R
Redbandito
Guest
Blah, blah, blah. You talk too much. I’m going back to my previous role of reading only. There really is no point in engaging someone who is not reasonable. God bless!
- Status
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Can everybody catch me up on everything, I am too lazy to read it all.
R
Redbandito
Guest
M
Montalban
Guest
Basically here’s how things work (from past experience)
A Catholic quotes a Catholic quote-mine.
I show how he/she’s taken it out of context.
He/she storms off indignantly.
I’ve cited evidence that shows the ‘keys’ were given to all the Apostles.
That Peter is not the only ‘shepherd’. That the Apostles all, are the foundation of the church.
If you want any specifics, just let me know.
You can probably ignore the last page and a bit as it’s primarily me encouraging people to continue the debate and others trying for non-debates.
M
Montalban
Guest
Thought you’d do about as much.
B
Bishopite
Guest
So do you know the context infallibly? Look below or posts #918 and #919 that I posted about Phillip Schaffs commentary of the possible interpretation of Ingatius’ letter to the Romans; it alone shows that any historian can make his or her own “context” and so then make his/her own interpretation.
Another suggestion has been to read Christou for choriou: “Which presides over the district of the Romans in the place of Christ.” The most usual rendering has been: "Which presides [has the chief seat] in the district of the region of the Romans. This is somewhat barbarous. It also presents an ambiguity: is the presidence exercised over the whole Church or only over the district in which the Roman church has its seat?
Protestant historian Phillip Schaff’s translation gives three possible interpretations one of them in “context” as saying that Ignatius in using the word “presides” in “context” and that the Bishop of Rome "[has the cheif seat] and that he doesn’t just have presidence over his local Churches but over all the districts or Churches. Protestant Schaff also says interestingly that this interpretation is **“The most usual rendering” **which ironically fits right in with the view of the papacy.
ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.vi.ii.iii.iv.html?highlight=ignatius,the,church,in,romans,which,holds,presidence#highlight
He/she storms off indignantly.
Come on Montalban when I leave I won’t do it “indignatly”
People leave because they have to shop for Christmas or you say something personal against them which angers them.
For [Image of God] see post #553 and #555 for proof of the fathers and Scripture in the earlier post showing Jesus is giving Peter universal authority in Mt 16:19 vs the Apostles receiving local authority in Mt 18:18. If the Apostles are in union with Peter then they have access to the keys as a whole NOT individually.
Where does Catholicism say Peter is the only shephard to the exclusion of the other Apostles? Where does Catholicism say the Peter is the only foundation?
You act as if no evidence was presented to you.
Is Peter a Bishop? Yup.
M
Montalban
Guest
Firstly, you won’t acknowledge your own argument’s flaws on Schaff - re: you quoting a Protestant site to discredit him, and me quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia that makes use of him
Secondly, I’ve already noted that anyone could, using that one verse alone make what you want it to be. AND noted also that if you look further into Ignatius works, you see him say that no one is above a bishop. I even quoted the Catechism after you claiming all bishops are equal (showing the Pope can interfere in a bishopric). And you still haven’t responded to that one either.
So where are we up to so far? You ignoring flaws in you own attempt to discredit Schaff. You concentrating on a single verse. You ignoring evidence regarding the power of bishops in your own church. These small points are an indicator of why this thread has stalled.
See above regarding rebuttals to your own argument. You simply ignore them and repeat your own argument.
Indeed, and your point? How does this equate to him being some kind of bishop of bishops?
You’ve missed the whole point of ‘on this rock’ as presented by your own side! Wow! What have you been reading for the past month? Some of the questions you ask are frightening.
442 Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”, for Jesus responds solemnly: “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, “When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles…” “And in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’” From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ’s divine sonship will be the centre of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church’s foundation.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/442.htm
As to shepherd I argued this very point with another poster, that Peter WAS NOT the sole shepherd. If you agreed with me, you could have spoken up then!
S
steve_b
Guest
Ah, 2 of the most virulent anti Catholics, James White and William Webster… You should raise the bar. Now I know why you’ve been so focused on judgement,William Webster claims to have an exhaustive collection of quotes from Church Fathers at
christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html
There’s a nice little work on Catholic claims re: Augustine’s Sermon 131* at
aomin.org/Sermo131.html
And there’s an Orthodox work at
trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_infalibility_pope.shtml
**
*the dubious use of the “Rome has spoken…” quote.
** this site in general seems quite antagonistic towards other Orthodox. This should make interesting reading for Catholics here
I focus on promise. Jesus made Simon, Rock. And said He would build His Church on Peter. Where Peter is, there is the Catholic Church. And we see this played out in history.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Let me see. Well, the keys are symbolic in two ways.
On the contrary, Gregory speaks this:
“For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep . To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren . To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven .”
newadvent.org/fathers/360205020.htm
It is important to note that it is through Peter that the Apostles (the rest of the Church clergy) receive the keys. The keys were usaully used by the Fathers to say that the Church had the Power to forgive sins. However, it is hardly used to say that all the Apostles had equal authority. Peter was alone given the key of authority over the whole Church, but in another way it can be said that the Apostles were all given the keys to forgive sins. However, when the Fathers say that all the Apostles were given the keys, it is usaully always is symbolic to forgiving sins, not neccessarily of authority.
Summary:
- It is the ability to bind and loose sins as St. Augustine uses.
- It is the authority over the whole Church as used by St. Gregory.
On the contrary, Gregory speaks this:
“For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep . To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren . To him it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven .”
newadvent.org/fathers/360205020.htm
It is important to note that it is through Peter that the Apostles (the rest of the Church clergy) receive the keys. The keys were usaully used by the Fathers to say that the Church had the Power to forgive sins. However, it is hardly used to say that all the Apostles had equal authority. Peter was alone given the key of authority over the whole Church, but in another way it can be said that the Apostles were all given the keys to forgive sins. However, when the Fathers say that all the Apostles were given the keys, it is usaully always is symbolic to forgiving sins, not neccessarily of authority.
Summary:
- All Apostles recieved the Keys (symbolic of the remission of sins…how else would they be able to forgive sins?
) - Peter Alone recieved the Keys (symbolic of his unique authority).
M
Montalban
Guest
Congrats on coming up with another way to avoid dealing with the evidence.
Which is the “God’s Justice” argument, no matter which way you want to twist it.
Get back to me when you want to re-join the discussion of the topic.
M
Montalban
Guest
Where does Augustine make this distinction?
I agree that they were all given the keys. It’s in the Bible, Matthew 18:18 (implied)
Im not at all surprised that you find a Pope supporting some form of primacy. Gregory also called the See in Antioch a “Chair” of Peter
Post #846
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1720282&highlight=gregory+chair#post1720282
Therefore how is it that only Rome (according to you) gets the special key powers?
What you say is not that Peter gives the keys to the rest, but Peter (alone) and his successors in one bishopric (only) and continually give these keys.
You’ve cited no evidence for this.
Thanks. All you need to do is show
a) a difference in meaning of ‘keys’ as understood by Church Fathers
and
b) that the keys is an ongoing thing from only one bishopric.
Ideally, but not mandatory, is you quoting some church father beside a Pope supporting this.
If you could look at the historical context.
e.g.
None of the Ecumenical Councils were convoked by a Pope.
One Pope was rebuked for attempting to exert authority beyond Rome.
Pope Victor sent a letter rebuking a bishop in Asia and was himself rebuked by Irenaus
“Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:”
Eusebius “History of the Church”, V:11
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2729_1313445
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I also agree that only Peter was given the keys.
You are right that none of the Eumenical Councils were convoked by a Pope, but they all were made valid by him, am I not right? Are there any valid synods that are valid without the Pope?
Read the thread about Leo, and you will see, especially in the letter of Theodoret.
Above is a letter from Gregory to the Patriarch of Alexandria, who he said was part of the See. But, I am beggining to think that the way you are implying it to mean is incorrect. Otherwise, Patriarches after him would have thought the same thing.
Also, according to your information about Victor, he is admonished because of his attempt to excommunicate the Churches because they did not follow his tradition. It has nothing to do with his authority, it has to do with the reason in the act.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Optatus of Milevus:
"You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38 lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68
Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40"
"Hell which are known to have their gates----gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys----Peter, that is to say, the first of our line,62 to whom it was said by Christ:
‘To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’
and these keys
‘the gates of Hell shall not overcome.’ 63
How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter? 64 "tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C3
As I was saying before, there are different ways of interpretting the Keys, but that does not mean that Peter does not have supreme authority. He does. You can’t reject something and consider it nonexistant simply because you don’t want to believe it. And symbols have different meanings, but the most predominant one in the time of the Fathers was the remission of sins.
"You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38 lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68
Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40"
"Hell which are known to have their gates----gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys----Peter, that is to say, the first of our line,62 to whom it was said by Christ:
‘To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’
and these keys
‘the gates of Hell shall not overcome.’ 63
How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter? 64 "tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C3
As I was saying before, there are different ways of interpretting the Keys, but that does not mean that Peter does not have supreme authority. He does. You can’t reject something and consider it nonexistant simply because you don’t want to believe it. And symbols have different meanings, but the most predominant one in the time of the Fathers was the remission of sins.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Nope, I wasn’t citing a Protestant cite to dicredit Phillip Schaff, just to show that his translation of the fathers has a bias as it differs from the www.Catholic.com website on the word “president” in Ignatius’ writing to the Romans. Schaff wasn’t an anti-Catholic and yet he was no papal supporter either. And as I pointed out, he admitted in his own commentary of the fathers that their writings can have a multitude of interpretations. So the essential question is…WHO decides which interpretation to follow?
The same thing is done with Scripture that’s why we have a multitude of Protestant denominations! Generally speaking the translation is a good one I’m told but it has its flaws as does the Protestant NIV Bible which has a bias against the word “Tradition.”
You keep saying that phrase no one is above the Bishop, yet Ignatius also says the Bishop of Rome holds to the presidency over all other Bishops (that’s what Schaff says is the most “usual rendering”) which would make one think that Ignatius is speaking out of both sides of his mouth because he on one hand says all Bishops are equal, but on the other hand says the Bishop of Rome is over all the other Bishops. But Ignatius isn’t speaking out of both sides of his mouth, that’s why the most “usual rendering” would seem to be Ignatius is saying no one is above the Bishop save the Bishop who holds to the presidency
And I never said that the Pope coudn’t interfere with the affairs of the other Bishops, that was done by John Paul ll with Bishop Le Favre and was just done with Benedict XVI with a Bishop who got married (don’t recall his name) from Africa. You either misunderstood or didn’t read what I said. I said the Pope generally doesn’t interfere with other Bishops, but that he being the head of all Bishops can by virtue of his office override another Bishop and even excommunicate him. But for the most part the Pope doesn’t involve himself with the general affairs of the other Bishops unless there is something that is happening that will affect the whole flock, hence Jesus tells Peter to shephard My sheep and that’s what the Pope should do.
S
steve_b
Guest
Your evidence isn’t evidence, it’s projection.Congrats on coming up with another way to avoid dealing with the evidence.
If you see it that way so be it. I still see it as promise. Tell ya what. How bout we compromise. It’s promise AND justice.
M
Montalban
Guest
Even now you’re ignoring a discussion about the Church Fathers. It’s called ‘denial’
You manage to continue to have one argument, and call it another.
I ask you to join in. Tell me where you think I’m wrong on Ignatius, or something. Perhaps you really do feel that avoiding a discussion is more meaningful???
It’s still that argument. You offered your ‘test’ for confirming God’s ‘promise’ / ‘justice’ which was the persecution of/destruction of Orthodox churches.
M
Montalban
Guest
Image of God:
Image of God:
Image of God:
Image of God:
Image of God:
It wasn’t “The church in Asia Minor didn’t follow Victor’s tradition”, but “The church in Asia Minor didn’t follow the tradition of the rest of the church” (i.e. they didn’t follow the Alexandrian, or Antiochian tradition either).
Note here it states that Victor attempted. He failed because it was not to the taste of the other bishops.
16 And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
Eusubius, Book V Chapter XXIV quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2729_1313445
Note Polycarp simply continued in his ways. He was not ‘persuaded’. He couldn’t be compelled. He wasn’t affected by Victor’s opinion.
Good. I never denied this. I want you to show how there’s a two tier system of power in relation to the keys
Image of God:
The Second Ecumenical Council was called for and the Pope hadn’t even approved of the first. The Council met and remembered the first meeting and didn’t refer to it as a non-Ecumenical council, still awaiting the Pope’s agreement.
Image of God:
Which thread about Leo?
Image of God:
From Gregory, or to Gregory? Which letter?
Image of God:
Of course it has to do with power. He attempted to excommunicate the eastern churches in Asia Minor. He was rebuked for attempting to do so. Why? He didn’t have the power to do so. Also, you’ve put a spin on this, and it may be inadvertent. They didn’t follow his tradition OR the tradition of the rest of the church.
It wasn’t “The church in Asia Minor didn’t follow Victor’s tradition”, but “The church in Asia Minor didn’t follow the tradition of the rest of the church” (i.e. they didn’t follow the Alexandrian, or Antiochian tradition either).
Note here it states that Victor attempted. He failed because it was not to the taste of the other bishops.
16 And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
Eusubius, Book V Chapter XXIV quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2729_1313445
Note Polycarp simply continued in his ways. He was not ‘persuaded’. He couldn’t be compelled. He wasn’t affected by Victor’s opinion.
S
steve_b
Guest
As you point out, Keys aren’t mentioned in Mt 18.
Only the subject of forgiving sin is mentioned with bind and loose. And it comes with restrictions.
- The final process mentioned in Mt 18 starting in verse 15 is take it to the Church (if the person in question won’t listen ).
- Peter is the leader so it can’t be without him.
- When 2 or 3 agree it is done.
- Peter was not restricted in Mt 16. He received the keys singularly. And Jesus said whatever Peter binds and looses is done.
Peter therefore can bind what the others bind, but he can bind what they loose and loose what they bind also.
M
Montalban
Guest
Image of God:
We’ve already seen that a Pope calls Antioch the Chair of Peter, and Peter ‘sat’ there first. Therefore you’re citing a ‘father’ who disagrees with your pope. He also disagrees with Euseubius and Irenaus on who was the first bishop.
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)
Ireneaus goes on to say
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”
Ibid. Book III.3.2-3
Eusebius also accepts this role for Linus "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.
Eusebius “The History of the Church” Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome cited at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2930_1381485
“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter."
“Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions,” Book 7, Chapter XLVI – “Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?” quoted at
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-47.htm#P6959_2343426
Second, you’ve still not established any evidence to show that some kind of ‘heirarchy’ for Rome alone has been established.
Image of God:
Image of God:
Ephesians say that they are all the founation
Ephesians 2: 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
St. Cyril of Alexandra said “All the Apostles had the full teaching of truth. " …for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one."
“Third Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius “
monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_to_nestorius_3.shtml
St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held
primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-95.htm#P6226_1969381.
See also
The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
Origen
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew: Book XII.11
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm
Frankly I’d never heard of him. But this is the great thing about online discussion. One learns all the time.
We’ve already seen that a Pope calls Antioch the Chair of Peter, and Peter ‘sat’ there first. Therefore you’re citing a ‘father’ who disagrees with your pope. He also disagrees with Euseubius and Irenaus on who was the first bishop.
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)
Ireneaus goes on to say
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”
Ibid. Book III.3.2-3
Eusebius also accepts this role for Linus "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.
Eusebius “The History of the Church” Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome cited at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2930_1381485
“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter."
“Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions,” Book 7, Chapter XLVI – “Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?” quoted at
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-47.htm#P6959_2343426
Second, you’ve still not established any evidence to show that some kind of ‘heirarchy’ for Rome alone has been established.
Image of God:
Indeed, so you say.
Image of God:
I don’t. I recognise that all bishops are equal
Ephesians say that they are all the founation
Ephesians 2: 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
St. Cyril of Alexandra said “All the Apostles had the full teaching of truth. " …for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one."
“Third Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius “
monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_to_nestorius_3.shtml
St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held
primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-95.htm#P6226_1969381.
See also
The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
Origen
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew: Book XII.11
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm
M
Montalban
Guest
Indeed. But as you know Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, John Chrysostomon, and Origen all say that the Apostles had the keys.
e.g.
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”
John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1 Also at: ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-1…htm#P175_1913
See also
Origen: 11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew: Book XII.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm
"Steve B:
Thank you for repeating your ‘just-so’ statement of beliefs
Peter is not the only shepherd.
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
(note more than one overseer of the flock!)
Even Peter exhorts others to feed the flock
1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind
Even Pope Leo the Great stated that there are many shepherds.
Many shepherds…
“…though He (Jesus) has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.”Leo the Great “Sermon III”. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His
Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II) quoted at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-175.htm#P2769_633599
Thus you merely repeating that it is so, without showing it does not suffice. You simply state Peter was alone given the keys The other Apostles were given the power of binding and loosing.
These are undisputed facts.
Unto this you contrive some belief that Peter has the right of sole power, without showing WHY you believe that this is so, given that all the Apostles had the keys, according to Augustine, John Chrysostomon, Hilary of Poitiers, Origen, etc.
e.g.
Hilary of Poitiers is quite clear that all who hold that faith have the keys for binding and loosing…
- This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father’s gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-13.htm#P1388_859877
Simply re-stating your beliefs over and over again does not make for a discussion.
All you need to do is show how there’s a dual system of ‘power’ at work.
In short Peter was indeed asked to be the shepherd. He too held the keys.
Show me where they say that this gives him special powers of authority over the rest of the church, given others were called to be shepherds, and to have the keys.
- Status