Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[Bishopite]

[kaycee;1686750]The development of doctine is in fact quite true for the subtle doctrines you list.

Your apeal for this doctine to have developed over time is quite necessary for as you know the early church knew of no such doctrine of the papacy as the historical evidence shows.

As Peter is shown to be the head of the Apostles in Scripture (which is also itself an historical book) the early Church fathers as I’ve shown Montalban also saw the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the Bishops…see post #555 and #159 which isn’t a post of mine.

You haven’t given your source, of which canon in Vatican I are you speaking? I must wholeheartedly and catagorically disagree with you. Of course the fathers say Jesus is the Rock in that He is God, but Jesus also says Peter is (kepha) which is also Rock Mt 16:19, so it depends what “sense” the fathers were using “Rock.” Protestants say since 1 Tim 4:13 says there is only one mediator between God and man, that this proves that there can only be a “mediator” and Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are wrong on their view of the communion of Saints and asking Saints to “mediate” for us. However, as we know Jesus is in one sense the only true mediator, however, when we talk to others about Jesus’ love for them and pray for them WE are also “mediators” in a lesser sense. Jesus is the true Rock, but builds His house upon Peter the Rock of Jesus on Earth.
So you are using a Protestant type of argument which is also goes against your theology.

The Roman Catholic Church, itself, has officially stated that there was no development of this doctrine in the early Church.

Where has the Roman Catholic Church officially stated that?

After all, if the fullness of the definition of papal primacy as defined by Vatican I was instituted by Christ immediately upon Peter, as both Vatican I and Leo XIII affirm, then there is no room for development.

So…the early Church looks exactly as it does today?? The early Church was an established fact, however, doctrine developed and that’s why councils were conviened, in order to get to what was the Apostolic truth given to them by Christ. The Trinity was believed, sure it was taught but to what extent was it clearly understood? It wasn’t clearly understood in the Fathers relationship to the Son, the Son to the Spirit and the Spirit to the Father until the council of Nicea (325) the called it “homoosius” of the same substance. It was the Arian controversy that challenged who Jesus was the Arians claimed Jesus wasn’t fully God. Point being, the once for all Christian doctrine given to the Apostles was being delved into deeper to better understand what was once for all delivered.

It was instituted by Christ himself and was therefore present from the very beginning and would have been recognized as such by the Church as Vatican I states: ‘Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church’, a fact which Vatican I says **has been known to all ages **leading to the practice ‘that it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church

It would be appreciated if you would cite the reference to the enclyclical next time. I forgot to do that early on too so I’m also guilty of it myself

Yes the papacy was present from the very begining. I think what you are talking about is the encyclical satis cognitum by Pope Leo lll. This document says that the Papacy has been known from its inception; you are inserting something that clearly is NOT there.
What I mean by development of the papacy is the same as Christianity. That the early Church didn’t look like it does today, does it? Nope, yet it was an established fact as was the papacy, and as Pope Leo lll says.
You don’t look like you did as a infant, yet you are the same person, just grown up.
It’s like John Henry Newman says in his book “Development of Christian doctrines” that the Church in its infancy was like an acorn and now looks like an oak tree; both are the same thing, have the same DNA, if you will or substance, but look different in time because one has developed over time.

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1689205]First a small point. Your referencing of the page by which you found these quotes is not very good. The catholic.com citation is to their front-page.

Perhaps you are correct that I didn’t give the correct “page” sorry. You can look on the front page to the top left click on Church and Papacy, then the authority of the Pope part 1. Sorry, this is the correct page.
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

The passage you quote says…
Ye have never envied any one; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct],

That’s part of the quote. As I said prior it says the Church at Rome (Bishops Church in Rome) holds the presidency…meaning it is above as is a president.

It was the nature of the early church that Apostolic churches would found other churches. Note to that these things are to be ‘confirmed’ by the Roman churches ‘conduct’, not power. That is, it should be an example to the churches it teaches. Isn’t that strange?

Strange? No not at all, if one Church is the head of others then there ‘conduct’ would also be of greater importance. Like a prime minister or president today, if they have immoral conduct then the scandal is greater. And to confirm something is to give authoritative acceptance also.
Each Church community can be an example to another, I would agree with you on that, however Ignatius is giving creedence to the Church in Rome as the president.

Note further down in the same Letter
“Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”
Chapter IX
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-19.htm#P1916_325412

That is he’s asking them to pray for a fellow church that he once lead, but now that he’s not in charge, who is? Jesus. That’s because there’s no intermediary between a bishop and Jesus. Consistant with what I’ve shown from his other works.

No you’ve again highlighted what you want (that Jesus is in charge which WE ALL AGREE TOO) and neglect what is there. We Catholics agree that one Church community should pray for another as Eastern Orthodox Churches do and Protestants do, that’s great but you are only dealing with one portion of the text.

Ignatius is I believe, clearly stating the Bishop of Rome is a “president” meaning he is the head of the Church on Earth. Of course Jesus is the true head, as He is the true Mediator, however we and the Saints also mediate, you believe that right? Jesus is gone for a while and gives His “keys to the kingdom” for Peter and his successors to hold until Jesus returns. You don’t accept but that’s your perogative; the primacy of Peter has been shown on this thread through Scripture and the early Church fathers.

 

[Bishopite]

quote=Montalban;1689196]There’s just so many things wrong with your post.
a) Irenaus is not Ignatius, you’ve mixed them up

No…this is what I cited,

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

The only reason I again cited him is that you earlier said I failed to answer you on Ignatius and Turtulian.

b) I did already address your objection to Ignatius anyway.

See…this confirms what I just said!

You ignored that! (Posts #562, #568, #576, #572, #573, #574 & #577 you partly dealt with as in #578 you simply changed to using quote mines from Cyprian)*
c) ccel is not an Orthodox site as far as I’m aware. Even if it were, what is the problem? They give full translations. Ah! That’s right you prefer quote-mine sites.

Ah, yes, are you sure you didn’t write posts #464-600? If you wouldn’t play shotgun apologetics by way over posting maybe you would get more responsse. I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone on this forum who posts as much at one time as you. Ignatius is a clear example of how you ignore any language that supports the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but I guess you see it another way; as they say in en France…c’est la vie.

d) I am indeed making an argument about the relations of the Apostles, however this is not an ‘error’ on my part, because it’s the very nature of these discussions to show that Peter was no different from the others.

When did I say that your argument about the Apostles is an ‘error’? I use " in my posts not ’ so you’ve either aparentely misquoted me or mixed me up with someone else. In all honesty it’s an argument not even worth answering because it doesn’t make any sense; the early Church leaders couldn’t come together for a council after Acts 15 for fear of mass martyrdom and that wasn’t their primary function at that time.

• You seemed intent merely to repeat the one verse “holds presidency in…” I gave an extensive contextual analysis of Ignatius in those above mentioned posts.

You have to repeat yourself because you seem to always say that others haven’t given proof as you do, or that they didn’t answer your questions, e.g., you asking how can one bind and loose without the keys? Remember, you asked me why I haven’t answered that question?

b) an attempt to change the argument by implication without even showing what doctrines are not followed. Start another thread “Orthodox are divided on doctrine”

I suppose I could start another thread but if I did, I wouldn’t want to wade through which “canon” is actually the infallible word of God. Don’t get me wrong…Eastern Orthodox are great Christian people and in some ways can show Catholics a few things, but I mean what if an Ethiopian Orthodox, Syrian or Greek Orthodox challenged me on what they view as their Sciptures? And I perhaps would have to response to one of them that writes and writes and writes again, and that would be to much for me at this time in my life.

Although off-topic I urge you to start another thread where you can show
a) that it was held by the Orthodox church
b) that it is ‘doctrine’

Ok, hey thanks for the advice…I’ll really consider it!!

And as I said before this still doesn’t explain why Jesus would entrust the Apostles to a system He knew couldn’t work,

I see your point…it’s not like the papacy has united Catholics a long time or anything, and if the papacy kept the Church together for around let’s say…a few thousand years or more then perhaps that would be considered successfully united; I mean it’s not like Catholicism works or anything

So a summary of your argument here is that rather than deal with Irenaus, you now want to deal with Ignatius. Last time we discussed Ignatius, you switched to Cyprian.

Don’t have a clue what you are arguing about. I quoted Ignatius who was talking about the presidency of the Bishop of Rome. I can NOT ever remember quoting Irenaus, let alone having a discussion about him.
And I’m very sorry not to have waded through mountains of www.ccel.org posts. Maybe one day I’ll read the complete www.ccel.org web site and then I’ll be able to read a few of your myriad of www.ccel.org posts

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

There’s just so many things wrong with your post.
a) Irenaus is not Ignatius, you’ve mixed them up

Bishopite:

No…this is what I cited,

Ignatius of Antioch

My apologies, you did give Ignatius as ‘another’ example, although this was in response to me quoting Irenaus, perhaps you think one outweighs the other? It was me simply picking the wrong thing wrong with your post. However you are wrong to do this, for as I noted, I’d dealt with him.

Bishopite:

The only reason I again cited him is that you earlier said I failed to answer you on Ignatius and Turtulian

Re-citing him the way you did is not an ‘answer’. In fact when I addressed you on several posts before that’s all in effect you did then.

Bishopite:

Ah, yes, are you sure you didn’t write posts #464-600? If you wouldn’t play shotgun apologetics by way over posting maybe you would get more responses. I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone on this forum who posts as much at one time as you. Ignatius is a clear example of how you ignore any language that supports the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but I guess you see it another way; as they say in en France…c’est la vie.

I’m sorry, but this is still not a response. I have cited many evidences. You arguing that there’s a lot of material there (right or wrong) as a reason for not answering ANY of it is not a response. I haven’t ‘ignored’ Ignatius at all. The very posts I cited earlier address this point. And you didn’t respond to them then, and you’re not answering them now, except to re-cite the one extract from Ignatius, and claim (falsely) that I’ve ignored you! And then you want to add that I’ve posted too much. You really need to make up your mind what it is you want to argue and stick with that.

The rest of your post is just a long-way of writing something that still doesn’t address the points I raised.

Here’s it again in a condensed form.

You cite Ignatius. For you this one verse is proof that he’s saying “To the presidency of the whole Christian church that is within the city of Rome”.

I interpret as saying “To the president of the (local) church that is in Rome” (in other words, to the church of the Roman area, centred in Rome.

To this you reply by repeating the same verse.

To this I reply by citing other verses from Ignatius in order to show context. He argues each local church is the entirely Catholic. He asks all churches to (continue to) submit to one another, etc. In other words for him no church (headed by a bishop) is the head any other church (headed by a bishop).

Now you reply that there’s just too much posting by me to reply with, but you do insofar as repeating the same verse.

In other words, when you say

Bishopite:

Ah, yes, are you sure you didn’t write posts #464-600?

I didn’t ask you to read EVERY SINGLE POST. I cited the one’s that are relevant. And yet you also want to claim I’ve made NO response. You present a very confused discussion.

Either a) accept I’ve responded and deal with that evidence, or
b) don’t.

 

[Montalban]

kaycee:

The development of doctine is in fact quite true for the subtle doctrines you list.

Your apeal for this doctine to have developed over time is quite necessary for as you know the early church knew of no such doctrine of the papacy as the historical evidence shows.

Bishopite:

As Peter is shown to be the head of the Apostles in Scripture (which is also itself an historical book) the early Church fathers as I’ve shown Montalban also saw the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the Bishops…see post #555 and #159 which isn’t a post of mine.

You can’t even make up your mind if I’ve addressed your posts, or posted too much! And you’ve misrepresented my posts before. Now you choose to do the same again.

No where have I said that Rome is the leader. I’ve said its an archetype. In post #555, which is your post, you don’t quote me at all saying anything of the sort. Your posting something that’s your own invention. You start that post by saying

Bishopite:

I did find these for Montalban from St. John Chrystosom They are all Eastern Fathers.

In other words you found quotes by someone I’ve used. Not quotes from me saying what you think I believe. If you had bothered to note that we (myself and others) then spent some time over these very quotes. John Chrysostomon was not in communion with Rome for most of his life. He was happy to acknowledge others as the legitimate heads of his church; not the Roman candidate.

You’ve already been caught out once before doing this.

Bishopite:

So…the early Church looks exactly as it does today?

On matters of strcutures of power, yes indeed. Once the Apostles had handed over the reigns. Although we have the concept of “Metropolitans” and “Patriarchs” these are positions of honour, not of power.

Bishopite:

The early Church was an established fact, however, doctrine developed and that’s why councils were conviened, in order to get to what was the Apostolic truth given to them by Christ.

That’s not the same thing. All the teachings of the church as ‘ruled’ upon by Councils were to say “This is what we’ve ALWAYS believed” NOT “This is what we NOW believe”

Even the Catholic church expresses ‘the truth’ in these terms. But ‘development of doctrine’ is to change emphasis. An example.
Augustine introduces the concept of Original Sin. This is accepted by the western church. With this concept one needs to explain the fate of un-baptised children; will they go to hell? No, a new place is thought up, “Limbo”. Absent from earlier teaching the teaching on Limbo was ‘developed’. As were also the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

First a small point. Your referencing of the page by which you found these quotes is not very good. The catholic.com citation is to their front-page.

Bishopite:

Perhaps you are correct that I didn’t give the correct “page” sorry. You can look on the front page to the top left click on Church and Papacy, then the authority of the Pope part 1. Sorry, this is the correct page.

And people reading this just knew that?

Montalban:

The passage you quote says…
Ye have never envied any one; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct],

Bishopite:

That’s part of the quote. As I said prior it says the Church at Rome (Bishops Church in Rome) holds the presidency…meaning it is above as is a president.

This bit’s saying Rome is an ‘example’ not the leader. I pointed this out.

Montalban:

It was the nature of the early church that Apostolic churches would found other churches. Note to that these things are to be ‘confirmed’ by the Roman churches ‘conduct’, not power. That is, it should be an example to the churches it teaches. Isn’t that strange?

Bishopite:

Strange? No not at all, if one Church is the head of others then there ‘conduct’ would also be of greater importance. Like a prime minister or president today, if they have immoral conduct then the scandal is greater. And to confirm something is to give authoritative acceptance also.

You’ve yet to show it was ‘the head’. It just says it’s the ‘example’

Bishopite:

Each Church community can be an example to another, I would agree with you on that, however Ignatius is giving creedence to the Church in Rome as the president.

Excepting (and I see we’re going around in circles) your idea of ‘president’ and mine differ. Mine is based on the examples of the other parts of this writing. Yours is based on the repitition, mantra-like of the one verse.
Montaban:

Note further down in the same Letter
“Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”
Chapter IX
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/…m#P1916_325412

That is he’s asking them to pray for a fellow church that he once lead, but now that he’s not in charge, who is? Jesus. That’s because there’s no intermediary between a bishop and Jesus. Consistant with what I’ve shown from his other works.

Bishopite:

No you’ve again highlighted what you want (that Jesus is in charge which WE ALL AGREE TOO) and neglect what is there. We Catholics agree that one Church community should pray for another as Eastern Orthodox Churches do and Protestants do,

I highlight ‘evidence’. You believe that the Pope sits atop the church -that’s the very reason you highlight ‘president’ in order to prove this concept of the church. I’m pointing out that he doesn’t mean it the way you think because IN THE SAME LETTER he acknowledges no one above the Bishop of the local church, save Jesus Christ.

Bishopite:

that’s great but you are only dealing with one portion of the text.

This is ironic, coming from you. I’m assuming you’re doing this in all honesty. Considering that I quoted more than just this; oh, that’s right, you complained that I didn’t, earlier, and then, without blinking offered up the opposite argument, that I post too much for you to read.

Bishopite:

Ignatius is I believe, clearly stating the Bishop of Rome is a “president” meaning he is the head of the Church on Earth.

mantra-like you repeat it, as it’s your only ‘evidence’ in this strand of our debate.

Bishopite:

Of course Jesus is the true head, as He is the true Mediator, however we and the Saints also mediate, you believe that right? Jesus is gone for a while and gives His “keys to the kingdom” for Peter and his successors to hold until Jesus returns. You don’t accept but that’s your perogative; the primacy of Peter has been shown on this thread through Scripture and the early Church fathers

Your church doesn’t just believe that Jesus is the head of the church, you add in an additional level between Jesus and the local bishop, called the Pope. Your own cited text, this very letter from Ignatius shows that he acknowledges no leader above the bishop.

So you’ve failed to reconile how ‘presidency’ can mean what you think it means in relation to other parts of the same letter. You’ve continued to ignore other letters by him that further show that he holds all churches equal.

 

[Montalban]

“Thus nothing was withheld from Peter (limit of their quote) AND nothing was withheld from John”

I don’t see where anyone said it was. The point of the quote was that Peter was singled from all the other apostles. Obviously this was for a reason.

I would still like your feedback on this mistake of yours. The person quoted mentioned Peter AND John. The Catholic apologist site mentioned Peter only. That is to change the meaning of the writer, by pretending that he praised Peter only.

The Papacy appears to have worked, too, by looking at how the Catholic Church has grown like no other and has remained unified. As a matter of fact, the division and lack of consistent growth in the Orthodox Church was one of the very reasons I dismissed it early on in my own journey.

The idea has been put forward that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established because it is big, popular and strong.

This is a ‘relative’ proof. At one stage the primitive church was small, persecuted, and weak. Thus the ‘measure’ of success is only a measure when in fact the church is a ‘success’. It’s a circular reasoning here at work. It is only able to be effective as a measure, when it’s measuring the church as actually big and powerful. If the church declined in numbers then you’d not use it as a proof, because it wouldn’t match the events you wish to ‘measure’.

Define ‘worked’, anyway! As far as I see you idea of a successful church is amply lampooned by Monty Python…

“…but you must remember that if you’re trying to propagate a creed of poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful, authoritarian organisation to do it.”

 

[Montalban]

For the benefit of those who may be new to this thread and who haven’t the time to go back over all the discussions it’s important here to show that Peter is not ‘the rock’ (foundation) exclusively. The Church is not built upon Rome alone. One person chose to cite evidence for Peter’s primacy by claiming that Ignatius made such an admission in his letter to the Romans.

I take the time out to do this because I am interested in discussion.

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
catholic.com/library/Auth…ope_Part_1.asp

If we wish to look at a single piece of evidence we can manipulate it to mean just about anything. In this respect some may wish to take Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans in order to do just that.

One can either read into this the following;
a) to the church that is in Rome that is president of all the churches
or
b) to the church that is presiding in Rome (presiding over the churches local to Rome)

In order to determine this we need to look at what Ignatius said. Ignatius said that each church headed by a bishop is completely Catholic.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
“Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid”
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

Ignatius stated again and again that there is no intermediate layer of church between a bishop and Jesus. This is in complete contrast to the Catholic idea, that has people related to Jesus only through the ‘chair’ of Peter.

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans or rather who hath for his bishop God the Father and Jesus Christ, abundant greeting.
“Letter to Polycarp”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html

and even in his letter to Romans he acknowledges that the Church in Syria is overseen by Jesus, when he (Ignatius) as bishop has vacated it. He doesn’t say it’s immediately over-seen by a higher church authority, the papacy!
“Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”
Letter to the Romans
Chapter IX
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/…m#P1916_325412

 

[Montalban]

Ignatius urges all churches to consider themselves equal to all others
Chapter XXXVIII.-Let the Members of the Church Submit Themselves, and No One Exalt Himself Above Another.
Letter to the Corinthians
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P450_75498

“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
Ignatius -
“The Epistle to the Trallians”, Chapter III
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1604_276864
There is NO Pope! (a bishop of bishops)

“Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience…”
"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God?"
(Ibid.) Chapter VII

This is in direct contrast to Bishopite’s interpretation of ‘presidency’. Ignatius is saying again that each bishop has all power and authority. There is no recourse in Ignatius’ mind for a super-authority structure over that, i.e. a Papacy.

All of this was already evidenced more than 10 days ago
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=114695&page=12

Which itself is repeating what was started 26 days ago (see post #441)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1620919&highlight=polycarp#post1620919

In summary of this he repeatedly says that the Bishop of the local church is the head of that church. Immediately above the bishop is Jesus. NOT the bishop in Rome. The local bishop has no need to connect to Jesus THROUGH the Bishop of Rome. The ‘president’ of Rome therefore is simply that Bishop who is in charge of the churches local to the area around Rome.

It is thus extraordinary that one person would claim I’ve not responded on this issue. Rome is not the ‘president’ in the sense of power over the rest of the Christian world. The keys are given to many. Many are called to be shepherds. Many are called to be ‘the rock’.

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1691349]If we wish to look at a single piece of evidence we can manipulate it to mean just about anything. In this respect some may wish to take Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans in order to do just that.

One can either read into this the following;
a) to the church that is in Rome that is president of all the churches

Thank you…you’ve just acknowledged what I’ve been trying to say. Anyone can read the Church fathers and give two differing views. For example, when we read Ignatius who says the Bishops are equal… I as a Catholic don’t have a problem with that for a lot of Church fathers affirmed that the Bishops are equal in one sense in their collegiality as Bishops but Ignatius also says the Bishop of Rome holds to the presidency above the other Bishops.

or
b) to the church that is presiding in Rome (presiding over the churches local to Rome)

In order to determine this we need to look at what Ignatius said. Ignatius said that each church headed by a bishop is completely Catholic.

We went over this before. Yes they were completely Catholic Mt 18:18, if they were in union with the Bishop of Rome who is holder of the keys to the kingdom and as I said before Bishops can’t bind and loose upon the universal Church without the keys to the kingdom, who Peter alone with his successors holds, Mt. 16:19. They all can equally “bind and loose” in their own communities but only one “holds the keys to the kingdom” for universal binding and loosing.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
“Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid”
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

Ignatius stated again and again that there is no intermediate layer of church between a bishop and Jesus. This is in complete contrast to the Catholic idea, that has people related to Jesus only through the ‘chair’ of Peter.

No you are reading way into Ignatius’ quote. He is merely saying that the Bishop is the head of his own community (diocese) and he isn’t addressing who is the head of the Church at this point in his letter. Ignatius is saying submit yourself to the Bishop, his presytery (priests, since presbyteros and priest are synonyms) and the Eucharist isn’t valid without the Bishop, I wholeheartedly agree. Yet elsewhere he addresses the head of the Bishops where he again says the Bishop of Rome holds to the “presidency.”

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans or rather who hath for his bishop God the Father and Jesus Christ, abundant greeting.
“Letter to Polycarp”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-lightfoot.html

and even in his letter to Romans he acknowledges that the Church in Syria is overseen by Jesus, when he (Ignatius) as bishop has vacated it. He doesn’t say it’s immediately over-seen by a higher church authority, the papacy!

You are using the argument of silence. He doesn’t say a lot of things but that doesn’t neccessarily negate them either. Of course Jesus is head of ALL in the ultimate sense for He is God, yet again this particular quote isn’t addressing who is the head Bishop on Earth.

“Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”
Letter to the Romans
Chapter IX
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/…m#P1916_325412

Same as above.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Bottom line:

Mat 16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

It is very clear from the text that Christ did not say he would build his** churches** upon this rock. There is only one church. Again, if anyone thinks it was any one of the many churches built since Martin Luther, he is welcome to make the case. But the true church cannot be the many churches of Protestantism because the many churches of Protestantism are rife with contradictions and Christ did not teach contradictions.

None of the current Protestant churches existed before Martin Luther. Each one of them must live with that fact and wonder why Christ took so long to build his church if theirs is the true church.

 

[Redbandito]

Where does it say Peter has this role exclusively? It doesn’t. Where does it say others can only have the role of shepherd in relationship to Peter? It doesn’t. You haven’t been able to make up your mind whether it’s exclusive to Peter, or others can have the role anyway.

I don’t deny in the slightest Jesus is speaking to Peter. You simply wish to imply that this means something other than Jesus talking to Peter - considering the Biblical and extra-Biblical proofs I’ve shown that state that others are the shepherds too!

All you need to do is show why I can only become a shepherd by my relationship to Peter (and his successors) (in only one bishopric -as he helped found other Sees, such as Antioch). The very fact you add in all this other detail is based on the premise that the Pope’s the supreme vicar, and you work back from that.

Montalban, I couldn’t resist responding to this. Simply amazing! So, now I can’t make up my mind, eh? I believe I have made it quite clear that my mind is made up. Your lack of ability to decipher has nothing to do with the firmness of belief which I possess. Don’t lash back simply because you can’t respond adequately.

As for the first paragraph, this is exactly why I remain so frustrated with your position. You continue to argue from a position of silence. For instance, you state, “Where does it state Peter has this role exclusively?” In other words, you continue to miss the point. The Scripture doesn’t say he has it exclusively. It simply says he HAS IT. The fact that the Scripture DOES NOT teach that the others have it, and does not show any examples of Jesus granting this authority to them (outside of Mt 18 which has already discussed ad nauseum), is why we take this position. In other words, Catholics don’t operate from a position of silence. We operate from the info. given, which is that Peter was individually granted authority. Thus, the fact that we have no examples of others being granted ALL the same authorities leads us to believe, in combination with Tradition, in the primacy of Peter.

You, on the other hand, see Peter granted this authority. You note that nowhere is it stated that the others weren’t granted this authority. Thus we must assume that the others were granted this authority too. This is an argument from silence. It is highly illogical, as I hope you can see. Therefore, until you are willing to grant that the Biblical case strongly supports the Catholic argument, your appeals to Church Fathers cannot be taken seriously. If you aren’t willing to be honest, I can’t give you any credibility and thus am called to “guard (my) heart” (Proverbs 4:23).

 

[Redbandito]

So…the early Church looks exactly as it does today?? The early Church was an established fact, however, doctrine developed and that’s why councils were conviened, in order to get to what was the Apostolic truth given to them by Christ. The Trinity was believed, sure it was taught but to what extent was it clearly understood? It wasn’t clearly understood in the Fathers relationship to the Son, the Son to the Spirit and the Spirit to the Father until the council of Nicea (325) the called it “homoosius” of the same substance. It was the Arian controversy that challenged who Jesus was the Arians claimed Jesus wasn’t fully God. Point being, the once for all Christian doctrine given to the Apostles was being delved into deeper to better understand what was once for all delivered.

Bishopite, an interesting point on the Arian controversy is that a large percentage of the Eastern Bishops had been swayed in favor of Arius’ doctrinal position. By Montalban’s standard, today’s Christianity would never have known the Trinity as we do. Afterall, all Bishops are “equal”, right?

 

[Montalban]

Bottom line:

Mat 16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

It is very clear from the text that Christ did not say he would build his** churches** upon this rock. There is only one church. Again, if anyone thinks it was any one of the many churches built since Martin Luther, he is welcome to make the case. But the true church cannot be the many churches of Protestantism because the many churches of Protestantism are rife with contradictions and Christ did not teach contradictions.

None of the current Protestant churches existed before Martin Luther. Each one of them must live with that fact and wonder why Christ took so long to build his church if theirs is the true church.

I agree, all the churches in communion are one. Just as Jesus is fully God, but we don’t believe in three gods, but one.

 

[Montalban]

Bishopite, an interesting point on the Arian controversy is that a large percentage of the Eastern Bishops had been swayed in favor of Arius’ doctrinal position. By Montalban’s standard, today’s Christianity would never have known the Trinity as we do. Afterall, all Bishops are “equal”, right?

When all the bishops met as equals before Ecumenical Council, called for by the Emperor, and not the pope they all had equal say in what was doctrine. The majority declared without reference to the Pope what was doctrine. They didn’t ‘develope’ it but argued by what was always taught throughout the whole church.

For someone who’s decided not to debate, to return with this ahistorical argument is rather strange, but welcome back to you, anyway.

 

[Redbandito]

When all the bishops met as equals before Ecumenical Council, called for by the Emperor, and not the pope they all had equal say in what was doctrine. The majority declared without reference to the Pope what was doctrine. They didn’t ‘develope’ it but argued by what was always taught throughout the whole church.

For someone who’s decided not to debate, to return with this ahistorical argument is rather strange, but welcome back to you, anyway.

It’s not a debate at this point. You simply keep re-stating your unproven thesis. Nor is this argument completely ahistorical. Check out New Advent and type in Arius. I don’t disagree with some of your historical claims here, simply the conclusions you draw from them. I probably should not have posted the original post. I knew it was inflammatory. I just couldn’t resist giving you one last dig. I apologize. God bless!

BTW, I am not back. I merely popped my head in briefly. But thanks for rolling out the welcome mat all the same. You’re a good guy Montalban. I can tell you are dedicated to your faith. I respect that. I still disagree with you strongly, but I respect that you truly defend your faith for love of Christ. That is good. Keep up the good work. Maybe I’ll run into you on the boards again one of these days. I try not to post much, but you never know.

 

[Montalban]

It’s not a debate at this point. You simply keep re-stating your unproven thesis.

So you say. Funny you keep saying this

Nor is this argument completely ahistorical. Check out New Advent and type in Arius. I don’t disagree with some of your historical claims here, simply the conclusions you draw from them. I probably should not have posted the original post. I knew it was inflammatory. I just couldn’t resist giving you one last dig. I apologize. God bless!

Part of what you said is true. There have been divisions in the church. There have been in the east. I believe it was Jerome (who’d travelled east) was so exasperated at these divisions that he probably thought that a single and unified church leadership would prevent such divisions.

It is ahistorical insofar as the first 7 Ecumenical Councils were all called for by the Emperor. Some were called without notifying the Pope. One was called despite his protests.

BTW, I am not back. I merely popped my head in briefly.

To continue a just-so

Redbandito:

Montalban, I couldn’t resist responding to this. Simply amazing! So, now I can’t make up my mind, eh? I believe I have made it quite clear that my mind is made up. Your lack of ability to decipher has nothing to do with the firmness of belief which I possess. Don’t lash back simply because you can’t respond adequately.

I have stated where you both agree where others can be ‘shepherds’ but at the same time you argue this role for Peter alone. If you were interested in debate, you’d elaborate on your position, rather than simply going on ‘you just don’t understand me!’

Redbandito:

As for the first paragraph, this is exactly why I remain so frustrated with your position. You continue to argue from a position of silence.

This is partly true, but not all of the truth. I have evidenced many arguments
a) proofs from the Bible (e.g. Acts 15)
b) proofs from the Church Fathers
and
c) from the lack of evidence for the papacy, the ‘silence’. But your wish to deal very selectively surfaces against.

Redbandito:

For instance, you state, “Where does it state Peter has this role exclusively?” In other words, you continue to miss the point. The Scripture doesn’t say he has it exclusively. It simply says he HAS IT.

That is the point exactly. You add in details that aren’t there. If you want to argue for the Papacy you can’t use the premise “I already believe in the Papacy…” and then work back. Which is what you’re doing when you present a passage about Peter to mean that it refers to him alone.

The statement that “Peter was given the keys”. It doesn’t say exclusively so. To be frank, it doesn’t NOT mean that he exclusively had them either. It is simply evidence that Peter was given the keys.

You use it to mean exclusively so when it doesn’t say so. You have interpreted it to say something other than what it says based on an a priori regarding the Pope. The very passage needs to be interpreted by Church Fathers, and in context. This too is absent from your discussions. “You simply don’t understand me”, or “I’m too busy to respond” aren’t adequate explanations.

Redbandito:

The fact that the Scripture DOES NOT teach that the others have it, and does not show any examples of Jesus granting this authority to them (outside of Mt 18 which has already discussed ad nauseum), is why we take this position. In other words, Catholics don’t operate from a position of silence. We operate from the info. given, which is that Peter was individually granted authority. Thus, the fact that we have no examples of others being granted ALL the same authorities leads us to believe, in combination with Tradition, in the primacy of Peter.

That’s false for many reasons.
a) it doesn’t really address Matthew 18, which is significant, as it uses the same language, only missing the word ‘keys’. (you need to answer the challenge regarding ‘binding and loosing’ without the keys – instead, (if memory serves that it was you answering) you added in even more information about papal infallibility)
b) one doesn’t rely solely on the Bible to argue, you and others here with utmost irony continue to argue for the Papacy based on isolating singular verses of the Bible. The Church Fathers say that others were granted this authority. But then you won’t address that either!

 

[Montalban]

Redbandito:

You, on the other hand, see Peter granted this authority. You note that nowhere is it stated that the others weren’t granted this authority. Thus we must assume that the others were granted this authority too. This is an argument from silence. It is highly illogical, as I hope you can see. Therefore, until you are willing to grant that the Biblical case strongly supports the Catholic argument, your appeals to Church Fathers cannot be taken seriously. If you aren’t willing to be honest, I can’t give you any credibility and thus am called to “guard (my) heart” (Proverbs 4:23).

I will agree that if you want to take a single verse out of all context (from the rest of the Bible, and the Church Fathers) you can say Peter was granted the keys.

The ‘silence’ argument comes from the very lack of evidence from such as Tertullian and Irenaus to appeal to the Pope in terms of divisions in doctrine.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

If we wish to look at a single piece of evidence we can manipulate it to mean just about anything. In this respect some may wish to take Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans in order to do just that.

One can either read into this the following;
a) to the church that is in Rome that is president of all the churches
…

Bishopite:

Thank you…you’ve just acknowledged what I’ve been trying to say. Anyone can read the Church fathers and give two differing views. For example, when we read Ignatius who says the Bishops are equal… I as a Catholic don’t have a problem with that for a lot of Church fathers affirmed that the Bishops are equal in one sense in their collegiality as Bishops but Ignatius also says the Bishop of Rome holds to the presidency above the other Bishops.

You’re kidding! ROFL You’re not here to prove that there are multiple interpretations possible, but that this is evidence for the Papacy.

Your interpretation is not valid, because if you noted I said you could read it only in isolation. Next your attempts below to deal some kind of context are to again isolate verses as not dealing in absolutes.

Bishopite:

No you are reading way into Ignatius’ quote. He is merely saying that the Bishop is the head of his own community (diocese) and he isn’t addressing who is the head of the Church at this point in his letter.

Yes, he’s saying the Bishop is the head of his bishopric. That’s the very point. On top of that you want to assume the position of the Pope, whom he doesn’t recognise, because he says repeatedly that there’s no one above the bishop but Jesus. He is dealing absolutely with church governance when he added “Apart from these, there is no Church”

You simply want to argue that there must be a Papacy involved even though he restricts his statements by saying there’s no one between Jesus and His bishops.

Bishopite:

Ignatius is saying submit yourself to the Bishop, his presytery (priests, since presbyteros and priest are synonyms) and the Eucharist isn’t valid without the Bishop, I wholeheartedly agree. Yet elsewhere he addresses the head of the Bishops where he again says the Bishop of Rome holds to the “presidency.”

No, he’s making an absolute statement. The head of the bishopric is the bishop. For you this is not the case because your idea of church governance is to say the head of the Bishopric is the Bishop who is there in relation to the See in Rome. Which it doesn’t say, but you must add in.

Bishopite:

You are using the argument of silence. He doesn’t say a lot of things but that doesn’t neccessarily negate them either. Of course Jesus is head of ALL in the ultimate sense for He is God, yet again this particular quote isn’t addressing who is the head Bishop on Earth.

It’s not the argument from silence at all. He specifically says no one is above the bishop. He said so again and again in absolute terms.

He said ALL churches headed by a bishop are complete/Catholic. He said his own former church, now without him as Bishop has only Jesus for it’s head. He listed the church hierarchy and said that there were none other than these.

Your idea of ‘president’ is thus flawed. It is to ignore when he is dealing with absolutes. ALL churches are headed by a bishop. For you ALL churches are headed by a bishop in a special realtionship with Rome.

I note you’ve not dealt at all with where you claimed I supported the Papacy. Instead you think here again I’m agreeing with you!?! on some points! Still, if you think I agree with you when I don’t it’s easy to see why you think Ignatius says one thing other than what he’s saying, too

 

[mich2]

For the benefit of those who may be new to this thread and who haven’t the time to go back over all the discussions it’s important here to show that Peter is not ‘the rock’ (foundation) exclusively. The Church is not built upon Rome alone. One person chose to cite evidence for Peter’s primacy by claiming that Ignatius made such an admission in his letter to the Romans.

Thanks, Montalban; this thread does seem very interesting indeed; but I dont have the time to read every posts within this extremely long thread. However, taking from the first post, the issue started with the quote found in Matthew “thou art Peter…” I will start with this, if you don’t mind. I also appologize for probably repeating what was discussed at length…I’m doing this only to get in tune with the thread.

Mat 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

**Who do men say that the Son of man is? **…the Son of Man, a jewish prophetical figure

“**I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of heaven [one] like a son of man, and he came up even to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.”
- Daniel 7:13-14 **

Different answers were given but a clear eschatalogical movement must ave existed since some pointed to John the Baptist as being the Son of man.The Baptist himself was asked if he was the return of Elijah by the Pharasee.Some prophets, such as Ezekiel are also called the son of man in scriptures.All were possible fulfilments of the coming of the Son of Man.
But who say ye that I am?…Was Jesus testing the disciples’ faith? Since the central message is the establishment of the Church being built upon…something indestructable, protecting the Church from the gates of Hades (destruction, death), then I would think that Jesus knew the proper answer was to be given, and so clearly identifying to His disciples how the Church was to be established.
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Some propose this statement (profession of faith) as being the rock upon which the Church was to be built upon. My problem would be that many sects which were idenitifed as being heretical (cut off from the Church) still believed that Jesus was the Son of God.
The Gnostics believed this, for instant; they simply disbelieved in his humanity. The saw Him as being One like the Son of man, more of an Angelic Being. Some others point to the disciple named Peter (Tertullian). I have a problem with this as well, since Peter’s faith was not greater than any of the other disciple’s. When Jesus said “I have prayed for thee (Peter) that your faith will never fail”, after having said, just prior to this, Satan has been given the power to swift you all (disciples) like wheat… again, Peter’s faith was not more strengthened than the rest after Jesus ascended into the Heavens. We know that Peter at one time was actually **afraid **of the Jewish Christians’ harsh criticism of him being seen eating with gentile christians. Paul confronted him with his failure to show the proper image of the Christian Faith.
Tertullian argued against the title " The Pontifex Maximus" given to the Bishop of Rome due to him(Roman Bishop) being the successor of Peter. Tertullian claimed the keys were given to the disciple Peter alone, and not to his successors.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter,
I propose that;
This indestructable sign (flesh and blood has not…), being the True Faith, becomes visible in Peter,
being not a person, but the infallable office of the Holy Spirit ( the Spirit will guide you into all truths), of which Simon is the first to hold.

Andre