Divine Institution of the Papacy

[MilesVitae]

Although, Marduk is not here to respond, I’ve already had this discussion with him before, if it will help clarify things, Marduk does believes that this passage refers to Peter’s primacy, but he believes (as do I) that once Peter “received” the keys, those in communion with him, i.e., the apostles, had access to the keys as well.

p.s. Christ gives the keys to Peter, Peter in turn shares the keys/power of the keys with those in communion with him, i.e., the bishops of the church!

I do understand that. The point I’ve tried to make is that, although Peter in fact (as primate) shares the keys with the others, that fact is not implied by this passage. Christ’s words to Peter only indicate his primacy and his possession of the keys - nothing else follows. I think the whole reason this got brought up is Cyprian’s 26th epistle:

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.

How can he Christ’s words be said to describe order of the Church in regards to the Bishop if they are describing the order of the worldwide Church in regards to its primate?

 

[MilesVitae]

The see of St Peter isn’t held by the Antioch and Alexandrian patriarch’s in history and patristic writing. This cannot be supported. Peter and Paul perished in Rome, sealing their fate and the Church. Still both mentioned in ordination at Rome today and historically. The two most glorious apostles the “keybearer of the Church” and the “Doctor of the Gentiles.” This is why the Saint speaks of Romes more superior power and principalities. Its not only earthly but divine.

I’m not sure why you are bringing up Antioch and Alexandria…

No one anywhere is literally given the Keys in transmitted communication but St Peter. St Peter and St Paul perished in Rome, not Antioch or Alexandria.

I’m not disputing where Peter and Paul died…

No where anywhere in scripture are all NOT IN COMMUNION with St Peter

Nowhere is there lack of communion among the Apostles at all, so that’s a moot point.

who “for sure” is the spokesman and chosen of the Apostles. In fact its discerned Biblically and historically who is outside the Church by not being in communion with the Apostles in scripture and St Peters Chair in history.

Yes, Peter is the spokesmen, that’s not in dispute. But, was this an official position, or merely a personal calling? Was this meant to be passed on? Was it meant to be passed on in the form of a global office, or is it present in the head of the local church which is (as per certain forms of eucharistic ecclesiology) the catholic Church made fully manifest?

No other Church is spoken of historically in any degree of validity who is not in communion with Rome. Not is communion with Rome is outside the Church. The harshest words were leveled at those not in communion with Rome, this is how heretics were known. No other way.

Can you give me some specific historical cases? And I think it would be an overstatement of your case to say that being in communion with Rome is the only way heresy was determined, even from a Catholic perspective…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Catholic perspective…

Was the succession in valid lines in the Church meant to be passed on? How about Biblically? So how does your argument apply here? Are you saying theres no valid succession power to bind and loose-ordination divinely established? Perhaps I missed your point?

Perhaps your misunderstanding.

Here’s the thing, all have the keys and power to bind and loose. Which is also verse in Matthew, Nevertheless Rome doesn’t split hairs on this point of the keys. What is first clear is the keys only go to Peter in 16. But also included is the Church established on Peter :blessed are “you”, faith and person. The keys are then given to Peter with the authority to bind and loose in the Church where the keys are deposited…Christ’s. Its Christ whom literally holds the keys thus authority in Heaven. So all this is intimately connected with Peters Chair, the Keys, and the power to bind and loose. In other words the primacy-teaching authority They all were the primacy in the Apostles biblically in communion.

All have their very real divinely established succession and Bishops in for example the Coptic Orthodox or the EO Greece, Russia and so forth. But through this communion and check and balance is indeed how the supernatural established itself in the Church. Biblically they were all in communion, and so to in the early Church. That’s what we are called to communion, unite the Church.

Are you suggesting the Church’s do not need to be in communion? Tell me how that would work? Is that Biblical?

Maybe we should go back to the second council and start there?

 

[GaryTaylor]

How can he Christ’s words be said to describe order of the Church in regards to the Bishop if they are describing the order of the worldwide Church in regards to its primate?

Nowhere is there lack of communion among the Apostles at all, so that’s a moot point. Yes, Peter is the spokesmen, that’s not in dispute. But, was this an official position, or merely a personal calling? Was this meant to be passed on? Was it meant to be passed on in the form of a global office, or is it present in the head of the local church which is (as per certain forms of eucharistic ecclesiology) the catholic Church made fully manifest?..

Its not moot because we are talking how one see’s divinely established bible and early Church. The apostolic succession is in Cyprians work. Its a reality today and all were in communion with this model at least till the second council. Yes Jesus established a Universal Church you don’t agree?

The point that all have Peters Faith and are Peter and unity is exemplified only by the ecumenical councils cannot be sustained. All are individual Church’s only responsible to themselves and the ecumenical councils simply isn’t reality

You see in this line of thinking proposed often, the claim from the EO for example is there are only 7-ecuemical councils and this authority trumps all.

Think about that.

This means the Councils Rome accepts are not all ecumenical.

The Oriental Orthodox never affirmed the last 4 Councils of the 7.

Assyrian Church never affirmed even the Ephesus Council.

Through process of elimination its not hard to see the folly of this thinking.

Describing the order of the worldwide Church in regards to its primate I think is answered from a apostolic Church view with lines of succession. Tell me how you see this through history?

 

[KathleenGee]

I was reflecting on this thread this past night when I couldn’t sleep…going through the aging thing.

Anyway, when I see the proper role of the pope in conjunction with the patriarchs and local churches…what I see is a long banquet table where no one dominates the other. But I see the papal presence in the middle wearing the customary (Dominican) white papal habit.

When we speak of the papacy, it is not to dominate or boss around the other patriarchs, or to be superior to them and everyone else, but to represent Christ as head…as He was at the Last Supper sitting among the apostles.

Another side reflection, is that the remains of SS Peter and Paul are in the process of being verified.

If the bones under the altar are of St. Peter, they said he was of muscular build and about 5’7". The sarcophagus of St Paul and St Peter coincide with the manner of their executions.

Do we have the possible remains of the other apostles?

Peter and Paul are recognized as both having founded the Church of Rome. Again, this primacy of Peter and the evangelist of the Gentiles, St. Paul.

 

[spina1953]

The thought came to me that in the successors to St. Peter in Rome onward, there is nothing about any successors to St. Paul. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the reason is that St. Peter is the head of the Church and that it was important that succession shows that and the reason why St. Paul did not have successors after him in Rome is due to there being only one Bishop and one head with authority?

 

[twf]

Working on it, brother. Will post soon.

I see you gave an exhortation I was planning to give – so I can scratch that off from the post I am preparing.

Btw, there is another Syriac Father (from the 3rd century IIRC) that directly links Isaiah 22 to the government of the Church. It is in the first volume of NPNF - the Pre-Nicene Fathers. Unfortunately, I left my NPNF series in the U.S when I moved here to the Philippines, so I cannot given any more detail than that.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk - I find this very interesting. I have heard more than once from Orthodox posters that the connection Catholics make between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, in regards to the governance of the Church, is a “modern” trick of Latin apologists that was unknown to even the Latin Church prior to the mid-20th century. I knew that particular claim was false as I found the same connection in the 1907 (is that the right year?) Catholic Encyclopedia…but I am thrilled to see a possible Patristic reference to it. As a Protestant, it was Isaiah 22 that played a significant role in my eventual acceptance of the papal primacy.

 

[josie_L]

Brother Marduk - I find this very interesting. I have heard more than once from Orthodox posters that the connection Catholics make between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, in regards to the governance of the Church, is a “modern” trick of Latin apologists that was unknown to even the Latin Church prior to the mid-20th century. I knew that particular claim was false as I found the same connection in the 1907 (is that the right year?) Catholic Encyclopedia…but I am thrilled to see a possible Patristic reference to it. As a Protestant, it was Isaiah 22 that played a significant role in my eventual acceptance of the papal primacy.

The father he is referring to is St. Ephraem of Syria.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Petrine view.

Helpful links

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_Peter

catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

One may be pressed to find explicit evidence in NT scripture for a college of teachers What we have in Matthew 16 and Peter is a leader who would follow Peters confessional understanding who would lead and be a servant 23:11-12. Local respresentation and replacement isn’t explicit but it is implicit. Matthew presents Peter as the chief rabbi of the Davidic line of the Universal able to make “halakic” (decisions on conduct) The college is implicitly implied in Luke.

And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,

so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat.

But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Also what can be seen, be it not as today exactly is a monarchical bishop in Ignatius and 1 Clement. Leads us to Cyprian also in like way since his first letter of unity supports the Petrine view 251 which was again re-worked in 255-56 in accord I assume issues with Pope Stephan as a motivating factor in the slight degree of change. Nevertheless in other writing he is clear about the Chair of St Peter. A Chair which only St Peter resides in succession.

The gospel indicates the Davidic line is passed spiritually and to the person of Jesus Christ who passed this spiritual blessing to Peter person and faith.

Also

Its a consistent New Testament pattern, every church was ruled by a group of elders, as the following scriptures illustrate:

Acts 11:30 - Elders at the church of Antioch.

Acts 14:23 -Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church.

Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4 - Elders at the church in Jerusalem.

Acts 20:17, 28 - Elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus.

Acts 21:18 - Elders at the church in Jerusalem.

Philippians 1:1 - Bishops in the church of Philippi.

1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13 - The congregation is to respect its leaders.

1 Tim 5:17 - Elders at the church of Ephesus.

Titus 1:5 - Titus is to appoint elders in every town.

James 5:14 – “The elders of the church.”

1 Peter 5:1-2 – “The elders among you.”

Hebrews 13:7, 17 - Heed the leaders of the church, “for they are keeping watch over your souls.”

Paul wrote to Titus to appoint “elders” in every city, he goes on to describe the necessary qualification, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you…for a bishop must be blameless…”

In Acts 20 we read Paul’s farewell speech to the elders of the church in Ephesus. “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church” (verse 17). He said to these elders, “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God” (verse 28). The word “overseers” is the familiar word for bishop - “episkopos.” The same verse is rendered in the Catholic (Douay-Rheims) Bible: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

We can conclude that “elders” and “bishops” are the same people, and the two terms are being used interchangeably. Bishops are presbyters; presbyters are bishops. This sounds strange to us because we are not used to the concept of a plurality of elders (or bishops) leading a local church. Yet that is the biblical pattern. Hence, when Paul wrote to the Philippians, he addressed the letter “to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” The church in Philippi was led by a number of bishops, with the aid of deacons.

justforcatholics.org/a15.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the recent thoughts…

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350694?eng=y

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350696

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also here…

academia.edu/3816806/Primacy_and_Ecclesiology_The_State_of_the_Question_Unedited_and_without_notes_

We are dealing with different views of the Primacy which have no consistency or continuity as I have been saying.

So you begin to see the Primacy from different views of Petrine and basically a further proposal of a Pauline view which protestants hold.

You won’t be uniting the Church on this path.

The Bishop of Rome, by virtue of the fact that Sts Peter and Paul were there, established the Church there and consecrated their Successors there, always had an authority above that of other bishops/patriarchs. When the Bishop of Rome spoke, the Christian Church listened and obeyed.

The bishop of Rome did NOT get involved in the jurisdictional issues of other Churches, unless he was asked to get involved. At Ecumenical Councils, the Roman Pontiff/Patriarch had the first seat. And over time, the Byzantine East itself gave Rome a pre-eminence and authority that Rome itself did not seek out i.e. the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Both the Byzantine Emperor and the Ecumenical Patriarch needed a referree in the person of the Pope to settle their ongoing conflicts. And even though Pope Honorius’s behaviour was condemned at the sixth ec. Council, this did not prevent the East from practically glorifying the papacy.

It is interesting that the Orthodox Church numbers more saintly popes of Rome from the first millennium in its calendar than even the Roman Catholic Church e.g. Pope St Liberius who is not in the Roman Canon of Saints. And the Orthodox Church of Kievan Rus’ always glorified Pope St Clement as one of her Apostolic Founders (along with St Andrew).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Chronological Order of Fathers and Councils.

Hegesippus 180

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

The Letter of Clement to James 221

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies 221

“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen 248

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Course Origen also mentions its no small thing Peter received the Keys. I think he and Augustine knew nothing of the Roman Catholic claim that Peter or the bishops of Rome had the exclusive right to the power of the keys. Augustine saw Peter as the representative of the Church; therefore the keys are given by Christ to Peter to be to be deposited in His Church. I believe Origin held the same view.

Cyprian of Carthage 251

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian 253

“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 altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Cyprian of Carthage 253

Note well- Cyprians address and understanding is the same as 251with Unity and 253 with the Chair of Peter address. Cyprian Pope himself defers to the Bishop of Rome.

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian,

she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom,

Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Firmilian 253

“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

Note- HIs later letter to Cyprian 255-256 a change of view coinciding with Cyprians altered view of Unity in 255-256 bought on by Re-Baptism issue.

“[Pope] Stephen * . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).**

 

[GaryTaylor]

Apostolic Canons

Canon XXXIV. (XXXV.)

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit [some mss. read: through the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father through the Lord by the Holy Spirit, even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit].

Trinity formula which the Primacy is based on.

Nicaea Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

The Council of Sardica (342 A.D.)

Presided over by St. Athanasius of Alexandria:

“If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew …let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.” (Council of Sardica, Canon 3, 342 A.D.)

Pope St. Julius I (342):

Writing to the Byzantine court after Athanasius had been deposed from the Alexandrian see by the Arians.

“It behoved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were Bishops, and the Churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (the Pope) not written to concerning the Church, especially Alexandria? Or are they (the Arians) ignorant that this has been the Tradition first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefitting to write to this Church (Rome).” (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)

Ephraim the Syrian 351

“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Optatus of Milevus 367

“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 ‘Rock’]—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 Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan 379

“[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]).

Pope Damasus I 382

“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 . . . ’ [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 Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Synod of Ambrose-389

“We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you” (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Augustine 397

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Pope Innocent I 408

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine 411-416

“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]). Note-this is the verse mentioned which is used to signify Peter alone received the Keys.

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

Augustine saw the Keys deposited in the Church, and built on the person and faith of St Peter

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Pope Celestine I

“We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]” (Letters 17 [A.D. 431]).

Council of Ephesus 431

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Pope Leo I 445

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2–3).

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).

1. Canon of 4th Ecumenical Council 451

Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the like priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs,

as coming next after her, or as being second to her.

And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him. (Ap c. XXXIV; c. III of the 2nd and c. XXXVI of the 6th.)

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

Trullo -The Quinisext Ecumenical Council was held in 692 and is regarded as supplementing the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 and the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 681.

Basil of Gortyna belonged to the Church of Rome and claimed that he represented the Roman Church, though no evidence exists of his right to make this claim. In fact, Pope Sergius of Rome refused to sign the canons, citing them as “lacking authority”, when they were sent to him for signature. The Western Church never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council

Pope John VII: said that he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome.

Canon 36

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is,

and shall be second after it.

After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Reason for the Councils…

1- The main reason for its being called was the Arian controversy.

2- Council was to completely eradicate Arianism, and condemn Macedonios and Apollinarianism, by establishing the teaching on the unity of the Holy Trinity and the complete manhood in Christ.

3- The Council condemned the doctrines of Nestorios, Archbishop of Constantinople, who taught that there were two separate persons in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other Human.

4- To deal with another controversy about the Person of Christ. Eutyches, an Archimandrite in Constantinople, held that the human (less perfect) nature of Christ had been completely absorbed by His divine nature and thus the two had been confounded into one. Thus, after this union, Eutyches held, there was only one nature in Christ. Hence his heresy was called ‘monophysitisim’ (of one nature). The Council condemned this teaching and affirmed that there were two perfect natures in the one Person of Christ unified ‘unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably’.

5- The Monophysite controversy continued unabated even after the condemnation of Eutyches and the issuing of the Chalcedonian Statement of Faith.

6- Monothelitism in spite of the decisions of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and in spite of the strict laws and other repressive measures against it by subsequent emperors, continued to be a serious disturbance to both Church and State

7- This Council dealt predominantly with the controversy regarding icons and their place in Orthodox worship. It was convened in Niceea in 787

Safe to say Rome always believed just as it proclaims today, other views vary with times.

Forgive my long post, I’m stuck in the Ice and snow.

 

[KathleenGee]

Very good posts, Gary!

Spina…Paul was not chosen among the twelve. He was called to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul is co-founder of the Church of Rome. When Paul finally met the apostles, they did experience Christ’s authority in him for on the contrary they listened to no one tell them who Christ was. Paul was an evangelist.

And not, he was with Peter, an apostle, in founding the Church of Rome.

You think about it, how cults call the Church of Rome all sorts of names, when it was founded by Peter and Paul.

 

[spina1953]

Very good posts, Gary!

Spina…Paul was not chosen among the twelve. He was called to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul is co-founder of the Church of Rome. When Paul finally met the apostles, they did experience Christ’s authority in him for on the contrary they listened to no one tell them who Christ was. Paul was an evangelist.

And not, he was with Peter, an apostle, in founding the Church of Rome.

You think about it, how cults call the Church of Rome all sorts of names, when it was founded by Peter and Paul.

I do agree with you. I think I was not being very clear about Paul. What I was trying to say was that it is Peter who is the real leader of the Church and Paul as you so well stated was not an Apostle, of the original 12. There is only one Bishop in Rome and Peter was it and so were his successors. I also agree that Paul was more an evangelist mostly to the Gentiles. I was also trying to point out that the successors to Peter ad there were not successors to Paul in Rome.