Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Many have put forward the idea that we need a pope to protect against heresy. There’s nothing however to say that one man may not err, as well.

mich2:

Again, Montalban, I believe that Peter is the Holy Office of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all Truths…not a person.

That office is filled by a man, and people must be united to him; in your church. You believe that Christ commissioned ‘a’ person with these powers. Jesus didn’t create the position first (according to you) and then put someone in it.

Montalban:

It goes back to the Trinune mystery. Each church is fully God. To have two bishops would be to change the nature of that union. It is why we can’t change the structure of our church to accommodate a Pope, nor could we accommodate the filioque, which is a distortion of the Trinity.

mich2:

But are there many bishops, within the Universal Church? Shouldn’t there be only one?

Why should there be only one? God is in many of us, each of us is ‘catholic’.

Montalban:

Many ‘hint’ that the faith of Peter is the unity.

mich2:

I don’t have problems with this interpretation, Montalban; however, by “profession of faith” I do not see it to be “Though art Christ…” only, but, along with “flesh and blood has not reveal this to you”…This is the gift of infallibility.
Andre

Why this bishopric anyway? Peter founded many.
See post #846 where two fathers (east and west) call Peter the ‘Prince’ but then acknowledge more than one chair.

 

[mich2]

First, there’s this note to the text…
…** : “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. **

How do you feel about the above ?

.

You missed the opening to this passage
“2. 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.”
(Ibid.)
Note that he says because of Peter and Paul it is ‘pre-eminenent’ and it is an ‘example’ of the other churches. He is in effect saying “I could list all the churches which hold the faith handed down by the Apostles, however to save time, this church, founded by Peter AND Paul will serve as the example…”

 

[mich2]

First you have skewered things somewhat. It is true that bishops can perform the Liturgy, but the position of priest is not a post-Biblical invention. There were always people to serve in that capacity in stead of the bishop. You’re trying to suggest that because the bishop isn’t exclusively the conductor of the liturgy today, that as time spread new positions were formed. In your church, yes, but priests are still from the Apostolic era. That is in part the point of this argument. Your church ‘adds’ to things by creating positions that are foreign to Ignatius; Cardinals, Archbishops, Popes, etc. For Ignatius clearly the limits of church are stated. Beyond these he says “There is no church”. If you want to argue you’ve a ‘valid’ reason for adding to these, that’s up to you, but they’re clearly an addition. The office of Pope is a development. Ignatius can’t be said to be arguing for a position he knew nothing about.

My point centered more on Ignatius forbidding anything to be done (including the Eucharist) in the absence of the bishop. Today, such is an impossibility.The bishop still has the same
territory (more or less) than the time of Ignatius, but having many different parishes (local churches), Therefore, some are chosen to"represent" the bishop within their local churches.

As for the title Archbishop, I theorize the period of Ignatius did not **yet **need such a position.However, during the time of Tertullian, the title of “bishop of bishops” already exists. This title is equal to the title of archbishop.

Deacons

1 Timothy 3:10
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

1 Timothy 3:13
For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Priests

1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Presbytery

4244 presbuterion pres-boo-ter’-ee-on neuter of a presumed derivative of 4245; the order of elders, i.e. (specially), Israelite Sanhedrin or Christian “presbytery”:–(estate of) elder(-s), presbytery.

Strongs Lexicon

eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=presbytery

Bishops

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

1 Peter 2:25
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

That the community was small enough for the bishop to minister to the whole community in NO WAY takes away from the fact that priests were there. All this shows is that Jesus set up the church to allow for the expansion of it.

I agree…except for the possibility of the bishop to be in every local churches at the same time in order to celebrate the Eucharist. A representative is used instead.

Andre

 

[Montalban]

How do you feel about the above ?

According to that source, one can’t be sure exactly what the original was saying (unless one looks further afield, perhaps)

.

The whole passage is about new teachings which have been circulating within the region, that didn't have their origin within the apostolic churches founded by "any" of the apostles.

No the whole thing - the book, is about how we determine what is the truth. 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. He’s not saying “Hey, when a church errs, we can tell simply by referring it back to the Pope” because there is no 'papal authority’s. However he does come ‘close’ by saying that one can refer back to the teachings of the churches founded by the Apostles, with especial focus on Rome (as the archetype); the ‘example’ by which he is using to describe all churches that are Apostolic. However, it’s pre-eminent position is NOT based on being founded by Peter. BUT by Peter AND Paul. That’s still makes his idea foreign to RC Church belief. And, the very way he’s constructing his book is to combat heresies that may arise in a church structure where each church is independent of all others.

However, it seems clear to me that Irenaeus needs to refer to only the Roman Church due to it’s pre-eminent authority to begin with. For, if such new teachings aren’t found within this Church, then it can be rest assured they are not to be found among the other apostolic churches as well.This is how I understand the passages involved.

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.

 As for the mentioning of Peter and Paul, yes, still, within the Catholic Church, both are honoured on the same day.

That’s not the same thing.
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.[1]
Leo “Sermon LXXXII”. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).) quoted at
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-214.htm#P4043_1035305

If you have a number of Apostles, all of whom are equal, and two are concerned with one city, then that city does have some degree of importance. Rome was the capital. Later, when Constantinople became the capital, it would take on a degree of pre-eminence. Jerusalem, though the first bishopric fell in power (in a secular sense) and so too was under the guardianship of Caesarea. Antioch that was founded by Peter was considered after Alexandria, in terms of honour.

 

[Montalban]

However, this is the way I personally understand this. Christ founded His Church in choosing disciples,some among who became His apostles. No one will argue that there is a difference between those two groups of people. Among the twelve, three are chosen, and given "special private revelations ( the transfiguration comes to mind), and from the three, one is given the keys.

All are given the keys. Refer again to the Church Fathers quoted earlier.
Paul too was chosen by Christ.

While the disciples were healing the sick in Jesus' name, there was a rumour that others** not associated with the disciples** were performing the same miracles.

I have no problem here at all. Some deacons were performing miracles. Each were given special gifts in order to preach; some had the gift of tongues.

My opinion would be those outside the group were most probably Jews who heard of Jesus, believed in Him, but were too far away to travel in order to follow Him. Special graces were given them by the Holy Spirit; Their leader was probably Apollo; however, it is my belief that those individuals would have been those among of the disciples if they could have been among them; so, the church is still one in Christ, through His Apostles, and Peter.

I don’t know where you’re going with this.

Now, Paul is sent to evangelize the gentiles.

In the SAME WAY that Peter went to the Jews
Galatians 2:7
There is no distinction

Eventually the church detached itself from the Jewish rituals completely, not because it was wrong to follow such rituals having been fulfilled in the person of Christ, but, most probably because it caused a division within the Christian Church.
Now, the first bishop of Rome, Linus, was ordained by Paul and probably ruled the church of the gentile Christians **at the same time ** that Cletus ruled the Jewish Christian church, both, while the apostles Peter and Paul were still alive. This would make them only local bishops, whereas Clement,I believe to be the true successor of Peter in terms of being a Catholic Bishop.Since both churches united, then, the Church of Rome is said to having been founded by both Peter and Paul.However, I haven’t read anywhere that Clement (true successor of Peter) was ordained by both Peter and Paul.The two churches became the One Holy Catholic Church through them both.

Andre

“Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.”
Irenaus. Book III.3.3

In the official Pope lists Linus is the second Pope. Your version is not orthodox by Catholic standards. You can’t have two bishops in the same diocese.

And he’s appointed by Paul
“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

Out of this the RC Church grew to be a very different church.

 

[mich2]

Originally Posted by mich2
Again, Montalban, I believe that Peter is the Holy Office of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all Truths…not a person.

=Montalban;1721849]That office is filled by a man, and people must be united to him; in your church. You believe that Christ commissioned ‘a’ person with these powers. Jesus didn’t create the position first (according to you) and then put someone in it.

The Pope is a man in the same way the priest is a man. Both have divine characteristics. Just as the priest can forgive sins, something that only God can do, we believe the pope is infallable, this, being another divine characteristic. Just as the person who is priest is not the one who truly forgves, but Christ, through the priest is the one who forgives sins, the man who is pope is not infallible, but is simply the instrument of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all Truths.

Why should there be only one? God is in many of us, each of us is ‘catholic’.

So why should there be only One bishop within a local church? You already answered me; my answer is that if there is to be only one bishop in the local church, which itself typifies the catholic church, then, there must also be only one universal bishop as well.It’s a very simple conclusion.

Why this bishopric anyway? Peter founded many.
See post #846 where two fathers (east and west) call Peter the ‘Prince’ but then acknowledge more than one chair.

Very good question! As Clement wrote the apostles went into towns and cities ordaining bishops and deacons, the ordained
ministers were not necessarily successors, since a deacon is not considered a successor as such. Peter, in my opinion, ordained bishops to oversee local churches and ordained only one, Clement, to be his successor as Peter after he would die. It seems that we do have documents which supports such a view.

Andre

 

[Montalban]

My point centered more on Ignatius forbidding anything to be done (including the Eucharist) in the absence of the bishop. Today, such is an impossibility.The bishop still has the same
territory (more or less) than the time of Ignatius, but having many different parishes (local churches), Therefore, some are chosen to"represent" the bishop within their local churches.

As for the title Archbishop, I theorize the period of Ignatius did not yet need such a position.However, during the time of Tertullian, the title of “bishop of bishops” already exists. This title is equal to the title of archbishop.

I don’t believe that’s what he is saying. The priest is not doing something without the Bishop, because the Bishop has allowed the priest to do so. Nothing is being done without the bishop, because there is a bishop in that diocese.

I don’t know if a priest ‘represents’ a bishop. Even Paul gives instructions to those partaking of the Eucharist, so one must assume that he’s appointed a bishop there, or that priests are at work (see 1 Corinthians 11:17ff where he differentiates between the Eucharist and a ‘communal meal’)

Next you seem to agree with the notion that the RC Church is different from that of Ignatius’ day, in terms of clerical positions. Ignatius therefore can’t be a support for Papal claims.

No Tertullian parodies the term ‘bishop of bishop’. (see Appendix below)
Cyprian too.
Cyprian said in the opening address of the Council of Carthage…“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.”

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm#P9402_2932994

Appendix

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus -that is, the bishop of bishops -issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is a virgin! Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation! She, the true, the modest, the saintly, shall be free from stain even of her ears. She has none to whom to make such a promise; and if she have had, she does not make it; since even the earthly temple of God can sooner have been called by the Lord a “den of robbers,” than of adulterers and fornicators

Tertullian

Treatise VII. On Modesty

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-19.htm#P1279_349605

Used in a sense of cutting irony, Tertullian applies a heathen epithet to Victor

So too, a Pope objected to someone being called ‘universal bishop’

"At this time, the Patriarch of Constantinople began to use the title Oecumenical Patriarch (that is, Imperial Patriarch –Oecumene being a common title of the Empire) since he resided in the Imperial capital, which title the Latins, with a poor understanding of Greek, read as “Ecumenical”or “Universal Patriarch”. Through this misunderstanding, we have the blessing of learning from Pope St. Gregory the Great himself his opinion on the idea of a universal patriarch or bishop. When the title first appeared, St. Pope Gregory wrote to his fellow-bishops:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the other bishops. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalts himself above others…” “I exhort and entreat that not one of you bishops ever accept this name, that not one consent to it’s use…, since this thing is being done to the injury and rending asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the condemning of all of you. For if anyone, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.”

onearthasinheaven.com/papacy1.html

Letter can be found at

St. Gregory

Epistle XXXIII. To Mauricius Augustus.

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-234.htm#P6397_2256628

That is, no one should call themselves this! No one at all. He doesn’t say “No one but me”

 

[Montalban]

So why should there be only One bishop within a local church?

Why one? Because that makes a ‘complete’ church. I cited Ignatius saying that. Any more is not the church.

You already answered me; my answer is that if there is to be only one bishop in the local church, which itself typifies the catholic church, then, there must also be only one universal bishop as well.It’s a very simple conclusion.

Wha? Ignatius says that there’s only one bishop per local church. That each church is complete. You simply add another layer over the top of that and say ‘it’s a very simple conclusion’!

It’s like saying; I’ve offered you proof for one bishop per church. You simply add another layer and say it’s logical! Why should there be a universal bishop? I draw your attention to the post above where people have stated that there should be none!

Very good question! As Clement wrote the apostles went into towns and cities ordaining bishops and deacons, the ordained
ministers were not necessarily successors, since a deacon is not considered a successor as such. Peter, in my opinion, ordained bishops to oversee local churches and ordained only one, Clement, to be his successor as Peter after he would die. It seems that we do have documents which supports such a view.
Andre

That’s not true. Antioch is seen as the Chair of Peter. It is my church. I’m Antiochian Orthodox. Ignatius of Antioch was appointed by Peter. We trace ourselves back to him.

I cited no less than a Pope himself that recognises that Antioch as a Petrine chair. I even pointed which post out for you I said
See post #846

 

[mich2]

All are given the keys. Refer again to the Church Fathers quoted earlier.
Paul too was chosen by Christ.

Would you mind quoting me the Fathers in question, Montalban? I’m not certain which ones you are reffering to.

I don’t know where you’re going with this.

Because, Paul does speak of such a division. preferences of baptism by Cephas, Paul or Apollo.

In the SAME WAY that Peter went to the Jews
Galatians 2:7
There is no distinction

The difference being Paul is the one who is accepted by Peter, not Peter by Paul. This is not to say that Peter is greater than Paul but that through him Peter, not Paul the source of unity exists.

“Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.”
Irenaus. Book III.3.3

In the official Pope lists Linus is the second Pope. Your version is not orthodox by Catholic standards. You can’t have two bishops in the same diocese.

Unless we have two different churches in Rome; one jewish christian, while the other of gentile christian.

And he’s appointed by Paul
“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."

Well this version doesn’t speak of Cletus at all, but mentions that Linus was indeed ordained by Paul and after his death, Clement was ordained by Peter…but what about Cletus?

Epiphanius (Haer. xxvii. 6) suggests that Linus and Cletus held office during the lifetime of Peter and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from Rome for apostolic journeys, commended the charge of the church to others. This view agrees to them being only local bishops, since Peter is still alive.

however, in the Recognitions,

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

This seems to agree with my personal pet theory.

Andre

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

All are given the keys. Refer again to the Church Fathers quoted earlier.
Paul too was chosen by Christ.

Mich2:

Would you mind quoting me the Fathers in question, Montalban? I’m not certain which ones you are reffering to.

See Post #590

Montalban:

I don’t know where you’re going with this.

Mich2:

Because, Paul does speak of such a division. preferences of baptism by Cephas, Paul or Apollo.

Still don’t follow

Montalban:

In the SAME WAY that Peter went to the Jews
Galatians 2:7
There is no distinction

Mich2:

The difference being Paul is the one who is accepted by Peter, not Peter by Paul. This is not to say that Peter is greater than Paul but that through him Peter, not Paul the source of unity exists.

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

Montalban:

In the official Pope lists Linus is the second Pope. Your version is not orthodox by Catholic standards. You can’t have two bishops in the same diocese.

Mich2:

Unless we have two different churches in Rome; one jewish christian, while the other of gentile christian.

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.

Montalban:

And he’s appointed by Paul
“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."

Mich2:

Well this version doesn’t speak of Cletus at all, but mentions that Linus was indeed ordained by Paul and after his death, Clement was ordained by Peter…but what about Cletus?

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:

Epiphanius (Haer. xxvii. 6) suggests that Linus and Cletus held office during the lifetime of Peter and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from Rome for apostolic journeys, commended the charge of the church to others. This view agrees to them being only local bishops, since Peter is still alive.

Which Epiphanius?
Saint Epiphanius of Pavia
Saint Epiphanius of Salamis
Epiphanius of Constantinople
Epiphanius Scholasticus

Mich2:

however, in the Recognitions,

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

This seems to agree with my personal pet theory.

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]

Next you seem to agree with the notion that the RC Church is different from that of Ignatius’ day, in terms of clerical positions. Ignatius therefore can’t be a support for Papal claims.

I personally don’t see any clear papal claim in the writings of Ignatius, but this doesn’t mean to say that he didn’t acknowledge one to exist. Most of the time the duties existing within a church stops at the bishop. However, there is something about his letter to the Roman Church which strikes me. To all the churches he speaks of his soon coming martyrdom, and he encourages the churches to remain true to the Faith by remaining in unity with the church through the Bishop, presbyteres and deacons…without these, there is no church.But to the church in Rome, he is actually “asking”, if not “pleading” them not to interfere in his martyrdom…as if the Roman Church had political power over the Romans concerning his death. This I don’t accept; not at this early age when Domitian was actually trying to eliminate the christian race. My guess is as good as yours, but, for what it’s worth, it may be that Ignatius was freely giving himself to be martyred and may have thought it possible for the church to view this as not martyrdom but suicide, which would have been a sin. If so, then, why plead to the Roman church only in letting him continue to walk towards his martyrdom in order to become a seed of church…just a thought.I’d be interested in your opinion.

No Tertullian parodies the term ‘bishop of bishop’. (see Appendix below)

He uses the term because it is being used by the Roman bishop himself, Montalban. He may dislike the title personally, since he is writing as a Montanist, but he did not invent the title.

Cyprian too.
Cyprian said in the opening address of the Council of Carthage…“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.”

Good point; however, we are speaking of a different kind of council; that is, a regional one only. Within this council it was decided that fallen christians who wanted to return to the Catholic Church was to be re-baptized once more. The problem with this, comes from previous a Catholic council which decided that re-baptism was not needed. While Cyprian speaks of all bishops as being equal, isn’t he, along with the rest of the council, making themselves superior to the previous decisions made by other bishops?

Augustine : against the Manicheans and the Donatists

You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? …

…**and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; **

So too, a Pope objected to someone being called ‘universal bishop’

… When the title first appeared, St. Pope Gregory wrote to his fellow-bishops:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the other bishops…”

Good point again; however, the question is what was meant by this title as such? Here is the context

"You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to be called the only bishop. You disregarded the admonitions of Pope Pelagius, you neglected my own.

Universal bishop could have meant the “one and only bishop” of the Church. All bishops are of apostolic origin and they are not to be denied their worthy position. However, if universal bishop is meant in the way of bishop of bishops, then all other bishops are acknowledged as being apostolic of origin as well.

Gregory calls the diocese of Rome “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches” (13:1).

He said, “**I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church” (5:44). **He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).

"As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it" (Epistles 9:26).

He therefore considers himself to be a bishop of bishops.

Andre

 

[SPH1]

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.

By your reasoning, you also eliminate Ecumenical Councils.

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

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.[1]

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

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

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.

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

As for Archbishops, I see the central apostolic “pillars” of Peter, James and John as proto-type Archbishops/Patriarchs. Speaking of which, don’t the EO have Patriarchs? If so, are you saying that is a bogus office because not apostolic?

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

 

[steve_b]

You should look to who first raised this as an issue.

Blaming America, for not helping Christians in Lzmir who were being wiped out by Turks? I didn’ take the conversation this direction.

 

[Montalban]

steve_b:
Blaming America, for not helping Christians in Lzmir who were being wiped out by Turks? I didn’ take the conversation this direction.
No, but you asked ‘where are these churches today’. The argument YOU raised is one of “God’s justice” and I noted that you can’t argue this for a number of reasons, one being that the Christian church in Izmir (not Lzmir) was devastated because of American complicity. So, you’re either going to have to argue that America is an agent of God in helping destroy the Orthodox Church, or you can drop the “God’s Justice” argument altogether, as I’ve suggested before and return to discussing the Church Fathers.

Your call.

 

[steve_b]

You’re the one who still made the “God’s Justice” argument, then claimed you weren’t, and in the same post you repeated it. Now you’re calling us to start a new thread; and you were on the negative. You stated that the church doesn’t exist in certain cities. Man, you really need to pick an argument and stick to it.

1. 
   *]I never brought “God’s justice” argument into the conversation.That’s YOUR projection.
   *]I said I focus on God’s promise. And that the promise should be seen carried out in history. That is, Jesus builds His Church on Peter, and gives him the command to feed and rule Our Lord’s Church.
   *]Inspite of everything in the last 2000 years, the chair of St Peter is still here and viable today in Rome. My story has been consistent.
   *]When I ask you where is the Church in Smyrna, or Ephesus, or Constantinople etc, I want to know.
   
   
   montalban:
   

   You’ll also note that I’ve called people to get back on topic and address the evidence from the Fathers. I’m still waiting for you to do this.

   You try and make your case with ECF’s alone. You think your interpretation of the ones you quote is correct. My question to you then is simple. How does YOUR interpretation of their writings play out in history?

 

[steve_b]

steve b:

Blaming America, for not helping Christians in Lzmir who were being wiped out by Turks? I didn’ take the conversation this direction.

montalban:

No, but you asked ‘where are these churches today’. The argument YOU raised is one of "God’s justice"

I argued no such thing. That’s YOUR projection.

montalban:

and I noted that you can’t argue this for a number of reasons, one being that the Christian church in Izmir (not Lzmir) was devastated because of American complicity. So, you’re either going to have to argue that America is an agent of God in helping destroy the Orthodox Church, or you can drop the “God’s Justice” argument altogether, as I’ve suggested before and return to discussing the Church Fathers.

Your call.

As I said earlier,

• this is off the subject.
• You’re the one focusing on “God’s Justice” not me. I never brought it up
• Fr A brought up the side issues not me.
  I merely asked, where is THIS Church today. You tell me. You project my question to mean a God’s Justice issue. Why?

 

[Montalban]

I argued no such thing. That’s YOUR projection.

As I said earlier,

• this is off the subject.
• You’re the one focusing on “God’s Justice” not me. I never brought it up
• Fr A brought up the side issues not me.
  I merely asked, where is THIS Church today. You tell me. You project my question to mean a God’s Justice issue. Why?

I told you were the church is. You brought up the “God’s Justice” argument, and you’re still going on so as to avoid real debate regarding the Church Fathers. You’ll note that I am debating this issue with Mich2. All your contribution for the past several posts is to deny arguing by an argument YOU raised. And you are still doing this. Get on with life.

And you’ve been answered several times about where the church is.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Next you seem to agree with the notion that the RC Church is different from that of Ignatius’ day, in terms of clerical positions. Ignatius therefore can’t be a support for Papal claims.

Mich2:

I personally don’t see any clear papal claim in the writings of Ignatius, but this doesn’t mean to say that he didn’t acknowledge one to exist.

Considering that he stated the entirety of Church governance to be certain clerical positions and none of these are Pope, then you can be sure that he did not. For him, there is no Pope.
Second your argument goes against the Catholic apologist sites that claim him as a support for the Papacy. At least you offer your own views!

Mich2:

Most of the time the duties existing within a church stops at the bishop.

For Ignatius’ idea of the church, there is no one higher (on earth) than the bishop.

Mich2:

However, there is something about his letter to the Roman Church which strikes me. To all the churches he speaks of his soon coming martyrdom, and he encourages the churches to remain true to the Faith by remaining in unity with the church through the Bishop, presbyters and deacons…without these, there is no church.But to the church in Rome, he is actually “asking”, if not “pleading” them not to interfere in his martyrdom…as if the Roman Church had political power over the Romans concerning his death.

That’s would be news to me and I’m sure a great many, that in the days of persecution the church in Rome had that kind of influence.

Mich2:

This I don’t accept; not at this early age when Domitian was actually trying to eliminate the Christian race. My guess is as good as yours, but, for what it’s worth, it may be that Ignatius was freely giving himself to be martyred and may have thought it possible for the church to view this as not martyrdom but suicide, which would have been a sin. If so, then, why plead to the Roman church only in letting him continue to walk towards his martyrdom in order to become a seed of church…just a thought.I’d be interested in your opinion.

How does he ask them NOT to save him? By prayer. He’s in effect saying “Don’t pray for me to be sparred martyrdom”
Probably, for your case the best bit is…
Chapter IV
“I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me”
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-19.htm#P1797_305873
The other version includes the same four words…
I write to all the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God.
I do not know the original Greek and do not know if the ‘ye’ is referring to all the churches (that he has written to).
It would also depend whether he means just that he’s waiting for anyone to offer him a reason why he shouldn’t be on this path.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

No Tertullian parodies the term ‘bishop of bishop’.

Mich2:

He uses the term because it is being used by the Roman bishop himself, Montalban. He may dislike the title personally, since he is writing as a Montanist, but he did not invent the title.

I don’t know where you get the idea that the Bishop of Rome is using that title? Have you any evidence? I understood Tertullian to be saying that Victor had acted like that (as there’s a difference between using a title of ‘king’ and acting as a king). Victor had tried assert an authority over other bishops, and this was rejected. See post #307 of this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1611481&highlight=victor#post1611481
Thus Tertullian is referring to recent events where by the Roman Bishop attempted to go beyond the realm of his own bishopric. Tertullian therefore mocks him with a pagan epithet

Montalban:

Cyprian too.
Cyprian said in the opening address of the Council of Carthage…“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.”

Mich2:

Good point; however, we are speaking of a different kind of council; that is, a regional one only.

And yet he rejected interference in local affairs by Rome (see below)

Mich2:

Within this council it was decided that fallen Christians who wanted to return to the Catholic Church was to be re-baptized once more. The problem with this, comes from previous a Catholic council which decided that re-baptism was not needed.

Just a small point, as per my own understanding of the matter.
No one was to be re-baptised, as far as I know. There’s only one valid baptism (as per the Nicene Creed). The issue wasn’t whether one should be re-baptised, as such, but whether a baptism by heretics was valid. Cyprian said that it was not, therefore these people weren’t, according to him, baptised in the first place. Thus they can’t have been ‘re-baptised’ according to him. However throughout the rest of the Christian world, it came to be accepted that the baptism that these people had had was valid, therefore they didn’t need to be ‘baptised’ because they already were.
The majority party might however see Cyprian as asking for a re-baptism, for as far as they’re concerned the first baptism is valid.

Mich2:

While Cyprian speaks of all bishops as being equal, isn’t he, along with the rest of the council, making themselves superior to the previous decisions made by other bishops?

I don’t understand this.

Mich2:

Augustine : against the Manicheans and the Donatists
You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? …
…and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world;

Augustine did, as far as I am aware agree with Cyprian’s right to decide within his local church. As Whelton observed “He does not condemn Cyprian for refusing to submit to the Bishop of Rome”
Whelton, M “Two Paths” p30
con’t…

 

[Montalban]

“There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,-to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew.”
Augustine
On Baptism, Against the Donatists
Book I.18.28
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-52.htm#P3142_1836199
Thus even Augustine is defending Cyprian’s local stance because judgment of a general council has not been made. And remember, this is when Cyprian is in opposition to the Pope. He should be, according to you, condemning Cyprian for not following the Pope. But for Augustine, Cyprian had met locally, and decided locally, and that was good enough.
He goes on to say that he believes Cyprian would have changed had a general council met (note again, the mere word of the Pope is not a persuader)
“I do not doubt that if he had had the opportunity of discussing this question, which has been so long and so much disputed in the Church, with the pious and learned men to whom we owe it that subsequently that ancient custom was confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council, he would have shown, without hesitation, not only how learned he was in those things which he had grasped with all the security of truth, but also how ready he was to receive instruction in what he had failed to perceive.”
Augustine
On Baptism, Against the Donatists
Book IV.5.8
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-55.htm#P3452_1961510

Montalban:

So too, a Pope objected to someone being called ‘universal bishop’

Mich2:

Good point again; however, the question is what was meant by this title as such? Here is the context
"You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to be called the only bishop. You disregarded the admonitions of Pope Pelagius, you neglected my own.

Universal bishop could have meant the “one and only bishop” of the Church. All bishops are of apostolic origin and they are not to be denied their worthy position. However, if universal bishop is meant in the way of bishop of bishops, then all other bishops are acknowledged as being apostolic of origin as well.

What happened is simple. He believed that the Patriarch was going to take on a title. He argued none should do so. This is in keeping with Ignatius. No one suggests ‘universal bishop’ means only one bishop of the Church. However the Pope is seen as a one and only ‘uber-bishop’. The only one of the universal church.

Mich2:

Gregory calls the diocese of Rome “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches” (13:1).

He said, “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church” (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).

“As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26).

He therefore considers himself to be a bishop of bishops.

Firstly, I accept that by the time of Gregory the western churches were well on their way to claiming Petrine supremacy. It is foreign to the earlier church. However like all developed ideas there’s a case of transition. Gregory maintains that no one should be called Universal Bishop, whether he holds such power or not.
See post #846 and my quote from Gregory. He maintains three Sees are Petrine.You may want to address the historical example of Victor who was rebuked for attempting to interfere beyond his bishopric.