Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[LSK]

Let us look at a quick summary of the way that the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
**“Thou are Peter and upon this rock…” **

Archbishop Kenrick of Saint Louis, who was one of America’s
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.

In his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the
Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870,
he declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish
the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the
clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to
interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers.

And he adds that there are five different patristic
interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18

Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers

3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

Archbishop Kendrick summarises

“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

This is an important point since one of the RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the regulation that a preponderance of patristic consensus is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.)

You can look this up and check that I have
it accurately in Friedrich, *Docum ad illust. *
*Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246 *

As to who Archbishop Kenrick of Saint Louis was, please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

In the article on newadvent.org I found this quote about Archbishop Kenrick in regards to his voting against Papal Infallibility…while he disagreed, he…
" publicly submitted to the voice of the majority as the authority of the Church, when he learned of the proclamation. "

sounds like he may have valued the virtue of obedience and his love of the Pope more than his own opinion…what a wonderful example of a true Catholic Christian!

 

[steve_b]

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.

Re: Cyprian and the popes power
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1165676&postcount=75

Re: Augustine, you guys love to show where he disputes this or that which might help YOUR cause. Augustine didn’t absolutize his own teaching against that of the Church.

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE…The epistle begins thus:–‘Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.’ Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? **For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?” **
C. Epis Mani 5,6

he was docile to the Church over his own opinions




"No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH"
Trinitas 4,6,10

don’t try and pit Augustine against the Catholic Church. That’s not his thinking. Augustine will side with the Church.

 

[Image_of_God]

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.

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.
I might have said this, but I don’t think I did. I said that they rebuked the reason of the act, not necessarily his authority to do it.

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’.

Did I not also quote from Optatus? Read what Optatus says! It is he that says it, not me. If you won’t be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself! You are saying that Optatus grossly misrepresented something, simply because YOU do not agree with it.You do not agree with it because the Papal Supremacy is clear in his writing as the Roman Catholic Church understands it. When did I misquote Cyprian? Or is this because it does not agree with how you quote him? He said this:
“Since Rome from her greatness plainly ought to take precedence of Carthage, he there committed still greater and graver crimes.”"
Is there anyway of intepreting that except that Cyprian believe in Papal Supremacy? Montalban, be honest, he clearly says what he says…Rome should take precedence of Cathage. Meaning that Rome is ahead of Carthage in rank, thus according to his other statements, Rome is the seat of Peter, and he says that Peter has the primacy.

“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.

This proves absolutely nothing. The Pope was not considering the Local rights of the Asiatic Churches. Such tradtions are a Local matter. But, otherwise he would have been correct. Read your own article. Is Rome rebuked for claiming the authority to do something, or because the act was unjust?
You are twisting the matter. The Church did not rebuke the Pope for claiming to have the authority, he was rebuked because of the nature of the act. If Victor didn’t have the authority, he probably wouldn’t have attempted to do it in the first place.

I might bring it up again and see if someone can see if I am “grossly misrepresenting” the quote.

 

[Image_of_God]

St. Optaus 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

To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus 41 Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus, to Zephyrinus Calixtus, to Calixtus Urban, to Urban Pontianus, to Pontianus Anterus, to Anterus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Marcellinus, to Marcellinus Eusebius, to Eusebius Miltiades, to Miltiades Silvester, to Silvester Marcus, |69 to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius,42 who to-day is our colleague, with whom ‘the whole world,’ 43 through the intercourse of letters of peace,44 agrees with us in one bond of communion.45

Now do you show the origin of your Cathedra,46 you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!

But 47 you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome.48 |70

It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius 49 to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter’s Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter’s ‘Shrine,’ 50 against the precept of the Apostle who writes:

‘Communicating with the “Shrines” of the Saints.’ 51 |71

Behold, in Rome are the ‘Shrines’ of the two Apostles. Will you tell me whether he has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where----as is certain----are these ‘Shrines’ of the Saints.

So it follows that your colleague Macrobius must confess that he sits where once sat Encolpius; and if Encolpius himself could be questioned, he would say that he sat where before him sat Bonifacius of Balla; and if Bonifacius could be asked, he would in his turn reply that he sat where Victor of Garba sat, whom some time ago your people sent from Africa to a few wanderers.52

How do you explain that your party has not been able to possess a Roman citizen as Bishop in Rome? How is it that in that City they were all Africans 53 and strangers who are known to have succeeded one another? Is not craft here manifest? Is this not the spirit of faction----the mother of schism?

This Victor of Garba was sent first, I will not say as a stone into a fountain (for he could not ruffle the pure waters of the Catholic people), but because some Africans who belonged to your party, having gone to Rome, and wishing to live there, begged that someone should be sent from Africa to preside over their public worship. So Victor was sent to them. He was there as a son without a father, as a beginner without a master, as a disciple without a teacher, |72 as a follower without a predecessor,54 as a lodger without a home, as a guest without a guest-house, as a shepherd without a flock, as a Bishop without a people. For neither flock nor people can that handful be termed, who amongst the forty and more Basilicas in Rome, had not one place in which to assemble.

Accordingly they closed up 55 a cave outside the City with trellis-work,56 where they might have a meeting-house at once,57 and on account of this were called Mountaineers.58

Since then, Claudian has succeeded to Lucian, Lucian to Macrobius, Macrobius to Encolpius, Encolpius to Boniface, Boniface to Victor. Victor would not have been able, had he been asked where he sat,59 to show that anyone had been there 60 before him, nor could he have pointed out that he possessed any Cathedra save the Cathedra of pestilence 61; |73 for pestilence sends down its victims, destroyed by diseases, to the regions of 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 "

All people, but especially you Montblan, am I misrepresenting this quote by using it to show the authority of the Church of Rome, or is it really self-evident?

 

[Montalban]

Which Orthodox Church do you belong to?

Which measure of God’s promise do you make?

I asked this of you a while ago.

 

[Montalban]

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.

What I get is that you still refuse to enter the discussion.

 

[Montalban]

Yet, in the margin of the original copy, another substitute is written, that is usually 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

The reason is because he changed his mind. Had you read post #968 above you’d have noted that! Your own source says it was substituted. By whom? Cyprian.

However the original; it’s always quoted by Catholic web-sites as a ‘proof’ without noting that it was in fact substituted. I cited a Catholic web-site that does this (see again post above)

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.

What a spin again. (Church in the east -v- Rome!)

Had you noted that the rest of the church, not just Rome were of one opinion about ‘rebaptism’ (I also directed you to view another post on this too). Cyprian was against it. Augustine, even though he disagreed with Cyprian on the baptism issue, agreed that Cyprian had the right to his opinion in relation to his own local church.

I go over this all the time
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1491318&highlight=rebaptism#post1491318

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1571243&highlight=rebaptism#post1571243

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1722637&highlight=re-baptism#post1722637

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1682483&highlight=re-baptism#post1682483

The point is the Church in Africa, which you are claiming is in support of the Papacy (quoting Cyprian) in fact did not follow the rest of the church, even when the Pope made a pronouncement. They simply met again and decided for themselves. Augustine approved.

 

[Montalban]

Image of God:

All people, but especially you Montblan, am I misrepresenting this quote by using it to show the authority of the Church of Rome, or is it really self-evident?

I’ve already dealt with this; your man here, obscure to me as he is disagrees with several other sources more widely known on several issues, such as who founded the Church in Rome.

You largely ignored that the first time round, except to pretend that your quote off-sets my ONE source Cyprian (I noted with some disdain that I in fact relied on more than ONE source for that bit of discussion).

Like many here you seem content to simply re-quote some source over and over again without context or further discussion.

 

[Montalban]

SteveB:

Re: Augustine, you guys love to show where he disputes this or that which might help YOUR cause. Augustine didn’t absolutize his own teaching against that of the Church.

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE…The epistle begins thus:–‘Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.’ Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?”
C. Epis Mani 5,6

he was docile to the Church over his own opinions

As we’re into referencing other posts
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1593270&highlight=seat+peter+augustine#post1593270
Is this one of the works Augustine over-turned in his Retractions?

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the CHURCH”
Trinitas 4,6,10
don’t try and pit Augustine against the Catholic Church. That’s not his thinking. Augustine will side with the Church.

That depends on what he means by ‘church’. For you operating on a priori that the Catholic Church is the church, he must be referring to that. And thus you avoid the evidence where he sided with Cyprian, in Cyprian’s right to decide for himself.

 

[Montalban]

Did I not also quote from Optatus? *Read what Optatus says! It is he that says it, not me. If you won’t be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself! *
You can leave off such non-argument (emotive appeal) here and now. I’ve already dealt with your quote from Optatus. You may well think that my response was insufficient, erroneous, etc. But I’ve given you a response and you’ve not dealt with it at all. All you do is re-state Optatus. And then call into question my honesty!
Honestly!
Image of God;1750634:

This proves absolutely nothing. The Pope was not considering the Local rights of the Asiatic Churches. Such traditions are a Local matter. But, otherwise he would have been correct. Read your own article. Is Rome rebuked for claiming the authority to do something, or because the act was unjust?

Yes, it was. It says that he (the Pope) attempted to cut them off and that this did not meet the approval of the other bishops.

You are twisting the matter. The Church did not rebuke the Pope for claiming to have the authority, he was rebuked because of the nature of the act.

No. It says quite clearly that he (the Pope) attempted to cut them off. That is, to excommunicate them.

If Victor didn’t have the authority, he probably wouldn’t have attempted to do it in the first place.

That’s a strange argument. It’s to suggest no Pope would ever do what they weren’t empowered to do! Why? Well surely they just wouldn’t have!

I might bring it up again and see if someone can see if I am “grossly misrepresenting” the quote.

Appealing to the masses doesn’t mean for debate either. I noted earlier you seem to think that backslapping co-religionists who make strange appeals to “God’s Justice” does, for you, represent debate.

 

[Image_of_God]

The reason is because he changed his mind. Had you read post #968 above you’d have noted that! Your own source says it was substituted. By whom? Cyprian.

However the original; it’s always quoted by Catholic web-sites as a ‘proof’ without noting that it was in fact substituted. I cited a Catholic web-site that does this (see again post above)

What a spin again. (Church in the east -v- Rome!)

Had you noted that the rest of the church, not just Rome were of one opinion about ‘rebaptism’ (I also directed you to view another post on this too). Cyprian was against it. Augustine, even though he disagreed with Cyprian on the baptism issue, agreed that Cyprian had the right to his opinion in relation to his own local church.

I go over this all the time
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1491318&highlight=rebaptism#post1491318

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1571243&highlight=rebaptism#post1571243

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1722637&highlight=re-baptism#post1722637

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1682483&highlight=re-baptism#post1682483

The point is the Church in Africa, which you are claiming is in support of the Papacy (quoting Cyprian) in fact did not follow the rest of the church, even when the Pope made a pronouncement. They simply met again and decided for themselves. Augustine approved.

I’m sorry, I did misquote Cyprian.

Catholic Encyclopedia:However on the issue of Pope Stephen, see this:
Probably when it was seen at Rome that the East was largely committed to the same wrong practice, the question was tacitly dropped. It should be remembered that, though Stephen had demanded unquestioning obedience, he had apparently, like Cyprian, considered the matter as a point of discipline. St. Cyprian supports his view by a wrong inference from the unity of the Church, and no one thought of the principle afterwards taught by St. Augustine, that, since Christ is always the principal agent, the validity of the sacrament is independent of the unworthiness of the minister: Ipse est qui baptizat. Yet this is what is implied in Stephen’s insistence upon nothing more than the correct form, “because baptism is given in the name of Christ”, and “the effect is due to the majesty of the Name”. The laying on of hands enjoined by Stephen is repeatedly said to be in poenitentiam, yet Cyprian goes on to argue that the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands is not the new birth, but must be subsequent to it and implies it. This has led some moderns into the notion that Stephen meant confirmation to be given (so Duchesne), or at least that he has been so misunderstood by Cyprian (d’Alès). But the passage (Ep. lxxiv, 7) need not mean this, and it is most improbable that confirmation was even thought of in this connection. Cyprian seems to consider the laying on of hands in penance to be a giving of the Holy Ghost.** In the East the custom of rebaptizing heretics had perhaps arisen from the fact that so many heretics disbelieved in the Holy Trinity, and possibly did not even use the right form and matter.** For centuries the practice persisted, at least in the case of some of the heresies. But in the West to rebaptize was regarded as heretical, and Africa came into line soon after St. Cyprian. St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Vincent of Lérins are full of praise for the firmness of Stephen as befitting his place. But Cyprian’s unfortunate letters became the chief support of the puritanism of the Donatists.

As goes the Church of Africa did support the Papacy, as seen in some of St. Augustine’s writings.

 

[Image_of_God]

I’ve already dealt with this; your man here, obscure to me as he is disagrees with several other sources more widely known on several issues, such as who founded the Church in Rome.

You largely ignored that the first time round, except to pretend that your quote off-sets my ONE source Cyprian (I noted with some disdain that I in fact relied on more than ONE source for that bit of discussion).

Like many here you seem content to simply re-quote some source over and over again without context or further discussion.

I am not content with quoting someone over and over again.
I am stressing the matter that if Milevus is in Africa, I might be wrong, then people in Africa did agree with the Primacy of Rome. I am not trying to “cancel out” your quotes, I am trying to show you that you cannot take history apart in quotes and assume this is what they believed. You have to look at the first millenium of the Church as a whole.

 

[Image_of_God]

You can leave off such non-argument (emotive appeal) here and now. I’ve already dealt with your quote from Optatus. You may well think that my response was insufficient, erroneous, etc. But I’ve given you a response and you’ve not dealt with it at all. All you do is re-state Optatus. And then call into question my honesty!
Honestly!

Look at what you are saying! Optatus was a bishop of the African Church and a friend of St. Augustine, whom you say denied Papal Infallibilty. I can assure that St. Optatus was not alone in his beliefs.

Yes, it was. It says that he (the Pope) attempted to cut them off and that this did not meet the approval of the other bishops.

No. It says quite clearly that he (the Pope) attempted to cut them off. That is, to excommunicate them.

That’s a strange argument. It’s to suggest no Pope would ever do what they weren’t empowered to do! Why? Well surely they just wouldn’t have!

Appealing to the masses doesn’t mean for debate either. I noted earlier you seem to think that backslapping co-religionists who make strange appeals to “God’s Justice” does, for you, represent debate.

Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church.

This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom (Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.”, V, xxiii-xxv.) We have no information concerning the further course of the matter under Victor I so far as it regards the bishops of Asia. All that is known is that in the course of the third century the Roman practice in the observance of Easter became gradually universal.
newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm

As I have been stressing is that they rebuked the nature of the act, not his authority to do it. If Victor did not have the authority, he probably wouldn’t have done it, and I note that he is a Saint of the Universal Church.

 

[Image_of_God]

You know I have been thinking. What is the point of this? We have contributed nothing to the Ecumenical Movement. Throwing quotes like this is just like a basketball game where the ball gets thrown back and forth, yet nothing is achieved. I think this should be put to rest. Not, because I am wrong or you are wrong, but because it is near Christmas. There is little point in doing this. The only way to find the True Church is with the grace of the Holy Spirit, humility, and a study of History as a whole not in quotes. I feel so ashamed as as we are slinging quotes, like politicians sling dirty words.
Is this what Christ has willed for his Church? If we were really Christians would we turn to Christ for knowledge, or boast about, saying in out hearts “I’m right?” I am happy to resume debating after Christmas, but only if we are willing to look at the Church as a whole history, not snipets of quotes.
We’ve nothing but sling quotes like little children. As I’ve said before, and I will say again, this contributes nothing to the Ecumenical Movement. One who is willing to open his eyes to the Truth need only to turn to God and study Church history with an open heart and as a whole, to find the True Church. No one will at all find the true Church with a single quote. I guess I should have remembered St.Thomas Aquinas, when he said, “Beware the man of one book.” I will continue to study Church history, not with single quotes, but as whole. I am tired of debating like a barbarian. This is in no way Ecumenical whatsoever. Nor does it reveal the truth for others to see, especially, NonChristians. We must recall the words of our blessed friend of the East and the West:

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith.”
*—St. Maximus of Constantinople *

 

[Montalban]

In the East the custom of rebaptizing heretics had perhaps arisen from the fact that so many heretics disbelieved in the Holy Trinity, and possibly did not even use the right form and matter. For centuries the practice persisted, at least in the case of some of the heresies. But in the West to rebaptize was regarded as heretical, and Africa came into line soon after St. Cyprian. St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Vincent of Lérins are full of praise for the firmness of Stephen as befitting his place. But Cyprian’s unfortunate letters became the chief support of the puritanism of the Donatists.

The issue is one that Cyprian felt that baptisms by heretics were invalid in the first place, therefore the people weren’t being ‘re’-baptised, because they’d not been baptised in the first place.
Your quote from the Catholic encyclopaedia is simply one long ‘just-so’. Cyprian only ‘came into line’ after he and the other bishops of Africa decided for themselves that they should change.
That is in fact the very point of this part of the discussion. We don’t see Cyprian and the Egyptians go “Oh, look, the Pope’s spoken. We’re wrong. We’ll change”. They met and for a while continued to maintain their present course. Which WAS supported by Augustine, even though he didn’t agree with that decision.

As goes the Church of Africa did support the Papacy, as seen in some of St. Augustine’s writings.

Not so. I cited direct support from Augustine for Cyprian. Your claim to support ‘somewhere else’ doesn’t count.

I am not content with quoting someone over and over again.

I am stressing the matter that if Milevus is in Africa, I might be wrong, then people in Africa did agree with the Primacy of Rome. I am not trying to “cancel out” your quotes, I am trying to show you that you cannot take history apart in quotes and assume this is what they believed. You have to look at the first millennium of the Church as a whole.
Yet the church as a whole in Africa met and decided for themselves to disagree with the Pope.

Look at what you are saying! Optatus was a bishop of the African Church and a friend of St. Augustine, whom you say denied Papal Infallibility. I can assure that St. Optatus was not alone in his beliefs.

He probably wasn’t. However you want to maintain that the east supported the Papacy, and you cited Cyprian. I showed that in a broader context Cyprian went about as if the African church was independent of the Pope AND that Augustine agreed with this.
You can probably re-cite your own quotes from Popes to support the Papacy, too. Please note, for example Jerome agreed at one stage with Primacy of Peter, but because of his age, which still doesn’t match the Roman reasoning for Papal supremacy.

Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church.

This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. Irenaeus reminded him that his predecessors had indeed always maintained the Sunday observance of Easter, as was right, but had not broken off friendly relations and communion with bishops because they followed another custom (Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.”, V, xxiii-xxv.) We have no information concerning the further course of the matter under Victor I so far as it regards the bishops of Asia. All that is known is that in the course of the third century the Roman practice in the observance of Easter became gradually universal.
newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm

As I have been stressing is that they rebuked the nature of the act, not his authority to do it. If Victor did not have the authority, he probably wouldn’t have done it, and I note that he is a Saint of the Universal Church.

Great. I cite the original text from Eusuebius and you give me the official spin. However this still doesn’t cover up the fact that the Pope was rebuked for doing what should have been within his power (given the RC Church model of church governance). He’s being rebuked for attempting to excommunicate the church of Asia Minor. And it too gives your spin by claiming that they fell into line with Rome. They fell into line with the rest of the church (after deciding for themselves; a point that’s in the history, which your site seems not to know).

 

[Montalban]

Image of God:

You know I have been thinking. What is the point of this? We have contributed nothing to the Ecumenical Movement.

It’s to do with the ‘approach’ to ecumenicalism. You approach it as if you’re the mother church and we’re the wayward son. You believe that eastern bishops supported the Papacy (hence you quote even here St. Maximus the confessor) and that we find that truly insulting - to claim that we have strayed.

The RC Church approaches us thinking of peace but believing that we have been wrong, doesn’t understand why we don’t go running into it’s embrace.

It is thoroughly irksome. It’s a kind of condescending attitude. And Catholics can’t understand why we are so annoyed, when they probably genuinely believe that we should be just ‘aware’ of Roman truths.
Image of God:

Throwing quotes like this is just like a basketball game where the ball gets thrown back and forth, yet nothing is achieved. I think this should be put to rest. Not, because I am wrong or you are wrong, but because it is near Christmas.

And yet you do it again below with Maximus. You probably see nothing wrong with that, because as far as you’re concerned, you’re right.
Image of God:

There is little point in doing this. The only way to find the True Church is with the grace of the Holy Spirit, humility, and a study of History as a whole not in quotes. I feel so ashamed as we are slinging quotes, like politicians sling dirty words.

You’re assuming that you and I are the only ones reading. I look at this as a broader issue. Some people reading these exchanges, including Orthodox will see that for the points you make, the Orthodox have a reason for believing what we do. We have a ‘case’. To not make this case may lead some into simply seeing your points and believing them. I am not out to convert you but to bring Orthodoxy’s understanding into the light.
Image of God:

Is this what Christ has willed for his Church? If we were really Christians would we turn to Christ for knowledge, or boast about, saying in out hearts “I’m right?” I am happy to resume debating after Christmas, but only if we are willing to look at the Church as a whole history, not snippets of quotes.
We’ve nothing but sling quotes like little children. As I’ve said before, and I will say again, this contributes nothing to the Ecumenical Movement. One who is willing to open his eyes to the Truth need only to turn to God and study Church history with an open heart and as a whole, to find the True Church. No one will at all find the true Church with a single quote. I guess I should have remembered St.Thomas Aquinas, when he said, “Beware the man of one book.” I will continue to study Church history, not with single quotes, but as whole. I am tired of debating like a barbarian. This is in no way Ecumenical whatsoever. Nor does it reveal the truth for others to see, especially, NonChristians. We must recall the words of our blessed friend of the East and the West:

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith.”
—St. Maximus of Constantinople

Perhaps you’d do better to look to why he said that. He was supporting a particular pope in a time of crisis within Rome. If you look up what happened to Pope Martin I before you posted that might have helped. He’d previously been Apocrisiarius in Constantinople, and thus was known to Easterners. This is one of the times Easterners accept that Rome kept hold of ‘orthodoxy’ (this is not an admission of ‘primacy’).

I’m leaving this forum until after Christmas. I wish all readers a very Merry Christmas

Nollaig Shona Dhuit, ImageofGod!

 

[Image_of_God]

It’s to do with the ‘approach’ to ecumenicalism. You approach it as if you’re the mother church and we’re the wayward son. You believe that eastern bishops supported the Papacy (hence you quote even here St. Maximus the confessor) and that we find that truly insulting - to claim that we have strayed.

The RC Church approaches us thinking of peace but believing that we have been wrong, doesn’t understand why we don’t go running into it’s embrace.

It is thoroughly irksome. It’s a kind of condescending attitude. And Catholics can’t understand why we are so annoyed, when they probably genuinely believe that we should be just ‘aware’ of Roman truths.

And yet you do it again below with Maximus. You probably see nothing wrong with that, because as far as you’re concerned, you’re right.

You’re assuming that you and I are the only ones reading. I look at this as a broader issue. Some people reading these exchanges, including Orthodox will see that for the points you make, the Orthodox have a reason for believing what we do. We have a ‘case’. To not make this case may lead some into simply seeing your points and believing them. I am not out to convert you but to bring Orthodoxy’s understanding into the light.

Perhaps you’d do better to look to why he said that. He was supporting a particular pope in a time of crisis within Rome. If you look up what happened to Pope Martin I before you posted that might have helped. He’d previously been Apocrisiarius in Constantinople, and thus was known to Easterners. This is one of the times Easterners accept that Rome kept hold of ‘orthodoxy’ (this is not an admission of ‘primacy’).

I’m leaving this forum until after Christmas. I wish all readers a very Merry Christmas

Nollaig Shona Dhuit, ImageofGod!

Is it not the Orthodox who think we have strayed as well? You’re argument about the Roman Catholic Church is not at all arguable. I quoted Maximus to show what I believe about the Papacy, and I concur with his words. I quoted him not to continue the quote throwing process, but to emphasize that what I quoted was what I believed, not what I am trying throw. I am not all trying to do the same things we have been doing before. If we do look at the whole of Church history, we will find the truth. Conversion is not going to happen by throwing quotes. As currently, I do see that I am right, otherwise I wouldn’t be Catholic. But, I am studying Church history openly.

And yes I did read the background of Maximus’ quote, he was trying to defend Honorius, yet I believe every word is true, even though Honorius might not have. I am not at all angry at you, I too am trying to bring the Roman Catholic understanding to light. I have a growing respect for the Orthodox, but I must believe with my heart, not with my ears. Unless my heart is convinced, I can’t believe, unless that is just naiveness. The Orthodox also believe that we are lost and need to come back. If you find the Roman Catholic stance as insulting, then the Orthodox stance is as equally insulting.

And see that is it, the Ecumenical Movement has more to with faith than scoring points a you see it. We are not going to see the truth of history by taking chips of it and slinging it at one another. If I put the quote at the bottom of my post to state my position and show why I feel the way I do, there should be no reason why someone should feel insulted.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Ziggamafu]

However as we have seen Peter’s ‘one’ seat included not just Rome but Antioch as well. Thanks for not dealing with that.

So far as I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), the theology is that where Peter was, there was his primacy, his papacy. Since Peter traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch and ultimately to Rome - and Rome is where he died - Rome is where the primacy was left. I believe the “one seat” does not refer to the geographical location, but to the man occupying the office. Does this make sense? Also, was this your understanding of Catholic Church teaching on the subject?

Thanks, and God bless!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

So far as I understand (and correct me if I’m wrong), the theology is that where Peter was, there was his primacy, his papacy. Since Peter traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch and ultimately to Rome - and Rome is where he died - Rome is where the primacy was left. I believe the “one seat” does not refer to the geographical location, but to the man occupying the office. Does this make sense? Also, was this your understanding of Catholic Church teaching on the subject?!

The Epistle (XL) of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria.

Note well how the Pope Gregory of Rome says that the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch also have the Keys of Peter and all three are equal.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Pope Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi. 17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.” (Book VII, Epistle XL)

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

And yes I did read the background of Maximus’ quote, he was trying to defend Honorius,

**From *The Life of Our Holy Father St. *Maximus the Confessor

**The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,
“To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!”

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox. Some time later, at his last interrogation by the Byzantine authorities, the following dialogue took place:
The Saint said, “They [the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and all the other heretical bishops of the East] have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?”

“Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?” they objected.

To this the Saint replied, “When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion’s den, he did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he kept in mind his own duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I shall sooner agree to die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer torments of conscience.”

“But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines?
Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow, the Lord’s day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch.”

The Saint replied, “Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.”

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those **condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, **one Pope of Rome (for even Pope Honorius had fallen into the Monothelite heresy), one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During *all *those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong.

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx