Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[steve_b]

"Bishopite:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*“Why’s anyone write anything?” I’m not sure…that’s a complicated philosophical question. But why would Ignatius write the Bishop of Rome and say “to the church which holds the presidency” acccording to you Ignatius was simply affirming the Bishop of Romes ‘presidency’ over his own community. Since you know the patristics better than I, do you know if Ignatius told other Bishops that their church holds to the presidency? *

Because the writing is a letter. It is addressed to that church that is the head of the church in the region of the Romans. It’s an ‘address’. I’m sure even in America you add the person’s title when you write to them. The letter is saying who it’s for.

Ignatius, an apostolic father, wrote 6 letters

1. 
   *]Ephesians
   *]Magnesians
   *]Trallians
   *]Romans
   *]Philadelphians
   *]Smyrnaeans
   None of these hold presidency in their own regions, only Rome? That begs 2 questions.
   1. 
      *]Why didn’t Ignatius write to the Churches that DO hold the predisency in those regions? Unless of course none exist
      *]If this was a novel idea, where was the protest from these other Churches regarding Rome’s presidency?
      Bottomline, Why make a special point about presidency of the Church of Rome if all Churches are equal? It’s certainly not because it’s the capital city of the empire. The state is trying to eliminate the Church all over the empire. For Christians, Rome can’t be on someones favorite list of places to be at this time in history. So Its gotta be something else other than the capital.
      
      Aren’t all bishops equal? All these Churches have bishops. And as Ignatius says, where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church. So what’s presidency all about for one Church, thereby one bishop?
      
      Ignatius isn’t saying this to Rome to butter anybody up to change any outcome. He WANTS to be thrown to the lions.
      
      Looks like Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch, is making a point that’s obvious to all at the time. The Church of Rome holds the presidency, it’s not a novel idea at the time, and it still is that way 2000 years later.
      
      What’s sad is, where is Christianity today in Antioch, Ephesus, Magnesia, Trelles, Smyrna, Philidelphia?

 

[Redbandito]

What’s sad is, where is Christianity today in Philidelphia?

Yeah, I know. Pennsylania really has abandoned it’s Christian roots.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yeah, I know. Pennsylania really has abandoned it’s Christian roots.

 

[NotWorthy]

Another thing to consider.

If at one time all the bishops did have equal authority, why would a semi-autonomous bishop give up his authority and just give it to Rome? There’s not too many people that willingly give up authority to someone else (the American Presidency is one of the few exceptions) unless they are forced.

Wouldn’t at least one of these bishops have raised a stink at this?

 

[steve_b]

Yeah, I know. Pennsylania really has abandoned it’s Christian roots.

I just knew that was coming

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1700224]Because the writing is a letter. It is addressed to that church that is the head of the church in the region of the Romans. It’s an ‘address’. I’m sure even in America you add the person’s title when you write to them. The letter is saying who it’s for.

You’d get a letter “Dear Mr Bishopite” and ask “Why are they calling me “Mr”, I know I’m a Mr! They know I’m a Mr! Why are they calling me something that’s already understood?”

The title “Mr.” is a generic term but Ignatius seems to go beyond using a generic term in saying to “THE” church which holds to the presidency…(which would be more like the Catholic position)
Ignatius doesn’t say to “A” church which holds to the presidency…(which would seem to be more like your position).

steveb claims Ignatius didn’t write use the term “presidency” to the other Churches he wrote to so he then askes the question…

Why didn’t Ignatius write to the Churches that DO hold the predisency in those regions? Unless of course none exist [steveb post #758]

And then Ignatius goes on to say…

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one,** but others you have taught…”**

Is Ignatius saying the Bishop of Rome taught his own community? or other communities?

Sure this quote from Ignatius is implicit about the primacy of Rome but it follows in the development of the papacy much like Christianity which has developed over the centuries, yet always existed after Jesus the papacy has also. You don’t accept a development of Christian doctrine?

Again, why have them in the Catholic church? I noted before your church has stated that they always believed it. Perhaps you’ve not realised that you’ve touched upon the answer yourself; ‘defined’.

Have them in the Catholic Church because Jesus established one Church not many Churches. Indeed, I’m not as erudite as you, however I DO know that the Catholic Church teaches the papacy always existed in the New Testament and knew that even before converting to Catholicism years ago. I know the Church teaches that the papacy has always existed after Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom

 

[Montalban]

Ignatius, an apostolic father, wrote 6 letters

1. 
   *]Ephesians
   *]Magnesians
   *]Trallians
   *]Romans
   *]Philadelphians
   *]Smyrnaeans
   None of these hold presidency in their own regions, only Rome? That begs 2 questions.

1. 
   You don’t know that none of the others do. All you know is that he addressed one letter to the Romans in that manner. The only questions you put therefore come from
   a) you assuming that this is so
   and
   b) ignoring earlier when I posted the introductions he gives to each of the churches he wrote to. They all differ. He also addresses Polycarp as having none above him but Jesus. But sure, some may want to re-construct his writing to only look at Romans.
   One could just as easily look at one of these greetings in isolation and note…
   
   to the Ephesians
   
   Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plenitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.
   
   earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html
   
   This is an eastern church therefore he’s predicting that it will never waiver from the glory of God.
   

   *]Why didn’t Ignatius write to the Churches that DO hold the presidency in those regions? Unless of course none exist

   No, you mean "Why didn’t he address any of his other epistles the same way as he addressed the one to the Romans. But then below you touch upon the evidence of why.
   

   *]If this was a novel idea, where was the protest from these other Churches regarding Rome’s presidency?

   this is the worst of your assumptions. It was in fact not novel that each of those bishoprics was the ‘head’ of the churches in its region. Again I note you’ve ignore the evidence I cited re: the other greetings to other regional churches.
   Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ, which is in Philadelphia of Asia, which hath found mercy and is firmly established in the concord of God and rejoiceth in the passion of our Lord and in His resurrection without wavering, being fully assured in all mercy; which church I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, that is eternal and abiding joy; more especially if they be at one with the bishop and the presbyters who are with him, and with the deacons that have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom after His own will He confirmed and established by His Holy Spirit.
   IGNATIUS to the Philadelphians
   earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-philadelphians-lightfoot.html
   In essence it is no different than praising any of the other churches such as
   “The Ephesians from Smyrna salute you, from whence also I write to you. They are here with me for the glory of God, as also are ye; and they have comforted me in all things, together with Polycarp bishop of the Smyrnaeans. Yea, and all the other churches salute you in the honour of Jesus Christ. Fare ye well in godly concord, and possess ye a stedfast spirit, which is Jesus Christ.”
   IGNATIUS
   Epistle to the Magnesians, 15:1
   earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-lightfoot.html
   One could, if one so desired look to this in isolation and make the most of the fact he says ALL churches salute their church.
   Or that in 10:2 of his Epistle to the Romans he notes that they’ve taken instructions
   earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

 

[Montalban]

Bottomline, Why make a special point about presidency of the Church of Rome if all Churches are equal?

The only one making a ‘special point’ is you. He notes all churches are equal. But you hone in on the one occasion he uses one term to think that this means that it’s the president church of all of Christendom.

It’s certainly not because it’s the capital city of the empire. The state is trying to eliminate the Church all over the empire. For Christians, Rome can’t be on someone’s favourite list of places to be at this time in history. So Its gotta be something else other than the capital.

Actually Rome was already noted throughout the Christian community as being the place of martyrdom of both Peter and Paul, pillars of the church.
Noted as ‘pillars’ by John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, pp561-562. Also at: ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-96.htm#P3437_3131017

Aren’t all bishops equal? All these Churches have bishops. And as Ignatius says, where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church. So what’s presidency all about for one Church, thereby one bishop?

You’ve already touched upon the answer to your first objection. Elsewhere as you point out, he makes a blanket statement about all churches; that they’re headed by a bishop.

So if you want to take this phrase in isolation as you have done, and ignore all the other Epistles where he praises other places, and ignore these works when he calls on all to submit to each other, and where he notes every church headed by a bishop is complete, then you’ve got a case.

 

[Montalban]

A) the claim was made (by others) that no where in Scripture does Peter exert leadership.

I think you’re trying to make a different point. The fact isn’t that he exerted leadership, but that he didn’t over the other Apostles.

B) Yes, all Bishops are leaders, but Peter by far shows an authority to make binding decisions on the Church as I’ve illustrated in a previous post.

Ignoring Acts 15 doesn’t help.

 

[Montalban]

Another thing to consider.

If at one time all the bishops did have equal authority, why would a semi-autonomous bishop give up his authority and just give it to Rome? There’s not too many people that willingly give up authority to someone else (the American Presidency is one of the few exceptions) unless they are forced.

Wouldn’t at least one of these bishops have raised a stink at this?

Who did this?
When?

 

[Montalban]

And then Ignatius goes on to say…
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one,** but others you have taught…”**
Is Ignatius saying the Bishop of Rome taught his own community? or other communities?

If you don’t answer my questions, you can’t continue to expect me to do the same. I’ve done so for you now for weeks.

 

[Montalban]

What’s sad is, where is Christianity today in Antioch, Ephesus, Magnesia, Trelles, Smyrna, Philidelphia?

Others have chosen to make light of this. Take Smyrna for example. 1922 the various allied powers, including America had naval vessels that sat idly by whilst the Turks were destroying the last vestiges of the Christian community there.

Perhaps you think that this is a sign of God’s justice? (Like 1204 or 1453?)

I’m sure that the spread of Christianity by Catholic Spain in South America proves God’s smiling upon their methods?

I don’t think you can make an argument along the lines that God approves of the church that’s the most ‘powerful’.

 

[Montalban]

We’ve got 2000 years of history to look back on. And today you can’t hardly find Christians living in any of the early sees of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch or Constantinople/Istanbul.
Not so with Rome. Why?

Let’s try your argument…
Despite it’s history of being persecuted the Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian church

The Catholic Church (viz. the Papal States) once spanned across Italy and is now reduced to a tiny enclave* in a modern secularist city (that has been run by Communists and Fascists at various points in its modern history). Catholicism has lost all of northern/western Europe.

Catholicism in the USA sees falling church attendances and less people choosing to become priests.

*The Vatican City owes its independence to a treaty signed between the Papacy and Fascist anti-Semitic Italy in the 1920s.

 

[Montalban]

In short, here’s what is ignored:

He stated all churches headed by a bishop are Catholic (Smyrnaeans 8), not the Pope, not a bishop of bishops, not power held only reference to Rome.

He stated nothing should be done without the bishop (Smyrnaeans 8), not Pope, not reference to Rome. RCC teaching allows the Pope to interfere in a bishopric.

The structure of the church has no place above Bishop (Trallians 3), not the Pope, no reference to Rome is made

The bishop holds all power (Trallians 7), not Pope, not only in reference to Rome

He states that there’s no one above the bishop, save for Jesus (Letter to Polycarp; Romans 9), not the Pope, not only in reference to Rome

But yes, he does praise Rome! Let’s concentrate only on that! Ignore where he says all churches must salute the church in Philadelphia. Ignore where he claims that the Church in Ephesus will never err (a prediction more startling in light of the fact it’s an eastern church). Ignore that he mentions that the Church in Rome took instruction (but highlight that it ‘taught’) (for the record, I have no problem with it doing both).

Ignatius categorically says that there’s no other positions in the church:
“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

The RC Church adds to this, creating a bishop of bishops who is higher than the local bishop. If you want to argue that you’ve got ‘good’ reason to do this, that’s one thing, but you’re not. You’re arguing that Ignatius is offering support for a position he’d never have known. He says that there is no Church apart from those positions he names.

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **NotWorthy** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1702675#post1702675) 				
  		*Another thing to consider.

If at one time all the bishops did have equal authority, why would a semi-autonomous bishop give up his authority and just give it to Rome? There’s not too many people that willingly give up authority to someone else (the American Presidency is one of the few exceptions) unless they are forced.

Wouldn’t at least one of these bishops have raised a stink at this?*

Who did this?
When?

This is what would happen if
a) All the Bishops were of equal authority for some period of time in the early Church, and
b) The Church of Rome came to exert her authority over all the bishoprics.

This would seem to have been what happened if what you are saying is true. That all the ECF’s taught that the Apostles were equal (which would mean that there is NO reason to assume that Peter had established the Papacy) and then the Papacy assumed primacy as time went by.

 

[NotWorthy]

  			Originally Posted by **NotWorthy** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1700550#post1700550) 				
  		* B) Yes, all Bishops are leaders, but Peter by far shows an authority to make binding decisions on the Church as I've illustrated in a previous post.*

Ignoring Acts 15 doesn’t help.

No, ignoring it doesn’t help at all. I didn’t include it because I know (at least, to you, Kaycee and a few others) that this council doesn’t resolve our differences

. Both sides think the council of Acts 15 proves their point. RC’s say that Peter issued a dogmatic teaching in the Council, and that James, who was hosting the council because it was in his See, issued a disciplinary teaching (one that was over-ridden before the end of the New Testament - by Paul).

You, and several others, beg to differ. I don’t think either side has gone a single step into convincing the other of this council’s proofs on this issue.

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1706193]Let’s try your argument…
Despite it’s history of being persecuted the Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian church

The Catholic Church (viz. the Papal States) once spanned across Italy and is now reduced to a tiny enclave* in a modern secularist city (that has been run by Communists and Fascists at various points in its modern history). Catholicism has lost all of northern/western Europe.

Catholicism in the USA sees falling church attendances and less people choosing to become priests.

*The Vatican City owes its independence to a treaty signed between the Papacy and Fascist anti-Semitic Italy in the 1920s.

You are correct, Catholicism is declining and secularism has taken over much of Europe, but the Catholic Church IS still growing in Africa and Asia mostly because of the large birth rate, (that they are NOT contracepting) and also others discovering the faith; so says the Christian Science Monitor…

“Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, are booming in the global South. The rise is so great, in fact, that Christendom’s so-called center of gravity - the point on the globe where roughly the same number of believers live to the north, south, east, and west - is shifting ever further from Rome, not to mention Jerusalem, where Christianity started.”

"despite losing believers to a new wave of evangelical churches taking Latin America by storm, Catholicism has continued to grow there in large part simply because of high birth rates.

In Asia and Africa, meanwhile, the rapid rise of Catholicism is fueled as much by birth rates as it is by the discovery of the faith."

csmonitor.com/2005/0405/p01s03-wogi.html

 

[Montalban]

This is what would happen if
a) All the Bishops were of equal authority for some period of time in the early Church, and
b) The Church of Rome came to exert her authority over all the bishoprics.

You mean like when Pope St. Victor was rebuked for doing this? (mentioned in Post #307 of this same thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1611481&highlight=victor#post1611481 ) Ouch! Have we really been discussing this thread that long?

One finds that this is exactly what they did do. Which is why I mentioned it earlier.

And a Pope too, complained when he thought someone was seeking to be called universal bishop - he said no one should be so. This has also been dealt with in this thread.

Ah, well, we do go over the same materials a bit.

 

[Montalban]

No, ignoring it doesn’t help at all. I didn’t include it because I know (at least, to you, Kaycee and a few others) that this council doesn’t resolve our differences

. Both sides think the council of Acts 15 proves their point. RC’s say that Peter issued a dogmatic teaching in the Council, and that James, who was hosting the council because it was in his See, issued a disciplinary teaching (one that was over-ridden before the end of the New Testament - by Paul).

Excepting if Peter made this ruling then Paul & co’s testimony that followed it would be superfluous.

Where did Paul over-ride this Council? From memory he rebuked Peter for going against what was agreed to

You, and several others, beg to differ. I don’t think either side has gone a single step into convincing the other of this council’s proofs on this issue.

Yes, I know. When Peter speaks, you thin that’s the end of the matter, even though Paul then gives testimony and every one is silent as he speaks, and then James uses words like “It is my decision” This to you means “It is your decision”

A problem with possessive pronouns? What’s your’s is mine?

Anyway, I find interesting that the RC Church claims that there’s been no change to the position of Pope.
Referring to the first Vatican Council the Pope said “Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).”
Pope Leo XIII
Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church)
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1896
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13SATIS.HTM

The modern idea of the Papacy however is absent from the writings of Ignatius. This man sees that there’s no one above bishop. He makes this explicit too.

Many Catholics also use as support the all too ‘neat’ phrase attributed to Augustine “Roma lecuta est; causa finita est.” (“Rome has spoken; the case is closed.”) This is supposed to be from Sermon 131:10. One apologist site* actually agrees that this is NOT a quote, but tries to suggest that it sums up the spirit of Augustine’s sermon.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

You mean like when Pope St. Victor was rebuked for doing this? (mentioned in Post #307 of this same thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1611481&highlight=victor#post1611481 ) Ouch! Have we really been discussing this thread that long?

One finds that this is exactly what they did do. Which is why I mentioned it earlier.

Ahhhh, and here I thought they complained about Victor’s wisdom in doing this, not his authority to do so. Oh well…

And a Pope too, complained when he thought someone was seeking to be called universal bishop - he said no one should be so. This has also been dealt with in this thread.

Yes, and I thought “universal bishop” implied one bishop (with no need for other bishops), instead of many bishops (with one bishop to resolve disputes and further the teachings of the Church).

This has been a long thread, though…