Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[Mickey]

"Christ is the great hidden mystery, the blessed goal, the purpose for which everything was created."
St Maximus the Confessor

 

[Image_of_God]

**From ***The Life of Our Holy Father St. *Maximus the Confessor

The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,
“To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!”

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox. Some time later, at his last interrogation by the Byzantine authorities, the following dialogue took place:
The Saint said, “They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?”

“Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?” they objected.

To this the Saint replied, “When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion’s den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience.”

“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines?
Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch.”

The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those **condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, **one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During *all *those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

I certainly did need that wack in the head, also I will certainly look more deeply into the matter. Thank you Montalban, and Fr. Ambrose, and all the others. I certainly need to be on guard to hypocrisy of myself.

Just need to make one thing clear: Honorius did not teach heresy, which St. Agatho did say that. I am sure you know that already.

Merry Christmas, and happy Feast of the Nativity.

 

[Montalban]

I hope everyone had a pleasant Christmas Day. Its Boxing Day here, now.
Image of God:

Is it not the Orthodox who think we have strayed as well? You’re argument about the Roman Catholic Church is not at all arguable

Indeed we do, so when you approach us over ‘ecumenicalism’ don’t be surprised if we don’t go running into your arms.
Image of God:

I quoted Maximus to show what I believe about the Papacy, and I concur with his words.

No, you quoted him to show what he believed about a particular bishop of Rome at a particular time. That bishop of Rome was being accused of many things, and he supported his ‘orthodoxy’. That Pope was then hauled off into prison. One could argue that that singular instance itself was an indication that the Emperor didn’t view the Papacy as paramount either. But the problem for you, as we see it is you guys continually selectively quote Eastern Fathers.
When they praise someone else, it’s ignored. When they praise the Pope, then you highlight it. And in this case you do so (as Fr. Ambrose has pointed out) out of the historical context. As he notes, a simple monk stands fast to true orthodox teachings despite the errors of bishops. Our church has always operated like this, so that when members of the hierarchy approved in Council the iconoclast teachings the people, the monks and lower clergy held fast.
Image of God:

I quoted him not to continue the quote throwing process, but to emphasize that what I quoted was what I believed, not what I am trying throw. I am not all trying to do the same things we have been doing before. If we do look at the whole of Church history, we will find the truth. Conversion is not going to happen by throwing quotes. As currently, I do see that I am right, otherwise I wouldn’t be Catholic. But, I am studying Church history openly.

You are doing the same thing by quoting him as if he supports ‘the papacy’, per se. He doesn’t. He supported a particular bishop (of Rome) against false charges. This is a far cry from stating that he supported Roman Primacy. They are different matters. As I stated, one can note from this incidence many easterners did not support the idea of the Papacy for they were happy to see a heretical (in their eyes) bishop brought to heel.
Image of God:

And yes I did read the background of Maximus’ quote, he was trying to defend Honorius, yet I believe every word is true, even though Honorius might not have. I am not at all angry at you, I too am trying to bring the Roman Catholic understanding to light. I have a growing respect for the Orthodox, but I must believe with my heart, not with my ears. Unless my heart is convinced, I can’t believe, unless that is just naiveness. The Orthodox also believe that we are lost and need to come back. If you find the Roman Catholic stance as insulting, then the Orthodox stance is as equally insulting.

At least we argue about context, not just throw quotes at you.

Orthodox will always acknowledge that at certain times the church in the west was a bedrock of orthodoxy.
“We look to the teachings of Rome for their Orthodoxy” to “We look to the teachings of Rome for their supremacy”.
And, writers of the time were often florid in their praise, when they are calling people to support, so for instance Ignatius of Antioch claims the church in Ephesus will NEVER fail. They often spend a whole paragraph just crying someone’s praises

 

[Montalban]

So far as I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), the theology is that where Peter was, there was his primacy, his papacy. Since Peter traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch and ultimately to Rome - and Rome is where he died - Rome is where the primacy was left. I believe the “one seat” does not refer to the geographical location, but to the man occupying the office. Does this make sense? Also, was this your understanding of Catholic Church teaching on the subject?

Thanks, and God bless!

I understand that many have this belief, but the question remains ‘why?’. Where in does it say that Peter’s powers weren’t inherited in any other See he helped found?

 

[Image_of_God]

I hope everyone had a pleasant Christmas Day. Its Boxing Day here, now.

Indeed we do, so when you approach us over ‘ecumenicalism’ don’t be surprised if we don’t go running into your arms.

No, you quoted him to show what he believed about a particular bishop of Rome at a particular time. That bishop of Rome was being accused of many things, and he supported his ‘orthodoxy’. That Pope was then hauled off into prison. One could argue that that singular instance itself was an indication that the Emperor didn’t view the Papacy as paramount either. But the problem for you, as we see it is you guys continually selectively quote Eastern Fathers.
When they praise someone else, it’s ignored. When they praise the Pope, then you highlight it. And in this case you do so (as Fr. Ambrose has pointed out) out of the historical context. As he notes, a simple monk stands fast to true orthodox teachings despite the errors of bishops. Our church has always operated like this, so that when members of the hierarchy approved in Council the iconoclast teachings the people, the monks and lower clergy held fast.

How are you to know why I am quoting him? I don’t understand how when I claim to be honest about myself, I am to believe that someone who is not me, is more honest than myself. That is good in some cases, but certainly not this one.

You are doing the same thing by quoting him as if he supports ‘the papacy’, per se. He doesn’t. He supported a particular bishop (of Rome) against false charges. This is a far cry from stating that he supported Roman Primacy. They are different matters. As I stated, one can note from this incidence many easterners did not support the idea of the Papacy for they were happy to see a heretical (in their eyes) bishop brought to heel.

Notice how I did not quote you and then type my quote. This might explain the reason I was doing it. I was not doing it to combat with quotes, but to express my opinion for everybody to see. However, I don’t believe that I am ignorant of why I am doing it, and you know why.

At least we argue about context, not just throw quotes at you.

Orthodox will always acknowledge that at certain times the church in the west was a bedrock of orthodoxy.
“We look to the teachings of Rome for their Orthodoxy” to “We look to the teachings of Rome for their supremacy”.
And, writers of the time were often florid in their praise, when they are calling people to support, so for instance Ignatius of Antioch claims the church in Ephesus will NEVER fail. They often spend a whole paragraph just crying someone’s praises

And thence is your unkindness. You continue to mock Roman Catholics with sarcasm and your rudeness. This is very unfortunate.

 

[Image_of_God]

**From ***The Life of Our Holy Father St. *Maximus the Confessor

The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,
“To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!”

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox. Some time later, at his last interrogation by the Byzantine authorities, the following dialogue took place:
The Saint said, “They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?”

“Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?” they objected.

To this the Saint replied, “When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion’s den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience.”

“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines?
Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch.”

The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those **condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, **one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During *all *those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx

Yes, I see. It is very unfortunate that this very article brands us Roman Catholics as “heretics”. That Orthodox the true Church should not at all join in Common Prayer with us.

 

[Image_of_God]

Perhaps you’d do better to look to why he said that. He was supporting a particular pope in a time of crisis within Rome. If you look up what happened to Pope Martin I before you posted that might have helped. He’d previously been Apocrisiarius in Constantinople, and thus was known to Easterners. This is one of the times Easterners accept that Rome kept hold of ‘orthodoxy’ (this is not an admission of ‘primacy’).

He did not right the things he wrote only because of St. Martin. Here, in his writing which was written around the time of 638, during the papacy of Severinus {a mere 10 years before the elevation of Pope St. Martin} he writes:
How much more in the case of the clergy and **Church of the Romans, which from of old until now, as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all? **Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter, and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law. And so when without fear but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is, of the most great and Apostolic Church at Rome, had so replied to the clergy of the royal city, they were seen to have conciliated them and to have acted prudently, that the others might be humble and modest, while they made known the orthodoxy and purity of their own faith from the beginning.
newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm

This is another example of the primacy of Rome. Maximus
in his writings clearly shows his opinions of Rome, and it cannnot be argued other wise. Maximus defended Honorius with John IV. He defended him, saying that he, Honorius, did not teach heresy. I am not trying to say that Honorius was not a heretic, but what I am trying to say is that Maximus had a different view about Rome that you say he had.

 

[Integritus]

It’s all really simple, really. As the great Stephen Ray would say: you’re presenting me a false dichotomy by making me choose one or the other when really both of them are true.

The Orthodox and Protestants both use the false formula of either/or on this issue. “It’s either Christ or Peter that’s the rock. It’s either Peter or Peter’s faith/confession that’s the rock. It’s either Peter or all (or some) of the Apostles that are the rock. Either Peter or all believers are the rock.”

FASLE DICHOTOMY.

Christ is the Rock. Peter is the rock. Peter’s faith is the rock. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC424), it will say this and always said it. Even Pope John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope referred to the rock in Matthew 16 as Peter and Christ. "He [Peter] became the ‘rock’, even if as a man, perhaps, he was nothing more than shifting sand. Christ Himself is the rock, and Christ builds His Church on Peter - on Peter, Paul, and the apostles.

btw, I personally don’t know how anyone after reading Stephen Ray’s extraordinary book titled “Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scipture and the Early Church"” published by Ignatius Press would convince themselves of something other than the Catholic position. And yes, reading the lengthy book-sized footnotes is a must. This book is a must for all serious Catholics. Ray even goes over where Jesus spoke the words in Caesarea Phillipi ontop of the massive rock/pagan shrine (forgot the name) where he establishes the ‘true rock’ from Him on Peter. Incredible stuff to discover. You can hear some of it hear too:ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=jh_13.ra (About the 17th minute) when he describes actually visiting the current site. One must wonder why only Catholics are the ones to teach this rich history and tradition.

Godspeed.

 

[Sebastianos]

This is an interesting thread. Haven’t yet finished it though. Thanks for many good writers.

Perhaps these would interest some here…

The Pope Who Condemned Primacy

The Unity of the Orthodox Church

 

[Image_of_God]

This is an interesting thread. Haven’t yet finished it though. Thanks for many good writers.

Perhaps these would interest some here…

The Pope Who Condemned Primacy

I just read this and it was a great article, and it helps me understand the Orthodox point of view more clearly. But, I want to examined the article a little closer.
I would like to start with the part where he argues that all Patriarches have an equal dignity (authority) to the one at Rome. In the article, he brings up the conflict about the argument over the title “Ecumenical Patriarch,” the author states that “some Roman Catholic writers claim that Gregory was vindicating the supremacy to himself. But it was not so.”

While I won’t comment on that statement directly, I will comment on it from it at an angle.
Gregory speaks to a bishop of Sycrause about the use of the title and says this:
“For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?”
newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

We know by this letter that I have shown you that Gregory at least did not say that Constantinople is equal in authority. Not at all; he says that it is subject to his authority, so we know that he is at least claiming Supremacy over Constantinople, and perhaps the others as well, since it is said that he recognized him, as 2nd to that of Rome.

I will refer to a second letter of Gregory. Here he recognizes the Primacy of Peter:
“For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter.”

“But then again he condemns the name Universal Apostle:
Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle.”
This might be a clue to how Gregory understood the titles “Ecumenical Patriarch” and “Universal Pope.” I disagree with how the author uses Gregory’s denial of the title, as a means to say that he denied the Primacy of Rome. Not at all did he say this. Gregory reaffirms the primacy of Peter, but denounces the the title “Universal Pope” because to him it means that Peter is the only apostle. To say that Gregory opposed the Papal Primacy by opposing the title “Universal Pope,” is like saying that Gregory denounced the Primacy of Peter by opposing the title “Universal Apostle,” and that would mean he was contradicting himself, by reaffirming the Primacy of Peter.

In a latter part of the letter, Gregory states:
“Certainly, in honour of Peter, Prince of the apostles, it was offered by the venerable synod of Chalcedon to the Roman pontiff. But none of them has ever consented to use this name of singularity, lest, by something being given peculiarly to one, priests in general should be deprived of the honour due to them.”

It would be wise to question why it is the Roman Pontiff that title and not the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria, after all, Gregory does call them Sees also. As I have reasserted on the forum before, and as Gregory reasserts in his letter, he is only condemning the use of the title “Universal Pope” because he sees it as a use of singularity (in meaning that he is the only Patriarch and Priest for everybody). He is not condemning it because he does not agree with the Supremacy of the Pope.
newadvent.org/fathers/360205020.htm

 

[Image_of_God]

I will comment on the Antioch and Alexandria “thing,” but not yet.

I also will not comment on the article, at least as of right now The Unity of the Orthodox Church, because it is subjective.

But, I will say this; It seems to me that at one point the Orthodox did have a head, as I am learning. It seems that the Emperor of the Byzantine Emperor had a job that somewhat reflects that of the Pope. I mean like, the Emperor presided over many councils and even disposed some of the Constantinoplian Patriarch. I would like to hear the Orthodox Opinion to the question: Was the Emperor head of the Orthodox Church?

Thank you.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Post limit reached. Thread closed.