishop in the order of the Church.

The role of the bishop in the order of the Church is to hold the keys. I’m really not sure what the issue is.

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.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem. St. Cyprian is addressing a LOCAL Church with a LOCAL problem that had no relevance for the bishop of Rome. Why should the bishop of Rome even be mentioned? That’s why I don’t get your concern. What good would it have done for St. Cyprian to say “The bishop of Rome holds the keys, so you need to follow your bishop.” It’s obvious (at least to me) that his argument had to be (addressing a LOCAL problem in a LOCAL Church), “your bishop holds the keys, so you need to follow your bishop.”

CONT"d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

But here is the most important thing that needs to be understood brother. Please reread Chapter 3 of Pastor Aeternus VERY carefully. I would like to point out to you something which I believe the very great majority of people (both Catholics and non-Catholics) do not notice. ** NOWHERE DOES PASTOR AETERNUS STATE THAT THE KEYS WERE HANDED DOWN TO THE POPES BY ST PETER… ST. PETER EVEN TODAY IS THE ACTUAL BEARER OF THE KEYS, NOT THE POPE OF ROME** (not shouting, just stressing the utter importance of this fact). The argument you propose above seems to depend on the false assumption that the Pope of Rome has become the bearer of the keys, and therefore he must necessarily be mentioned anywhere the keys are mentioned. That is incorrect. It is sufficient for St. Cyprian to only mention the Matthean verse to support the idea that the local bishop holds the keys because it is actually Peter himself who distributes the keys then, now, and always. What Pastor Aeternus specifically states is “merely” that the Pope has succeeded in the primacy of St. Peter, not that St. Peter has thereby given up his God-ordained role as the primatial bearer of the keys.

In any event, whereas St. Cyprian’s Letter 26 concerns only a LOCAL matter that has no relation to the Pope of Rome, we do have Letter 54 which concerns a more plenary matter - the Novatian heresy. In this Letter, we actually find information on what St. Cyprian actually believed about the relationship of the Roman Church to the Chair of Peter that he mentions in his earlier De Unitate: " they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."

I hope that helps. I would welcome any comments and criticisms.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Have not yet looked at NPNF. Sorry. But I really need to work on that other obligation to another member that I mentioned in my PM to you.

 

[MilesVitae]

Why would it suggest that it was not universally accepted as opposed let us say, that certain bishops/persons in the East did not accept it (are you implying that the whole of the Eastern Church was involved), i.e., those involved in the translation may have attempted to change or emit things for various reasons, i.e., ambition for one?

Ah, true. I think you’re right - though I think they are both possibilities. Of course, apparently this isn’t even an issue for the text of the council of Ephesus, since there don’t seem to be discrepant versions. Maybe if I ever find the other council I was talking about (and, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the arabic version of Nicea), we can hash this out over that text

 

[GaryTaylor]

Letter of Cyprian to all his people A.D. 251

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead people back and to recall the lapsed of the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the Word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another alter or for their to be another priesthood besides that one alter and one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.”

 

[josie_L]

Ah, true. I think you’re right - though I think they are both possibilities. Of course, apparently this isn’t even an issue for the text of the council of Ephesus, since there don’t seem to be discrepant versions. Maybe if I ever find the other council I was talking about (and, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the arabic version of Nicea), **we can hash this out over that text **

:slapfight:. . . . . . . . . .:stretcher:. . . . . . . . . . .

 

[spina1953]

CONT’d

But here is the most important thing that needs to be understood brother. Please reread Chapter 3 of Pastor Aeternus VERY carefully. I would like to point out to you something which I believe the very great majority of people (both Catholics and non-Catholics) do not notice. ** NOWHERE DOES PASTOR AETERNUS STATE THAT THE KEYS WERE HANDED DOWN TO THE POPES BY ST PETER… ST. PETER EVEN TODAY IS THE ACTUAL BEARER OF THE KEYS, NOT THE POPE OF ROME** (not shouting, just stressing the utter importance of this fact). The argument you propose above seems to depend on the false assumption that the Pope of Rome has become the bearer of the keys, and therefore he must necessarily be mentioned anywhere the keys are mentioned. That is incorrect. It is sufficient for St. Cyprian to only mention the Matthean verse to support the idea that the local bishop holds the keys because it is actually Peter himself who distributes the keys then, now, and always. What Pastor Aeternus specifically states is “merely” that the Pope has succeeded in the primacy of St. Peter, not that St. Peter has thereby given up his God-ordained role as the primatial bearer of the keys.

In any event, whereas St. Cyprian’s Letter 26 concerns only a LOCAL matter that has no relation to the Pope of Rome, we do have Letter 54 which concerns a more plenary matter - the Novatian heresy. In this Letter, we actually find information on what St. Cyprian actually believed about the relationship of the Roman Church to the Chair of Peter that he mentions in his earlier De Unitate: " they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."

I hope that helps. I would welcome any comments and criticisms.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Have not yet looked at NPNF. Sorry. But I really need to work on that other obligation to another member that I mentioned in my PM to you.

Since joining CAF I have read all of your post in the forums I’ve been in and I thank you for all the hard work you do in informing us on the issues being discussed and debated. spina

 

[josie_L]

Why whenever the topic of unity comes up do we always defer to St. Cyprian, what about St. Optatus of Milevis (De Schismate)?

 

[MilesVitae]

:slapfight:. . . . . . . . . .:stretcher:. . . . . . . . . . .

So which of us is that getting carried away on a stretcher?

 

[MilesVitae]

Why whenever the topic of unity comes up do we always defer to St. Cyprian, what about St. Optatus of Milevis (De Schismate)?

In due time

On the face of it, his quotations do seem among the strongest and most explicitly Catholic.