Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Remembering that each and every church is equal, and without recourse to a central authority, Irenaus is showing that although individual churches may fall into error, we can test their teachings against what is taught throughout the churches as a whole. That’s the very thing about not having a Papacy.

SPH1:

By your reasoning, you also eliminate Ecumenical Councils.

Not at all. Ignatius calls on every church to submit to every other church.
Chapter XXXVIII.-Let the Members of the Church Submit Themselves, and No
One Exalt Himself Above Another
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P450_75498

Ecumenical Councils began with the Bible… see next point.

SPH1:

Note also that that was NOT the way it was in apostolic times. The apostles were very definitely supreme authority over all Churches.

And yet they met too, in Council (Acts 15) to decide together.

Montalban:

I’ve already agreed that he has stated it is ‘pre-eminent’. Why? Because of Peter AND Paul. It’s not the Catholic formula going on here…RC Church: Rome is pre-eminent because of Peter who was given the keys (alone)
Irenaus: Rome is pre-eminent because of Peter and Paul, who are equal.
Leo the Great stated that Rome’s position was based on the Apostles Peter and Paul, and that these two Apostles were equal in power.

SPH1:

But remember: by apostolic agreement, Peter was apostle to the Jews and Paul apostle to the gentiles. The Church of Rome took its lineage from BOTH apostles; each apostle - Peter and Paul - passing on to the Church of Rome everything they had to pass. Apostleship to Jews and Gentiles ended with one universal apostleship consolidated in the See of Rome. (IMO, that’s probably why Christ called Paul to Rome.) You see this lineage from Peter and Paul as diminishing the See of Rome.

Not at all. I see Peter and Paul as great for Rome. I just said I recognise it had a degree of pre-eminence.

SPH1:

Rather, it is a great witness from the whole Church that Rome took its consolidated authority from both apostles.

Which is still not the RC Church idea that says Peter was supreme, and to him alone Rome holds its position.

con’t…

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

For if anyone, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops."

SPH1:

Pope Gregory was not undermining his own office. The probable answer lies in the quote. Elimination of all bishops but one. The Holy Catholic Church forbids this.

I don’t believe he’s diminishing his own office. Simply that by ‘title’ he says that no one should be called universal bishop. It is a remnant of the earlier church teaching about no one assuming almighty offices. But the Church in Rome has already by this time moved further away from the primitive church. It is a stepping-stone/phase in the development of the Papacy.
Compare this with
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Rome

The Catholic argument is
"Gregory the Great condemned the title universal bishop in the sense of meaning that all other bishops are not really bishops, but mere agents of the one Bishop, a concept that is blatantly contrary to Catholic teaching, which holds that all bishops are by divine institution true successors of the Apostles. For he states:
For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.

{Epistle LXVIII}"
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ152.HTM
Which is in fact contrasted by Catholic teaching that makes the bishop of Rome more equal than all others, and that all others are dependent on their office to him.
Compare the early church with this. A bishop is supreme in his diocese. No one above him but Jesus. In the RC Church every bishop however can be undermined by one bishop, that of the bishop of Rome.
It’s a legal fiction that the RC Church maintains in order to pretend its bishops are the same; the idea lampooned in another and un-related work “Some are more equal than others”.*
936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is “head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth” (CIC, can. 331).
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/936.htm
There’s only one “Vicar of Christ” and only one “Pastor” of the universal church. It’s simply playing with words; universal bishop or universal pastor.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/882.htm

Montalban:

Your church ‘adds’ to things by creating positions that are foreign to Ignatius; Cardinals, Archbishops, Popes, etc.

SPH1:

As for Archbishops, I see the central apostolic “pillars” of Peter, James and John as proto-type Archbishops/Patriarchs.

Show me how this equates to ‘archbishop’

SPH1:

Speaking of which, don’t the EO have Patriarchs? If so, are you saying that is a bogus office because not apostolic?

A Patriarch is an simply honorific. An archbishop is a position of power. The difference between calling someone “Sir” and “General”.

SPH1:

Or do you allow for development up to Ignatius? If so, why stop there?

As there’s no development in terms of ‘power’ as each bishop is equal to all others, we’ve not ‘started’, let alone a need to stop.

*From George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”.

 

[Montalban]

I’d like to give one of my (now customary) summations

The early fathers warned against people taking lofty titles. For Ignatius, there was no more church (officers) other than deacons, priests and bishops.

“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

Over a period of time the western church began to add to this. There is the super-bishop called “The Pope”. There’s other offices, Cardinal, Archbishop, Suffragan bishop, etc.

Gregory, whilst holding a lofty position argued against calling one’s self a “universal bishop”. The RC Church holds such position for the Pope.

Now for the record I note that in Orthodoxy we have ‘lesser’ orders not mentioned by Ignatius; such as Reader and Sub-Deacon (Readers function as Acolytes). We also have the office of deaconess. I have less problem with officers below bishop, than with those above (as Ignatius said to do nothing without a bishop, and in the RC Church you can, by reference to the Pope). I also note that the Patriarch in Constantinople (now Istanbul) is sometimes referred to as ‘Archbishop’.

 

[runandsew]

Gregory, whilst holding a lofty position argued against calling one’s self a “universal bishop”. The RC Church holds such position for the Pope.

It is a fact that Pope Gregory as the leader of the worldwide Church settled issues for the other bishops and Churches, and taught that the see of Peter had final say in all matters and had authority over all other churches and bishops, including Constantinople.
In his writings there is no hint in his mind that there was equality of authority with the bishop of Rome and all the other bishops when it came to universal jurisdiction, He wrote that the other bishops were inferior in the order of authority.
In respect to the issue of the title universal bishop, Gregory wrote to that other bishop that if by taking the title “universal bishop” he meant that He was the bishop of other bishops and that a bishop of a given diocese didn’t have real authority as bishop, then that was wrong, but he did not mean that the Pope didn’t have authority over the whole church.

For a more detailed explanation listen to program # 7 of Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid.

 

[mich2]

See Post #590

No. It says “In the same way”. There is no difference. Paul is accepted by all the Apostles

I’m not trying to say that Peter was a greater apsotle than Paul, Montalban. As apostles, they were equal. Just as the apostles were not greater disciples than the rest, and a bishop is not a greater priest than the presbytere. However, I am claiming that, just as the “office” of the apostle is greater than that of a disciple, the office of bishop greater than the presbyteria, I believe the office of Peter is greater than the office of apostle.

No. The official Pope lists go Peter - Linus - Anacletus - Clement I
Irenaus goes Peter and Paul - Linus etc.
There’s no dual bishops, excepting in your statement.

Like I said, it’s only a personal theory; however, I have read something close to what I believe.

What about him? To me the problem is with your party, not mine. I’ve shown that Linus was ordained bishop. You’ve offered me no proofs about your dual bishops, other than your suppose-so. You’re not offering Catholic argument here anyway. So, in support of the ‘papacy’ you rule that there’s a duopoly of bishops in Rome?
Apostles aren’t counted as bishops anyway. (Excepting James who took on that role). Apostles had the role of going about founding churches.

I don’t have proof of the dual bishops, but, the link below theorize something close to it. My central point was that since Linus and Cletus ruled during the lifetime of Peter, they are considered to be his successors in terms of “bishop f Rome”,
not in terms of Peter, just as Evodius succeeded Peter as bishop of Antioch. However, I personally believe that Clement succeeded Peter in terms of not only the bishop of Rome, but as successor of the office of Peter.

religionfacts.com/christianity/people/clement_rome.htm
Epiphanius has an alternative solution, founded on a conjecture which he tries to support by a reference to a passage in Clement’s epistle, viz. that Clement, after having been ordained by Peter, withdrew from his office and did not resume it until after the death of Linus and Cletus. A more modern attempt to reconcile these accounts is Cave’s hypothesis that Linus and after him Cletus had been appointed by Paul to preside over a Roman church of Gentile Christians; Clement by Peter over a church of Jewish believers, and that ultimately Clement was bishop over the whole Roman church. Still later it has been argued that the uncertainty of order may mean that during the 1st cent. there was no bishop in the church of Rome, and that the names of three of the leading presbyters have been handed down by some in one order, by others in another.

Which Epiphanius?

Saint Epiphanius of Salamis

I have no problem with Clement being appointed bishop AFTER the deaths of Linus and Cletus. There’s no duopoly of bishops here. Paul appoints one. He dies. Peter appoints another. This is still not Catholic because the RC Church says it goes Peter - Linus etc. as noted above. Your personal pet theory does not help the Petrine supremacy argument at all, not least it’s having nothing to do with the fact Peter established several other bishoprics.

In a way, it does, since the first successor of Peter as Peter, and not only as bishop of Rome would be Clement, identifying the papacy linked to Peter only. There are some writers, Tertullian, for example, who identify Clement as the immediate successor of Peter, not Linus.

Andre

 

[Bishopite]

[Fr Ambrose;1708370]
Did you know that the letter to Pope Damasus attributed to Saint Jerome and supporting papal primacy seems to be a bit of a fake?!

Although Wikipedia says the pseudo-isadore is a spurious document, Jerome’s epistle 15 letter to Pope Damasus is found in other documents as well, it IS valid and it is quite clear that Jerome affirms the Bishop of Rome to hold primacy

"Since the East, dashed against itself by the accustomed fury of its peoples, is tearing piecemeal the undivided tunic of Christ, woven from the top throughout, and foxes are destroying the vine of Christ, so that among the broken cisterns which have no water it is hard to know where is the sealed fountain and the garden enclosed, I have considered that I ought to consult the Chair of Peter and the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle [Rom 1:8], asking now the food of my soul where of old I received the garment of Christ. Neither the vast expense of ocean nor all the breadth of land which separate us could preclude me from seeking the precious pearl. Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. Now that an evil progeny have dissipated their patrimony, with you alone is the inheritance of the Fathers preserved uncorrupt. There the fertile earth reproduces a hundredfold the purity of the seed of the Lord. Here the corn cast into the furrows degenerates into lolium and wild oats. It is now in the West that the sun of justice rises; whilst in the East, Lucifer, who fell, has set his seat above the stars. You are the light of the world, the salt of the earth. Here the vessels of clay or wood will be destroyed by the rod of iron and the fire everlasting.
"Therefore, though your greatness makes me fear, yet your kindness invites me. From the priest I ask the salvation of the victim; from the shepherd the safety of his sheep. Away with envy, away with all canvassing of the Roman power; it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside that house if profane. If any be not with Noah in the Ark, he shall perish beneath the sway of the deluge. And because for my sins I have migrated to this solitude, where Syria borders on the barbarians, and I cannot always at this great distance ask for the Holy One of the Lord from your holiness, therefore I follow here your colleagues the Egyptian confessors; and under these great ships my little vessel is unnoticed. Vitalis I know not, Meletius I reject; I know not Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with thee scattereth; that is to say, whoso is not with Christ is of Antichrist.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num53.htm

 

[Bishopite]

mich2;1723433]I’m not trying to say that Peter was a greater apsotle than Paul, Montalban. As apostles, they were equal. Just as the apostles were not greater disciples than the rest, and a bishop is not a greater priest than the presbytere. However, I am claiming that, just as the “office” of the apostle is greater than that of a disciple, the office of bishop greater than the presbyteria, I believe the office of Peter is greater than the office of apostle.

I’ve tried to tell Montablan that in one sense all the Bishops are equal in their office as successors to the Apostles and that they can all bind and loose in their respective diocese because they only received the power to bind and loose, however only one Bishop is able to bind and loose universally upon the entire Church, that being the successor to Peter (Bishop of Rome) because he alone received the keys to the kingdom.

Interestingly Montalbans favorite Church fathers cite www.ccel.org is a different translation, so-it-seems, than that of this web forum hosts Catholic Answers. Ignatius says the Bishop of Rome “holds to the presidency” in the Catholic site…

"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)."

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

But apparently the word “presidency” isn’t found in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans found at the www.ccel.org translation found at…
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-19.htm#P1797_305873

This is the translation is from Calvin College by Protestant Phillip Schaff (who doesn’t wasn’t anti-Catholic from what I’ve read). I could be wrong but these are the same letter with differing translations. It could be like the Protestant New International Version translation which is said by many Catholic apologists as being a good translation for the most part but with its problems on 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2 and the Greek word traditions (paradosis) but translates it as “teachings” when it is in the positive but in the negative still uses the word traditions.

Ignatius

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,2* worthy of being deemed holy,*3and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-19.htm#P1797_305873

I*

 

[Montalban]

It is a fact that Pope Gregory as the leader of the worldwide Church settled issues for the other bishops and Churches,

So you argument is merely to direct one to another page where your ‘proofs’ lie.

And that reference itself is to a dozen different ‘lessons’, so somewhere amongst all that is your proof.

In other words you want me to research for you.

However you should note that I don’t deny that Gregory had already begun to act like a bishop of bishops. I pointed out that he obejected to anyone using that title.

It’s the same time of title that Tertullian and others opposed, which the modern Papacy now uses.

It’s simply a point on the development of the modern Papacy.

But still your church pretends that there’s a certain equality amongst bishops

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

See Post #590
No. It says “In the same way”. There is no difference. Paul is accepted by all the Apostles

Mich2:

I’m not trying to say that Peter was a greater apostle than Paul, Montalban. As apostles, they were equal. Just as the apostles were not greater disciples than the rest, and a bishop is not a greater priest than the presbyter. However, I am claiming that, just as the “office” of the apostle is greater than that of a disciple, the office of bishop greater than the presbyteria, I believe the office of Peter is greater than the office of apostle.

Montalban:

No. The official Pope lists go Peter - Linus - Anacletus - Clement I
Irenaus goes Peter and Paul - Linus etc.
There’s no dual bishops, excepting in your statement.

Mich2:

Like I said, it’s only a personal theory; however, I have read something close to what I believe.

I still don’t understand how you’re supporting the Papacy with a novel theory. There’s no tie-in between your personal beliefs of the early church and the modern concept of the Papacy.

Montalban:

Quote:What about him? To me the problem is with your party, not mine. I’ve shown that Linus was ordained bishop. You’ve offered me no proofs about your dual bishops, other than your suppose-so. You’re not offering Catholic argument here anyway. So, in support of the ‘papacy’ you rule that there’s a duopoly of bishops in Rome?
Apostles aren’t counted as bishops anyway. (Excepting James who took on that role). Apostles had the role of going about founding churches.

Mich2:

I don’t have proof of the dual bishops, but, the link below theorize something close to it. My central point was that since Linus and Cletus ruled during the lifetime of Peter, they are considered to be his successors in terms of “bishop of Rome”,
not in terms of Peter, just as Evodius succeeded Peter as bishop of Antioch. However, I personally believe that Clement succeeded Peter in terms of not only the bishop of Rome, but as successor of the office of Peter.

This to me shows that the role of “Apostle” and bishop are different.

Mich2:

religionfacts.com/christi…ement_rome.htm
Epiphanius has an alternative solution, founded on a conjecture which he tries to support by a reference to a passage in Clement’s epistle, viz. that Clement, after having been ordained by Peter, withdrew from his office and did not resume it until after the death of Linus and Cletus. A more modern attempt to reconcile these accounts is Cave’s hypothesis that Linus and after him Cletus had been appointed by Paul to preside over a Roman church of Gentile Christians; Clement by Peter over a church of Jewish believers, and that ultimately Clement was bishop over the whole Roman church. Still later it has been argued that the uncertainty of order may mean that during the 1st cent. there was no bishop in the church of Rome, and that the names of three of the leading presbyters have been handed down by some in one order, by others in another.

It would be difficult to reconcile two bishops in the same diocese. It’s the same problem we now face (in Australia and America) where multiple bishops in the Orthodox Church exist. There’s an Antiochian, Greek, and Russian bishop all here in Sydney. It’s an historical anathema that we’re slow to fix.

Montalban:

Which Epiphanius?

Mich2:

Saint Epiphanius of Salamis

Ta

Montalban:

I have no problem with Clement being appointed bishop AFTER the deaths of Linus and Cletus. There’s no duopoly of bishops here. Paul appoints one. He dies. Peter appoints another. This is still not Catholic because the RC Church says it goes Peter - Linus etc. as noted above. Your personal pet theory does not help the Petrine supremacy argument at all, not least it’s having nothing to do with the fact Peter established several other bishoprics.

Mich2:

In a way, it does, since the first successor of Peter as Peter, and not only as bishop of Rome would be Clement, identifying the papacy linked to Peter only. There are some writers, Tertullian, for example, who identify Clement as the immediate successor of Peter, not Linus.

I think that Tertullian is looking to Clement as being appointed by Peter because Peter and Paul’s candidates had expired. No more than that. They appointed one person. That person died. They appointed another. Then Clement. Clement true, was the last person appointed, but why should this person (alone) receive any benefit fitting to Peter when Peter had established many chairs?

What I see is that (excepting for James) the Apostles were travellers establishing many churches. Their role is different in large part from bishops - though James shows that they could act as such. Peter established many churches. Rome owes a degree of ‘honour’ because it was the capital city and the church was founded by Peter and Paul.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

There is no such thing as a first among equals; this is a nonsensical term. If someone is first, the others are not equal; if all are equal, then none is first.

Amen, Father. Thank you for reputiating this Orthodox heresy. I think I may use your quote in my sig next time I get around to changing it!

 

[Montalban]

Although Wikipedia says the pseudo-isadore is a spurious document, Jerome’s epistle 15 letter to Pope Damasus is found in other documents as well, it IS valid and it is quite clear that Jerome affirms the Bishop of Rome to hold primacy

Jerome’s work is another point in the development of the modern Papacy.Jerome, like Augustine, changed his mind as he went. He believed that all the Church had the keys…

“Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ. But, as I have before hinted, the case of monks is different from that of the clergy.”
Jerome
“Letters To Heliodorus, Monk.”
Letter XIV.8
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P363_64884
“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.”
Jerome
“Against Jovinianus”
Book I.26
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-10.htm#P6119_1832142

It is interesting to read on as to why he believes Peter was chosen as the head; because of his age; not because of ‘the keys’. It is also interesting to note here that his writing is still at odds with the Catholic Catechism that teaches Peter ALONE has the keys.

Jerome had gone east (to Antioch) and there was, unfortunately much division. Jerome began to believe that a single authority would safe-guard against such divisions. He states this in the beginning of the letter…
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for “the pearl of great price.”
Jerome
Letter to Damasus
Letter XV.1
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P473_87702

He appealed to Damasus again (Letter XVI).
He calls Peter the rock, and also Christ
As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!
Jerome
Letter to Damasus
Letter XV.2
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P473_87702

but also…
“Now the Rock is Christ.”
Jerome
Letter to Damasus
Letter XXII.6
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P583_110510

 

[Montalban]

Further, Jerome had the following to say regarding the Rock…(list mostly taken from christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html)). It is an interesting insight into his developing ideas on the Papacy. (where known, I have provided direct web-links to the text). Sometimes he says Peter alone is the leader, sometimes alone he is the rock. Other times he says that they are all the foundation. Jerome firms his mind in favour of the Papacy due to the schisms he witnessed in the east.

The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built…For the Church was founded upon a rock…upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Mt. 16.18).

Commentary on Matthew 7.25, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 51. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelalter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), Footnote #200, p. 49.

She, that with a firm root is founded upon the rock, Christ, the Catholic Church, is the one dove; she stands the perfect one, and near to His right hand, and has nothing sinister in her.

Epistle 65.15, Ad Principiam. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Comentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 109.

This mountain is in the house of the Lord, which the prophet sighs after, saying, ‘One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life,’ (Ps. xxvii.4), and concerning which Paul writes to Timothy, ‘But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’ (1 Tim. iii.15). This house is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, as imitators of Christ. Of this house, Jerusalem, the Psalmist cries out saying, ‘They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion; he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Mountains are round about it; and the Lord is round about His people’ (Ps. cxxiv.1). Whence also upon one of the mountains Christ founds the Church, and says to him, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’
Commentary on Isaiah ii.2. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Comentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 111-112.

The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles, that they also should be called rocks, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’

Commentary on Amos vi.12-13. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Comentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 112-113.

‘You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church.’ Just as Christ himself gave light to the apostles, in order that they might be called the light of the world, so other names were derived from the Lord: for example, Simon, who believed in the rock, Christ, was given the name ‘Peter.’ And in accordance with the metaphor of the rock, Jesus rightly said to him: ‘I shall build my Church upon you. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’
Commentary on Matthew III, 16:18, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 121-122.

‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.’…For if those who are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ himself being the cornerstone-in whom the whole building has been joined together into a temple holy in the Lord, in whom the Ephesians are built into a temple of God in the spirit: if this is so, then there is one God of one building and temple which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Now if a universal building is joined together and is growing into a temple holy in the Lord, then we must strive with every effort to become the sorts of stones about which it is written: ‘holy stones are rolled upon the earth.’

Commentary on Ephesians II.20, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 506-507.

 

[Montalban]

Though, he says, the Lord had with Him the apostles Peter and John; and they saw Him transfigured on the mount, and upon them the foundation of the Church is placed…
Commentary on Galatians I.11. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 116-117.

Was there no other province in the whole world to receive the gospel of pleasure, and into which the serpent might insinuate itself, except that which was founded by the teaching of Peter upon the rock Christ.
Jerome
“Against Jovinianus”
Book II.37
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), Volume VI,
also at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-11.htm#P6582_2060348

When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves…For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East all worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more of a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.
Jerome
“To Evangelus”
Letter CXLVI.1
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), Volume VI, pp.288-289.
also at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P5529_1542341

But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder…
Jerome
“Against Jovinianus”
Book I.26
in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), Volume VI, p.366.
also at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-10.htm#P6119_1832142

I have all but passed over the most important point of all. While you were still quite small, bishop Anastasius of holy and blessed memory ruled the Roman church.
Jerome
“To Demetrias”
Letter CXXX.16
in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), Volume VI, p.269.
also at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P5068_1394386

Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this I know, is the rock on which the church is built!
Jerome
“To Pope Damasus”
Letter XV.2
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), Volume VI, p.18.
also at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P473_87702

 

[Montalban]

The historical context is also interesting. At this time there were several and rival claimants to be the proper patriarch in Antioch. Paulinus was the man favoured by Rome and Alexandria. Meletius was favoured by others. Jerome accompanied Paulinus back to Rome in order to get more support for him.

Ambrose hoped that a general council would be called in support of his friend. He hoped that the Pope would be the influence to make this happen.

“Ambrose was agitating for a general council to bring matters to a head, and succeeded in persuading the western emperor, Gratian, to convoke one in Rome. A number of western metropolitans assembled there in the summer of 382, but the east declined to cooperate. In fact Theodosius had no wish to see the settlement he was establishing upset by western meddling, and had already re-convened the council of the previous year at Constantinople. When the belated western summons reached them, the eastern bishops gathered there sent a courteous but firm reply, excusing themselves from attending, apart from a token delegation of three, but not yielding an inch on the disputed issues.”

Kelly, J. N. D., (1975), “Jerome: His life, writings and controversies”, (Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, MA), pp80-81.

Thus the eastern churches did not obey the Pope. John Chrysostomon (sometimes used by Catholic apologists as a pro-Papal writer) always recognised Meletius as the legitimate bishop; someone not in communion with Rome.

It should also be noted that the Ecumenical Council that had taken place was under the presidency of Meletius.

“Because of the schism at Antioch, its first president*, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria.”
Davis L. D., (1990), “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology”, (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p129

So we have in this era Jerome, baptised in Rome, but having travelled east. He saw ‘schisms’ there and the east ignoring the Pope’s preferred candidate. Jerome then appealed to Damasus to throw some weight around, and added to this by suggesting that Damasus in fact had that power to begin with - although the eastern church seemed oblivious to it, as they had Meletius as president of an Ecumenical Council, and ignored the summons to a council in the west.

Damasus thus became “…one of the architects of the Roman see’s pretensions to supremacy.” (Kelly, p.82).

Thus the eastern church keeping to the teachings of the primitive church ignored the Pope’s attempts at interference in Antioch. They also ignored the Pope’s cries for a council in the west. John Chrysostomon was one of these ignoring the Pope.

Jerome however hoped that by changing the emphasis of his teachings would persuade people that Damasus had a legitimate claim to rule the whole church. This is the development of the Papacy

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

So you argument is merely to direct one to another page where your ‘proofs’ lie.

And that reference itself is to a dozen different ‘lessons’, so somewhere amongst all that is your proof.

In other words you want me to research for you.

However you should note that I don’t deny that Gregory had already begun to act like a bishop of bishops. I pointed out that he obejected to anyone using that title.

And so would any Catholic. We Cathoics don’t believe the pope to be a “Bishop of Bishops”. The title itself as it was used at the time was implying that the person Gregory was writing to (can’t remember whom) was the only Bishop. Gregory was writing against a schismatic bishop at the time, not prophesying about some futuristic ‘modern’ papacy you speak of. There is no Bishop of Bishops period and this isn’t a Catholic belief.

Montalban:

It’s the same time of title that Tertullian and others opposed, which the modern Papacy now uses.

Bishop of bishops isn’t an official title of the Papacy…

Montalban:

It’s simply a point on the development of the modern Papacy.

Nope, because you continue to use this red herring after I’ve refuted you on other threads.

Montalban:

But still your church pretends that there’s a certain equality amongst bishops

This is because we believe that! All bishops have the authority to ordain their brother bishops, and there’s supposed to be more than one bishop present at the consecration of a brother bishop.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

However you should note that I don’t deny that Gregory had already begun to act like a bishop of bishops. I pointed out that he objected to anyone using that title.

Semper Fi:

And so would any Catholic. We Catholics don’t believe the pope to be a “Bishop of Bishops”. The title itself as it was used at the time was implying that the person Gregory was writing to (can’t remember whom) was the only Bishop. Gregory was writing against a schismatic bishop at the time, not prophesying about some futuristic ‘modern’ papacy you speak of. There is no Bishop of Bishops period and this isn’t a Catholic belief.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia…
Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks “the peremptory edict”, which “the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops”, has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: **but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. **
newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Here’s a Catholic apologist ‘debunking’ a Protestant argument…
REPLY: In so protesting Gregory exercised his universal jurisdiction as Bishop of Bishops, not hesitating to condemn John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople.
hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num7.htm

THE BISHOP OF ROME : What separates him from the other bishops
…
From earliest times the titles “high priest” and “bishop of bishops” have been given to the Bishop of Rome
dailycatholic.org/issue/99Sep/sep9dc2.htm

The Bishops of Rome have always exercised supreme power in the Church, and that power has always been acknowledged.
…
From the earliest times the titles “high priest” and “bishop of bishops” have been given to the Bishop of Rome.
truecarpentry.netfirms.com/webfolders/web7/webNinthArticleCreed.htm
Semper Fi:

This is because we believe that! All bishops have the authority to ordain their brother bishops, and there’s supposed to be more than one bishop present at the consecration of a brother bishop.

Then you simply ignore the Catechism I cited earlier where the Pope has special powers that enable him to circumvent a bishop’s authority.

Here’s the famous Notre Dame university…
It is objected that St. Gregory the Great repudiated the title of “Universal Bishop”. He did so in the meaning in which he understood the Patriarch of Constantinople to claim it, as “sole Bishop”. He himself teaches that all Bishops are subject to the Bishop of Rome (Pp. ad Jo. Syr. 9, 12).
maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sscr13.htm

 

[mich2]

I still don’t understand how you’re supporting the Papacy with a novel theory. There’s no tie-in between your personal beliefs of the early church and the modern concept of the Papacy.

All that I’m saying is, to put Clement as the successor of Peter in terms of the office of Peter (and not only as bishop of Rome) Paul is taken out of the equation, identifying the bishops of Rome, after Clement as being successors of Peter only.

This to me shows that the role of “Apostle” and bishop are different.

The role of bishops and Apostles are different in that the apostles are the foundation of the Church (yes, not only Peter). However, the authority of the bishop over the church
remains the same as the apostle as successor to them. Now I would add that the authority of office of Peter, being an office superior to that of the office of apostle, is also passed on to the Bishop of Rome.

It would be difficult to reconcile two bishops in the same diocese. It’s the same problem we now face (in Australia and America) where multiple bishops in the Orthodox Church exist. There’s an Antiochian, Greek, and Russian bishop all here in Sydney. It’s an historical anathema that we’re slow to fix.

Montalban, I could be wrong in making this hypotheses.Again, my point was simply to point Clement as the first successor of Peter in the office of Peter. However, where I live, we do have two bishops; one for the english speaking christians and one for the french speaking christians. My hypotheses centered on Rome having a church for the gentile chrisitans and one for the jewish chrisitans, having a bishop for each church.

I think that Tertullian is looking to Clement as being appointed by Peter because Peter and Paul’s candidates had expired. No more than that. They appointed one person. That person died. They appointed another.

This could very well be true.

Then Clement. Clement true, was the last person appointed, but why should this person (alone) receive any benefit fitting to Peter when Peter had established many chairs?

This would be due to a special type of ordination where Peter choses Clement to succeed him (Simon Peter) as Clement Peter. Now some litterature does seem to point towards such a point of view .Rufinus, Presbyter of Aquileia refering to the “Recognitions of Clement” writes :

…The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James, the Lord’s brother, informs him of the death of Peter,** and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of the Church order is treated**…"

Now, I don’t know whether the works are considered authentic, or how old they are considered to be (if not authentic), but it’s the hypotheses that I personally approach; that Clement is the successor of Peter, in terms of the office of Peter.

What I see is that (excepting for James) the Apostles were travellers establishing many churches. Their role is different in large part from bishops - though James shows that they could act as such. Peter established many churches. Rome owes a degree of ‘honour’ because it was the capital city and the church was founded by Peter and Paul.

I agree, except that I personally would add to this the concept of the universal bishop staerting with Clement, not Linus.

Andre

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1724474]Jerome’s work is another point in the development of the modern Papacy.Jerome, like Augustine, changed his mind as he went. He believed that all the Church had the keys…

“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.”
Jerome
“Against Jovinianus”
Book I.26
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-10.htm#P6119_1832142

All of the Apostles can only make use of the keys of the kingdom, collectively if they are under the head, that is completely different from them receiving the keys of the kingdom personally as does Peter from Jesus. Notice Peter is the head and all of the Apostles have access to the keys if and only if they are under the one who has “no occasion for schism” (Peter). Jeromes writing simply affirms Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox are the ones who created schism.

It is interesting to read on as to why he believes Peter was chosen as the head; because of his age; not because of ‘the keys’. It is also interesting to note here that his writing is still at odds with the Catholic Catechism that teaches Peter ALONE has the keys.

You’ve again missed read what Jerome was saying. He is talking about virginity that’s why he says…

“Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle-the one a married man, the other a virgin;…” That Peter was married, John was young and a virgin therefore John out of respect of his being an elder and Jerome is making that point not saying because of Peter’s age Jesus appointed him as the head of the Apostles, which by the way you obviously affirm, that Peter was the head!

So to you is Peter the first among equals?

And you believe Peter was the head because of his age and rely on “ONE” Church father to support your theory?

Jerome had gone east (to Antioch) and there was, unfortunately much division. Jerome began to believe that a single authority would safe-guard against such divisions. He states this in the beginning of the letter…
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for “the pearl of great price.”
Jerome
Letter to Damasus
Letter XV.1
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P473_87702

He appealed to Damasus again (Letter XVI).
He calls Peter the rock, and also Christ
As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!
Jerome
Letter to Damasus
Letter XV.2
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P473_87702

Notice how Jerome appeals to the Bishop of Rome, you gloss over that and focus on that which only you want.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

I still don’t understand how you’re supporting the Papacy with a novel theory. There’s no tie-in between your personal beliefs of the early church and the modern concept of the Papacy.

mich2:

All that I’m saying is, to put Clement as the successor of Peter in terms of the office of Peter (and not only as bishop of Rome) Paul is taken out of the equation, identifying the bishops of Rome, after Clement as being successors of Peter only.

All it takes is a twisting of standard Catholic belief in the line-up of Popes, and you’re there! It’s a bit like someone defending evolution by coming up with a novel path of descent of men from gerbils; a different path-way that no one else accepts, but evolution is still held to be true.

Montalban:

This to me shows that the role of “Apostle” and bishop are different.

mich2:

The role of bishops and Apostles are different in that the apostles are the foundation of the Church (yes, not only Peter). However, the authority of the bishop over the church remains the same as the apostle as successor to them. Now I would add that the authority of office of Peter, being an office superior to that of the office of apostle, is also passed on to the Bishop of Rome.

Why Rome alone as Peter founded several Sees.

Montalban:

It would be difficult to reconcile two bishops in the same diocese. It’s the same problem we now face (in Australia and America) where multiple bishops in the Orthodox Church exist. There’s an Antiochian, Greek, and Russian bishop all here in Sydney. It’s an historical anathema that we’re slow to fix.

mich2:

Montalban, I could be wrong in making this hypotheses.Again, my point was simply to point Clement as the first successor of Peter in the office of Peter. However, where I live, we do have two bishops; one for the English speaking Christians and one for the French speaking Christians. My hypotheses cantered on Rome having a church for the gentile Christians and one for the Jewish Christians, having a bishop for each church.

However he’s not the first, as Peter founded Antioch, first.
Secondly, the idea of having two bishops is not ‘orthodox’. It is a distortion of the Image of Christ (which is the Church on earth), as is having two Eucharistic celebrations for two different parts of the community.
“The Eucharist, as distinct from other expressions of ecclesial life, is unthinkable without the gathering of the whole Church in one place, that is, without an event of communion; consequently, it manifests the Church not simply as something instituted, that is, historically give, but also something con-stituted, hat is constantly realised as an event of free communion, prefiguring the divine life and the Kingdom to come.”
Zizioulas, J. D., (1985), “Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church”, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p22
He then goes on to rail against even the Eucharist being celebrated twice on the same day in the one church; for all of us should be gathered together in one ‘community’ to have communion.

Montalban:

I think that Tertullian is looking to Clement as being appointed by Peter because Peter and Paul’s candidates had expired. No more than that. They appointed one person. That person died. They appointed another.

mich2:

This could very well be true.

Montalban:

Then Clement. Clement true, was the last person appointed, but why should this person (alone) receive any benefit fitting to Peter when Peter had established many chairs?

con’t…

 

[Montalban]

Mich2:

This would be due to a special type of ordination where Peter choses Clement to succeed him (Simon Peter) as Clement Peter. Now some literature does seem to point towards such a point of view .Rufinus, Presbyter of Aquileia referring to the “Recognitions of Clement” writes :
…The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James, the Lord’s brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of the Church order is treated…"

Now, I don’t know whether the works are considered authentic, or how old they are considered to be (if not authentic), but it’s the hypotheses that I personally approach; that Clement is the successor of Peter, in terms of the office of Peter.

This is besides the point. As Peter founded the Chair in Antioch as well, for Clement to say he has succeeded to Peter’s Chair in Rome would in no way negate the fact that someone else succeeded to his Chair in Antioch (which is also known as Peter’s Chair).

I would ask you to consider that Antioch was also founded by Peter. I cited a Pope who recognised this. John Chrysostomon, in boasting about Antioch also stated this. You simply seem to pass this information by.

There’s two Catholic days mentioned…
St. Peters Chair at Antioch (February 22)
St. Peters Chair at Rome (January 18)
infocatholic.com/saints.aspx
More info at
infocatholic.com/viewSaint.aspx?SID=473

“In fact, the Roman Martyrology, before the reform of the calendar, established also a specific celebration of the Chair of Peter at Antioch”
stpetersbasilica.org/Altars/Cathedra/Cathedra.htm

Montalban:

What I see is that (excepting for James) the Apostles were travellers establishing many churches. Their role is different in large part from bishops - though James shows that they could act as such. Peter established many churches. Rome owes a degree of ‘honour’ because it was the capital city and the church was founded by Peter and Paul.

mich2:

I agree, except that I personally would add to this the concept of the universal bishop starting with Clement, not Linus.

Which is a novel argument.