Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[steve_b]

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???

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1559373&postcount=319

2000 years of History my friend should tell us how the plan is working.

montalban:

It’s still that argument. You offered your ‘test’ for confirming God’s ‘promise’ / ‘justice’ which was the persecution of/destruction of Orthodox churches.

Look,

• You spend your time here trying to debate the primacy of Peter and the papacy. You insist on arguing that the East has always been autocephelous, and independent with each Church on its own beholding to no one. You insist that the East was never in agreement that the Church of Rome had any power over the other Churches in the East. You argue that you were always this way from the very beginning. Therefore Re the destruction of the Orthodox in the east, I have this question. You had 1000 years to spread Christianity in the East, what happened?
• I look at the scriptures, the ECF’s AND the on going teaching magesterium of the Church. You want to absolutize a few fathers and rewrite history. The realities of how history has played out doesn’t follow your polemics.
• I call it God’s promises will come true for the Church He builds on Peter. You want to focus on judgement and justice. I focus on promise. I’ll look at it my way and you look at it yours.

 

[Redbandito]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1559373&postcount=319

2000 years of History my friend should tell us how the plan is working.

Look,

• You spend your time here trying to debate the primacy of Peter and the papacy. You insist on arguing that the East has always been autocephelous, and independent with each Church on its own beholding to no one. You insist that the East was never in agreement that the Church of Rome had any power over the other Churches in the East. You argue that you were always this way from the very beginning. Therefore Re the destruction of the Orthodox in the east, I have this question. You had 1000 years to spread Christianity in the East, what happened?
• I look at the scriptures, the ECF’s AND the on going teaching magesterium of the Church. You want to absolutize a few fathers and rewrite history. The realities of how history has played out doesn’t follow your polemics.
• I call it God’s promises will come true for the Church He builds on Peter. You want to focus on judgement and justice. I focus on promise. I’ll look at it my way and you look at it yours.

Well written Steve. Unfortunately, even agreeing to disagree will not work with Montalban. He will have a sarcastic or condescending response to even this point. This thread has run full circle multiple times. Montalban even admitted it on the last page. Yet, he is still on here debating. What that says to me, is that he is more interested in winning an argument than pursuing truth. Therefore, I have stopped wasting my time. Why throw pearls to the swine? If one is not open, and they merely keep repeating themselves, what is the point of a debate? Either way, I think you have done a nice job explaining your position. Well done.

 

[Image_of_God]

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

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 “

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.”

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

This does not at all contradict what Leo is saying here:

"And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head."
newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm

None of the cites you have brought up indicate an equality of authority. They say that the apostles had an equal honor. I have highlighted it for you.

You have not listened to anything I’ve said! I have already explained the issue! Why then is Gregory offered the name “universal pope” and not Antioch? Why then, after the letter is written, does the patriarch of Alexandria continue to call his “universal pope.” There would be no need if he called them all equal in authority.
Leo in no way disagrees with Gregory, it is just your own understanding. There is a reason why Gregory is called the “Father of Medieval Papacy”.

 

[Image_of_God]

You’re understanding of the statement made by Cyprian is simply incorrect and does not disprove the Papacy.

Here, in Cyprian’s letter to Pope Cornelius, he says this:

“He it is who, without my leave or knowledge, of his own factiousness and ambition appointed his attendant Felicissimus a deacon, and with his own tempest sailing also to Rome to overthrow the Church, endeavoured to do similar and equal things there, forcibly separating a part of the people from the clergy, and dividing the concord of the fraternity that was firmly knit together and mutually loving one another. Since Rome from her greatness plainly ought to take precedence of Carthage, he there committed still greater and graver crimes.”
newadvent.org/fathers/050648.htm

Obviously, Cyprian had a different understanding of Rome’s Primacy than you do.

I have not at all argued that both Peter and Paul found the Roman Church. I argue that Peter was the first person to sit in the See. The fact that Peter and Paul had some foundation in the Roman Church is all the more reason why Rome should have a primacy of authority. Is it possible for both Peter and Paul to sit in the same see?

There are of course many shepherds, but Peter was the one primary shepherd, who oversaw over the others.

 

[Image_of_God]

Good. I never denied this. I want you to show how there’s a two tier system of power in relation to the keys
You showed me St. Cyril’s and I showed you St. Optatus’. Does it mean one of them is wrong simply because you say so?
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.
I asked, whether their is a Council that was not made valid by the Pope. And this not one and their has never been one. This was made valid by Pope Damsasus.
Which thread about Leo?

From Gregory, or to Gregory? Which letter?
From Gregory. The one in which I stated that it was from Gregory underneath it.
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.Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.362

10 But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
**What spin have I put on this. You showed me the following:

11 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**
The rebuke the act, not his authority. That is all I said. It does not say they did, so I am going with it.

 

[Image_of_God]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1559373&postcount=319

2000 years of History my friend should tell us how the plan is working.

Look,

• You spend your time here trying to debate the primacy of Peter and the papacy. You insist on arguing that the East has always been autocephelous, and independent with each Church on its own beholding to no one. You insist that the East was never in agreement that the Church of Rome had any power over the other Churches in the East. You argue that you were always this way from the very beginning. Therefore Re the destruction of the Orthodox in the east, I have this question. You had 1000 years to spread Christianity in the East, what happened?
• I look at the scriptures, the ECF’s AND the on going teaching magesterium of the Church. You want to absolutize a few fathers and rewrite history. The realities of how history has played out doesn’t follow your polemics.
• I call it God’s promises will come true for the Church He builds on Peter. You want to focus on judgement and justice. I focus on promise. I’ll look at it my way and you look at it yours.

What great faith! I wish I had that faith in the Catholic Church sometimes. You are also right about the Fathers. Most of them testify to the Primacy of Rome. I have considered a nonbiased look at history. But, the Primacy of Rome in authority is too evident in the teachings of the Fathers.

 

[steve_b]

What great faith! I wish I had that faith in the Catholic Church sometimes. You are also right about the Fathers. Most of them testify to the Primacy of Rome. I have considered a nonbiased look at history. But, the Primacy of Rome in authority is too evident in the teachings of the Fathers.

As I mentioned to Montalban in an earlier post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1559373&postcount=319

sheesh!!! that was over 600 posts ago, I love to brag on the promises Jesus makes. If we can’t take His promises to the bank, we’re all in trouble. And we have 2000 years of Catholic history, to see this promise develop.

 

[Image_of_God]

As I mentioned to Montalban in an earlier post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1559373&postcount=319

sheesh!!! that was over 600 posts ago, I love to brag on the promises Jesus makes. If we can’t take His promises to the bank, we’re all in trouble. And we have 2000 years of Catholic history, to see this promise develop.

I read it, and you are totally right. This neccessity and truth of the papacy are self-evident. The papacy for many centuries held the Church together. The papacy shows us that the Church is not a group of ethnic Churches that have seperate Sees and conform to themselves alone, but I am sure with all my heart that God established this thing called the Papacy. It shows us that the Church is not exclusive, but it is the Catholic Church.

 

[Montalban]

Well written Steve. Unfortunately, even agreeing to disagree will not work with Montalban. He will have a sarcastic or condescending response to even this point.

I think your own response speaks enough. You keep ‘bowing out’ of the thread, only to return to make little snide remarks yourself. Every time I’ve challenged you in the last week to address the facts you give some statement about how you’re moving onto something else.

If you’re impressed by someone’s ‘argument’ that consists of nothing but relabelling a “God’s Justice” discussion, then so be it.

This thread has run full circle multiple times. Montalban even admitted it on the last page. Yet, he is still on here debating. What that says to me, is that he is more interested in winning an argument than pursuing truth. Therefore, I have stopped wasting my time. Why throw pearls to the swine? If one is not open, and they merely keep repeating themselves, what is the point of a debate? Either way, I think you have done a nice job explaining your position. Well done.

What are you doing here?

Are you going to do nothing more than continue to make such comments? I keep inviting you to discuss. Part of the reason I ‘admitted’ the discussion is over is because you and SteveB offer nothing more. You simply confirm this now.

If you want to compare me to swine, then this again simply shows how void your own position is. You may have noted that Bishopite at least has conducted a civil discussion.

Kudos to him

 

[Montalban]

I read it, and you are totally right. This neccessity and truth of the papacy are self-evident. The papacy for many centuries held the Church together. The papacy shows us that the Church is not a group of ethnic Churches that have seperate Sees and conform to themselves alone, but I am sure with all my heart that God established this thing called the Papacy. It shows us that the Church is not exclusive, but it is the Catholic Church.

For shame. I asked you to come over to this thread to discuss the issue and your response now boils down to a claim for evidence somewhere else.

You too, obviously impressed by the ‘God’s Judgment’ argument (albeit re-labelled).

I am still here if you wish to discuss the issue. Back-slapping your co-religious posters with hollow ‘just-so’ statements is not a discussion.

I shall endeavour to discuss some of the points you made.

ImageofGod:

This does not at all contradict what Leo is saying here:

“And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm

None of the cites you have brought up indicate an equality of authority. They say that the apostles had an equal honor. I have highlighted it for you.

Thank you for again citing a Pope to back the Papacy; if a Pope supports the Papacy, then it must be true; circular reasoning perhaps? However as we have seen Peter’s ‘one’ seat included not just Rome but Antioch as well. Thanks for not dealing with that. You are pretty strong on quoting Popes on the Papacy. Well done.

 

[Montalban]

ImageofGod:

You have not listened to anything I’ve said! I have already explained the issue! Why then is Gregory offered the name “universal pope” and not Antioch?

If you mean ‘universal bishop’ Gregory opposed the use of the term by anyone.

ImageofGod:

Why then, after the letter is written, does the patriarch of Alexandria continue to call his “universal pope.” There would be no need if he called them all equal in authority.
Leo in no way disagrees with Gregory, it is just your own understanding. There is a reason why Gregory is called the “Father of Medieval Papacy”.

No doubt because ‘Medieval Papacy’ was developed by him. This of course means that the Papacy differed from prior to this.

ImageofGod:

You’re understanding of the statement made by Cyprian is simply incorrect and does not disprove the Papacy.

Here, in Cyprian’s letter to Pope Cornelius, he says this:

“He it is who, without my leave or knowledge, of his own factiousness and ambition appointed his attendant Felicissimus a deacon, and with his own tempest sailing also to Rome to overthrow the Church, endeavoured to do similar and equal things there, forcibly separating a part of the people from the clergy, and dividing the concord of the fraternity that was firmly knit together and mutually loving one another. Since Rome from her greatness plainly ought to take precedence of Carthage, he there committed still greater and graver crimes.”
newadvent.org/fathers/050648.htm

Obviously, Cyprian had a different understanding of Rome’s Primacy than you do.

Not so. This view sums up the situation…
" From her greatness;" he does not even mention her dignity as the one and only apostolic see of Western Christendom. And this is the case in subsequent action of the Great Councils. Rome, though not theroot, was yet a “root and matrix.”
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/footnote/fn55.htm#P5530_1687592
You simply divorce Cyprian’s letter from Cyprian, the same gentleman who refused to bow to Rome over the issue of baptism of heretics, a decision supported (in principle) by Augustus. (posts #872, #873 et al)

This is often the case. If a Church Father appears to sing any praise you guys quote it. And ignore the historical context.

I have not at all argued that both Peter and Paul found the Roman Church. I argue that Peter was the first person to sit in the See.

Based on a latter Pope saying so. I’ve evidenced earlier sources saying it was founded by Peter AND Paul. And a Pope saying this so.

The fact that Peter and Paul had some foundation in the Roman Church is all the more reason why Rome should have a primacy of authority. Is it possible for both Peter and Paul to sit in the same see?

One Catholic argued earlier that they sat in the same city preaching to different communities, so he thought so. However I disagreed. I believe that Peter, as an Apostle did not act the same as bishop. They together had a different bishop, whom I discussed earlier.
"ImageofGod:

There are of course many shepherds, but Peter was the one primary shepherd, who oversaw over the others.

As according to you.
Image of God:

You showed me St. Cyril’s and I showed you St. Optatus’. Does it mean one of them is wrong simply because you say so?

If only you weren’t so keen to re-work an argument of mine. It was not simply we traded quotes. I pointed out how your source was wrong as according to several people in relation to the foundation of the Papacy. No wonder you ‘haven’t argued this’.
I also pointed out that a pope recognised Antioch as a ‘chair’ of Peter, and posed to you the question why is it only Rome. Please quote me another Pope on this matter.

Montalban:

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.

I asked, whether their is a Council that was not made valid by the Pope. And this not one and their has never been one. This was made valid by Pope Damsasus.

No. It wasn’t ‘made valid’ by the Pope. You can’t begin a ‘Second’ Ecumenical Council if the first one’s still not valid as according to the Pope. The very fact an emperpor would convoke another council even though the first hadn’t been approved of by the Pope seems to suggest that he, and the bishops who then assembled, didn’t seem to think that they needed the Pope’s approval.

Sure, they’d want approval of him as with any other bishop - for church unity was on their minds, but it was not ‘necessary’.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

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/NPNF2-0…#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.Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.362

10 But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

What spin have I put on this.

By claiming that the Asian Minor church was simply against the Pope’s tradition. It’s the ‘tradition of the whole church’. Not just the Pope’s. So that even though it was against the tradition of Alexandria, they didn’t attempt to impose their beliefs on Asia Minor. However when the Pope did, the other churches rebuked him.

You showed me the following:

11 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
The rebuke the act, not his authority. That is all I said. It does not say they did, so I am going with it.

Which is exactly the point. What part don’t you get?

Asia Minor in disagreement with every other church.
Only Rome attempts to ‘cut them off’.
Rome is rebuked. They are thus not against the Pope’s tradition ONLY, which is what you suggested.

In short you quote extensively from Leo and Gregory to support the Papacy. You quoted one other churchman and ask if my ‘one’ cancels your ‘one’ out; a gross misrepresentation of the many I showed who disagree with your ‘one’ on the ‘foundation of Rome’.

Then you misquote Cyprian.

And in effect you’ve ignored the implication of the rest of the church rebuking Victor.

And when Polycarp had met a earlier bishop of Rome, did he bow down?

“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.”
Eusuebius
“History of the Church”
Book V.
Chapter XXIV.16
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2729_1313445

Note that following chapter
Chapter XXV. How All Came to an Agreement Respecting the Passover.

Thus even as a Pope makes a unilateral decision, the church goes about deciding for itself.

 

[Montalban]

2000 years of History my friend should tell us how the plan is working.

And the Orthodox church still goes on! God’s promise is shown to be happening

 

[Montalban]

sheesh!!! that was over 600 posts ago, I love to brag on the promises Jesus makes. If we can’t take His promises to the bank, we’re all in trouble. And we have 2000 years of Catholic history, to see this promise develop.

Indeed, why do you keep repeating your God’s Justice argument?

Mantra-like you do this rather than engage in discussion on the Church Fathers.

And the other flaws with your use of the God’s Justice argument are
a) God’s promise, made to His church is just as much ‘evidence’ for the Orthodox Church which still flourishes
b) you use it but deny that you do
c) you use it (keeping in mind context of a) above) and simply think that this negates any further discussion.

 

[Montalban]

Image of God, you’ve mis-used Cyprian. Taking one verse out of the context of his life is a mis-use. You’re not the only one to do this.

Cyprian is oft misused. In his work on the unity of the Catholic Church, St. Cyprian wrote…
“And although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church’s] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”[1] This text is much quoted by Romans as proof of Petrine supremecy.

However the Jesuit scholar Bévnot says…

“The whole context is against restricting the meaning to ‘the see of Rome.’ Cyrprian’s argument is based on the unicity of the origin (in Peter) of Church and authority alike. The one authority was perpetuated in the legitimate successions of the bishops, and to break with one’s bishop was to break with the one, Christ-established, authority, that is, the ‘Chair of Peter.’ Thus his argument was pertinent not only for Rome, where Novatian had broken with Cornelius (who’s ‘chair’ was Peter’s in a double sense), but also nearer home, where Feliccissimus and his faction were in revolt against himself.

However, for those who recognised the true primacy of the see of Rome, Cyrpian’s words (taken out of their context) would naturally express the necessity of communion with Rome. It is not unreasonable to suppose (until proof of the contrary is forthcoming) that such an interpretation, put upon his words at the time of the baptismal controversy, led Cyprian to revise this chapter of its final addition.”[2] (see Addendum to see St. Cyprian’s revised text)

Addendum
“It is on one man that He builds the Church, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, saying: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you …Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man’s, they shall be retained,” yet in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the Church is figured in the Canticle of Canticles when the Holy Spirit, speaking in Our Lord’s name, says: “One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darling of her womb.” If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the Church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, has he still confidence that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of Oneness saying: “One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God”?[3]

Endnotes
[1] St. Cyprian “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”, 4, quoted in Carlton, C., (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press; ), pp123-4.
[2] De Unitate 4, Bevenot, quoted in Cartlton, pp124-5.

[3] English text taken from St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, tr. M. Bévenot, Ancient Christian Writers, v. 25 (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1957), pp. 46-47. (Hereinafter referred to as Unity.) For the Latin text, see Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera: De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, ed. M. Bévenot, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, v. 3 (Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Ponificii, 1972), pp. 251-52. (Hereinafter referred to as De Unitate.) Bévenot seems to have a corner on Cyprian interpretation. Besides the English and Latin editions cited above, he has done the definitive work on the manuscripts: M. Bévenot, The Tradition of Manuscripts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) and the article for the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Cyprian, St.,” 4:564-66. The last person who challenged his judgment, apparently, was J. Le Moyne in “Saint Cyprien est-il bien l’auteur de la re’daction breve du ‘De Unitate’ chapitre 4?”, Revue Benedictine 63:70-115 (1953). This is effectively answered in M. Bévenot, " ‘Primatus Petro Datur’: St. Cyprian on the Papacy," Journal of Theological Studies 5:19-35 (1954). (Hereinafter referred to as “Primatus Petro Datur.”) For bibliography on Cyprian n general, see M. Bévenot, De Unitate, pp. xii-xiv; on the work De Unitate in particular, pp. xvii-xxi. Quoted at nds.edu/lonergan/papal.htm

 

[Montalban]

You’re understanding of the statement made by Cyprian is simply incorrect and does not disprove the Papacy.

So you say. You take a single instance of his work.

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

Cyprian was ‘head’ of the Church in Alexandria. He ignored the Pope in matters.

Cyprian, when he heard Pope Stephen condemn the African church over the issue of baptism of heretics didn’t acknowledge the Pope as ‘master’ but convened another council. See - Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics. ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm

Note that all the bishops assemebled give a judgment despite what the Pope has ruled.

And they confirmed that the Pope had no right in their church

“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.”

The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian.

“Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics.”
at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm#P9402_2932994

And Augustine approved of Cyprian keeping his church independent, if not of Cyprian’s decision on baptism.

“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

Thus your man ignores the Pope. Even Augustine who disagreed with him on the matter of baptism agreed Cyprian had the right to ignore the Pope. That is the context of the church as it existed then.

 

[Image_of_God]

In Cyprian’s writing The Unity of the Catholic Church he writes as follows:
4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter,10 saying, "I say unto thee, that 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 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."11 And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep."12 And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; "13 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.14 Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her."15 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church16 trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "17
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664

Yet, in the margin of the orginal copy, another sustitute is written, that is usaully never put into remakes:

“. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, ‘feed My sheep’. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?”
newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

In any case, with the matter of St. Stephen, it only proves that the Pope is infallible. The Church in the East and the Carthaginian Church were doing the practice of rebaptising heretics, but it there is no doubt that Rome was right in not rebaptizing heretics. In this, it is Rome that held up the right practice. Rome was triumphant, in the fact that today, we do not baptize heretics.

 

[steve_b]

I think your own response speaks enough. You keep ‘bowing out’ of the thread, only to return to make little snide remarks yourself. Every time I’ve challenged you in the last week to address the facts you give some statement about how you’re moving onto something else.

If you’re impressed by someone’s ‘argument’ that consists of nothing but relabelling a “God’s Justice” discussion, then so be it.

What are you doing here?

Are you going to do nothing more than continue to make such comments? I keep inviting you to discuss. Part of the reason I ‘admitted’ the discussion is over is because you and SteveB offer nothing more. You simply confirm this now.

You need to demonstrate that your polemics comes true in history. You didn’t. You accuse Catholics of selectively quoting ECF’s as if you don’t do the same. You invent by selectively quoting, the way you WISH history took place instead of connecting the dots the way it actually happened.

Catholics can show this history and it’s continuity for 2000 years without straining logic or evidence.

 

[steve_b]

And the Orthodox church still goes on! God’s promise is shown to be happening

Which Orthodox Church do you belong to?

 

[Redbandito]

I think your own response speaks enough. You keep ‘bowing out’ of the thread, only to return to make little snide remarks yourself. Every time I’ve challenged you in the last week to address the facts you give some statement about how you’re moving onto something else.

If you’re impressed by someone’s ‘argument’ that consists of nothing but relabelling a “God’s Justice” discussion, then so be it.

What are you doing here?

Are you going to do nothing more than continue to make such comments? I keep inviting you to discuss. Part of the reason I ‘admitted’ the discussion is over is because you and SteveB offer nothing more. You simply confirm this now.

If you want to compare me to swine, then this again simply shows how void your own position is. You may have noted that Bishopite at least has conducted a civil discussion.

Kudos to him

Wow! I am really getting under your skin. Calm down there big guy! Is there a rule that someone must post in order to follow a thread? I don’t think so. If you don’t like what I have to say, don’t read the posts. But get over yourself. Your arrogance is blinding you. Quit grandstanding. Me saying “don’t throw pigs to the swine” is not a comparison of you to a pig, buddy. It merely means you aren’t open. You’re here to prove your point at all costs. That’s fine. But, I don’t want to waste my time responding to large posts all day for no possibility of fruit coming from it. If you can’t get that, sorry.