Early Church Fathers Agree: Peter has Supremacy

[prodromos]

And that bit about being separated from Peter is scary, isn’t it?

Which is why I do not seperate myself from my Bishop

 

[GaryTaylor]

Which is why I do not seperate myself from my Bishop

How would you know if he taught in error? Not saying he does, I don’t know him. And also how does St Cyprians unity figure in? His question was, if your not in communion with St Peter how does one know he’s in the Church?

 

[prodromos]

How would you know if he taught in error? Not saying he does, I don’t know him. And also how does St Cyprians unity figure in? His question was, if your not in communion with St Peter how does one know he’s in the Church?

My Bishop is in communion with all the other Orthodox Bishops. If he taught contrary to the Orthodox faith then he would be cut off from the others.
Cyprian’s defence against the heretics was that he himself sat in Peter’s chair.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My Bishop is in communion with all the other Orthodox Bishops. If he taught contrary to the Orthodox faith then he would be cut off from the others.
Cyprian’s defence against the heretics was that he himself sat in Peter’s chair.

How do you come to that conclusion with two letters on unity, and you must be referring to the second. When he wrote the second he was upset with the Pope. Two very contrasting letters. Why would he say what he did in the first to begin with?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, I have several passages from Leo, and I failed to copy the full reference in the portion I posted. You are correct; it was from his Letters.

Here is the passage in context:

But if in that which you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided. For to this end we direct all our desires and pains, that what conduces to our harmonious unity and to the protection of discipline may be marred by no dissension and neglected by no slothfulness. Therefore, dearly beloved brother, you and those our brethren who are offended at your extravagant conduct (though the matter of complaint is not the same with all), we exhort and warn not to disturb by any wrangling what has been rightfully ordained and wisely settled. Let none seek what is his own, but what is another’s, as the Apostle says: Let each one of you please his neighbour for his good unto edifying. For the cementing of our unity cannot be firm unless we be bound by the bond of love into an inseparable solidity: because as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office; so we being many are one body in Christ, and all of us members one of another. The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. 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. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them: and as he does not wish to bear a heavy load of baggage, so let him not dare to place on another’s shoulders a weight that is insupportable. For we are disciples of the humble and gentle Master who says: Learn of Me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden light Matthew 11:29-30 . And how shall we experience this, unless this too comes to our remembrance which the same Lord says: He that is greater among you, shall be your servant. But he that exalts himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbles himself, shall be exalted.

I dunno, Cav. The Bishop of Rome tells the Bishop of Thessalonica:

“Let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided.”

Isn’t this just the kind of argument for supremacy and universality a Catholic would love to make?

And wow! It looks to me like that section that I quoted originally is even stronger than I thought. Let’s read it again:

“The care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.”

No one should be separated from the Bishop of Rome, Cav. No one.

Of course, the canonical tradition reveals too that the opinion of the first bishop in a region should also be carried out only with the consent of all. And since Pope Leo compares universal primacy with regional primacy (or indeed since he argues that the former converges in one place as a consequence of the latter) it stands to reason that when he speaks of receiving his consent, he means to reference the pattern of regional primacy found in apostolic canon 34, canon 6 of Nicaea and so on. You fixate on a handful of words which could have multiple interpretations, whereas the broader context of the passage seems indeed to disqualify your reading.

 

[Seraphim73]

How do you come to that conclusion with two letters on unity, and you must be referring to the second. When he wrote the second he was upset with the Pope. Two very contrasting letters. Why would he say what he did in the first to begin with?

Yeah of all the fathers to quote to try and support the papacy St Cyprian would the the worst. He of all the fathers taught that all orthodox bishops sit in the chair of Peter and that no bishop may judge another.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yeah of all the fathers to quote to try and support the papacy St Cyprian would the the worst. He of all the fathers taught that all orthodox bishops sit in the chair of Peter and that no bishop may judge another.

You do realize thats debatable as there are a couple ways to view his writing as I suggested above. Seems we would both believe we are understanding him correctly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which is why I do not seperate myself from my Bishop

Which is completely inadequate since Bishops are not infallible. What Leo actually said is:

[Jesus] wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery.

Cyprian said something similar:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Kinda gets your attention when you see those two passages next to each other, don’t it? :sad_yes:*

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cyprian in my reading understood the unity of the entire Church as Randy posted, but his concern was the unity of each diocese. There were issues and he sought to gain support of other Bishops against those creating schism.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yeah of all the fathers to quote to try and support the papacy St Cyprian would the the worst. He of all the fathers taught that all orthodox bishops sit in the chair of Peter and that no bishop may judge another.

What is neglected in the subject of Peter’s office of supremacy; is the fact that Jesus and the Apostles themselves were all Jews of The Way.

The Hebrew Tradition from the Davidic Kingship Line, Judges, and Davidic Key holder of the Kingdom reflects the Apostles understanding and Jesus fulfillment of all the above.

This Hebrew understanding of Judge and Key holder is what develops in the infant Church, but it cannot contradict or leave the fulfillment of Jesus as the eternal Davidic line of Kings.

Jesus our King of the Davidic Royal blood line gives His keys to Peter alone in the presence of all the apostles to bind and loose. After the resurrection Jesus commissions Peter alone in the presence of all the Apostles to tend and feed His flock.

There can only be one Key holder Jesus gives to one Apostle to exercise on the whole earth, and there can be only one judge on earth God protects and is with him over the Kingdom on earth. Here it is why all Church Fathers teach the importance of being in communion and unity with the One Church of Peter for all others to follow.

Thus Peter’s supremacy is not new in the Church, Supremacy of Peter follows Jesus fulfillment of Judges, Key holder in the Davidic Kingdom. The first council in Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts is a direct reflection, God giving divine revelation to Peter to allow the Gentiles in to The Way. which became the Catholic Church the household of the living God. Peter the Supreme Judge speaks and all fall silent. When James another judge of the local Church is able to bind and loose disciplines within James local jurisdiction in Jerusalem.

James eating disciplines no longer persist in the Church, yet Peter’s Judgment remains to this day. The Church keeps with this Hebrew Tradition practice in Peter’s supremacy when her councils require a Judgment from Peter (bishop’s of Rome) to ratify and or validate a councils findings when it pertains to the whole Church.

The bishop of Rome has never left this fulfillment and practice of the infant Church of Peter’s supremacy, because the Hebrew Tradition supports Peter’s supremacy on earth.

Conflict to Peter’s supremacy does not enter Church history until the Church is free from Pagan Rome’s persecution. When a new Patriarchate office in Constantinople is introduced to the existing Apostolic See’s, when Rule, Authority, secular powers, Jurisdiction, Judgment become subjects of battles between the Bishop’s of Rome and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople, which still haunts the schism today.

Peter’s supremacy viewed from the Apostles Hebrew Tradition, is what the Popes have never left.

What the ECF’s and councils develop is not the Supremacy of Peter, it is developing the authority of Bishops within each ones diocese, when all agree that they are all second to Peter, with the same authority Peter has to rule and judge at the local level. When Peter speaks to bind and loose, Peter does so for the whole Church on earth.

We cannot pretend to interpret an ECF’s mind or thinking when he writes in regards to Peter’s supremacy to make something foreign to the first 500 years of Christianity pre-Constantinople with a post-Constantinople argument against Peter’s supremacy which is new and never an Apostolic sacred Tradition.

Please consider; That post-Constantinople the Church begins to follow the Emperor secular organization of government. When the history proves the bishops of Rome become in direct conflict with the new Patriarchs of Constantinople and heretical, pagan Emperors. When these Emperors are Christian, the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome presiding in Peter’s Chair is recognized and secular laws are introduced to obey the Bishop of Rome ruling.

Peace be with you

 

[spina1953]

What is neglected in the subject of Peter’s office of supremacy; is the fact that Jesus and the Apostles themselves were all Jews of The Way.

The Hebrew Tradition from the Davidic Kingship Line, Judges, and Davidic Key holder of the Kingdom reflects the Apostles understanding and Jesus fulfillment of all the above.

This Hebrew understanding of Judge and Key holder is what develops in the infant Church, but it cannot contradict or leave the fulfillment of Jesus as the eternal Davidic line of Kings.

Jesus our King of the Davidic Royal blood line gives His keys to Peter alone in the presence of all the apostles to bind and loose. After the resurrection Jesus commissions Peter alone in the presence of all the Apostles to tend and feed His flock.

There can only be one Key holder Jesus gives to one Apostle to exercise on the whole earth, and there can be only one judge on earth God protects and is with him over the Kingdom on earth. Here it is why all Church Fathers teach the importance of being in communion and unity with the One Church of Peter for all others to follow.

Thus Peter’s supremacy is not new in the Church, Supremacy of Peter follows Jesus fulfillment of Judges, Key holder in the Davidic Kingdom. The first council in Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts is a direct reflection, God giving divine revelation to Peter to allow the Gentiles in to The Way. which became the Catholic Church the household of the living God. Peter the Supreme Judge speaks and all fall silent. When James another judge of the local Church is able to bind and loose disciplines within James local jurisdiction in Jerusalem.

James eating disciplines no longer persist in the Church, yet Peter’s Judgment remains to this day. The Church keeps with this Hebrew Tradition practice in Peter’s supremacy when her councils require a Judgment from Peter (bishop’s of Rome) to ratify and or validate a councils findings when it pertains to the whole Church.

The bishop of Rome has never left this fulfillment and practice of the infant Church of Peter’s supremacy, because the Hebrew Tradition supports Peter’s supremacy on earth.

Conflict to Peter’s supremacy does not enter Church history until the Church is free from Pagan Rome’s persecution. When a new Patriarchate office in Constantinople is introduced to the existing Apostolic See’s, when Rule, Authority, secular powers, Jurisdiction, Judgment become subjects of battles between the Bishop’s of Rome and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople, which still haunts the schism today.

Peter’s supremacy viewed from the Apostles Hebrew Tradition, is what the Popes have never left.

What the ECF’s and councils develop is not the Supremacy of Peter, it is developing the authority of Bishops within each ones diocese, when all agree that they are all second to Peter, with the same authority Peter has to rule and judge at the local level. When Peter speaks to bind and loose, Peter does so for the whole Church on earth.

We cannot pretend to interpret an ECF’s mind or thinking when he writes in regards to Peter’s supremacy to make something foreign to the first 500 years of Christianity pre-Constantinople with a post-Constantinople argument against Peter’s supremacy which is new and never an Apostolic sacred Tradition.

Please consider; That post-Constantinople the Church begins to follow the Emperor secular organization of government. When the history proves the bishops of Rome become in direct conflict with the new Patriarchs of Constantinople and heretical, pagan Emperors. When these Emperors are Christian, the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome presiding in Peter’s Chair is recognized and secular laws are introduced to obey the Bishop of Rome ruling.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel of 12 : I agree. Me thinks that if peter is not the head of the Church on earth as the Orthodox seem to say and that all are equal then there should have been 12 patriarchs not five.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Theodore Abou-Qurra, Syrian Bishop of Haran (750-c.825)

“One must not that the Apostles had for chief S. Peter, to whom Christ had said, ‘Thou art Peter and on this Rock I will build My church’…; tom whom He said also three times after His resurrection near the Lake of Tiberius: ‘Simon, lovest thou Me? Feed My lambs, My little lambs, and My sheep.’ Moreover, He said to him, ‘Simon, Satan has desired to sift all of you as wheat, and I have prayed for thee [singular] that thy faith fail not’, but in turn, strengthen thy brethren’. You see well that St. Peter is the Foundation of the Church of the flock and he who has his faith will never lose it, and it is he also who is charged to turn himself towards his brethren and to confirm them. The words of the Lord: ‘I have prayed for thee, etc.’ do not regard the person of Peter and the Apostles. Christ has wished to indicate by these words those who hold the place of St. Pter at Rome and the places fo teh Apostles. Likewise when He says to the Apostles: ‘I will be with you all days even to the end of the ages’, He has not wished to designate the Apostles in person, but yet those who have succeeded them…And by the words addressed to St. Peter, ‘In your turn, confirm thy brethren, etc.’, He has in mind his successors. …To say that Christ wished only to designate St. Peter and the Apostles in person is to deprive the Church of that which it must affirm after the death of Peter. How stop at the thought?..It is then quite evident that these words have in mind the successors of Peter who do not cease to strenthen their brethren and will do so always to the end of the ages.” (Theodore Abou-Qurra, Eighth Treatise, quoted in James Likoudis, The Divine Primacy of the Modern Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, pp. 117-118.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is neglected in the subject of Peter’s office of supremacy; is the fact that Jesus and the Apostles themselves were all Jews of The Way.

The Hebrew Tradition from the Davidic Kingship Line, Judges, and Davidic Key holder of the Kingdom reflects the Apostles understanding and Jesus fulfillment of all the above.

This Hebrew understanding of Judge and Key holder is what develops in the infant Church, but it cannot contradict or leave the fulfillment of Jesus as the eternal Davidic line of Kings.

Jesus our King of the Davidic Royal blood line gives His keys to Peter alone in the presence of all the apostles to bind and loose. After the resurrection Jesus commissions Peter alone in the presence of all the Apostles to tend and feed His flock.

There can only be one Key holder Jesus gives to one Apostle to exercise on the whole earth, and there can be only one judge on earth God protects and is with him over the Kingdom on earth. Here it is why all Church Fathers teach the importance of being in communion and unity with the One Church of Peter for all others to follow.

Thus Peter’s supremacy is not new in the Church, Supremacy of Peter follows Jesus fulfillment of Judges, Key holder in the Davidic Kingdom. The first council in Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts is a direct reflection, God giving divine revelation to Peter to allow the Gentiles in to The Way. which became the Catholic Church the household of the living God. Peter the Supreme Judge speaks and all fall silent. When James another judge of the local Church is able to bind and loose disciplines within James local jurisdiction in Jerusalem.

James eating disciplines no longer persist in the Church, yet Peter’s Judgment remains to this day. The Church keeps with this Hebrew Tradition practice in Peter’s supremacy when her councils require a Judgment from Peter (bishop’s of Rome) to ratify and or validate a councils findings when it pertains to the whole Church.

The bishop of Rome has never left this fulfillment and practice of the infant Church of Peter’s supremacy, because the Hebrew Tradition supports Peter’s supremacy on earth.

Conflict to Peter’s supremacy does not enter Church history until the Church is free from Pagan Rome’s persecution. When a new Patriarchate office in Constantinople is introduced to the existing Apostolic See’s, when Rule, Authority, secular powers, Jurisdiction, Judgment become subjects of battles between the Bishop’s of Rome and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople, which still haunts the schism today.

Peter’s supremacy viewed from the Apostles Hebrew Tradition, is what the Popes have never left.

What the ECF’s and councils develop is not the Supremacy of Peter, it is developing the authority of Bishops within each ones diocese, when all agree that they are all second to Peter, with the same authority Peter has to rule and judge at the local level. When Peter speaks to bind and loose, Peter does so for the whole Church on earth.

We cannot pretend to interpret an ECF’s mind or thinking when he writes in regards to Peter’s supremacy to make something foreign to the first 500 years of Christianity pre-Constantinople with a post-Constantinople argument against Peter’s supremacy which is new and never an Apostolic sacred Tradition.

Please consider; That post-Constantinople the Church begins to follow the Emperor secular organization of government. When the history proves the bishops of Rome become in direct conflict with the new Patriarchs of Constantinople and heretical, pagan Emperors. When these Emperors are Christian, the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome presiding in Peter’s Chair is recognized and secular laws are introduced to obey the Bishop of Rome ruling.

Peace be with you

Bingo! I posted on this very point yesterday in another thread. The dietary restrictions specified by James were ignored even by Paul in the years not long after the Council. Peter’s ruling at Jerusalem stands to this very day.

Peter was and is the head of the universal Church.

Nice work, Gabriel!

 

[prodromos]

Which is completely inadequate since Bishops are not infallible.

Only Christ is infallible because Christ is “truth”

Kinda gets your attention when you see those two passages next to each other, don’t it? :sad_yes:

No. :nope:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Only Christ is infallible because Christ is “truth”

God is capable of inspiring men to write the Holy Scriptures correctly.

Is He incapable of preventing men from teaching incorrectly?

No.

Then you aren’t reading them thoughtfully.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel of 12 : I agree. Me thinks that if peter is not the head of the Church on earth as the Orthodox seem to say and that all are equal then there should have been 12 patriarchs not five.

Greetings spina1953
By Five are you referring to the Pentarchy? The Pentarchy of the Five apostolic see’s does not come from Apostolic Sacred Tradition. This subject is never heard of until post Constantinople.

To have more than one judge with the keys to Kingdom of heaven to bind and loose on the whole earth will always lead to schism and chaos. To have only one judge and key holder to bind and loose on earth, follows the Hebrew Tradition of judges and key holder with one King.

The Orthodox are not wrong on this premise of all bishops possessing the keys to bind and loose just as Peter has when in communion and unity with Peter’s Chair.

Yet all single Apostolic bishops possess the same powers and authority as Peter, to bind and loose at the local level within their own jurisdiction. Jesus gives Peter his keys individually and singularly in the presence of all the other apostles to bind and loose on the whole earth. What more jurisdiction is there except the whole earth, when Jesus binds and looses in heaven. The binding and loosing Jesus reveals to Peter is an unquestionable jurisdiction Peter has upon the earth and Jesus from heaven, when the head is never divided, especially when all bishop’s local jurisdictions are in full communion and in unity with Peter’s Chair, when it is Peter’s Chair that unites the Eastern Apostolic successors with the Western Apostolic successors on earth.

Thus Peter’s authority becomes a subject of disunity, when Jesus teaches that Peter is the one who is to call his brethren back and unite them as one.

 

[spina1953]

Greetings spina1953
By Five are you referring to the Pentarchy? The Pentarchy of the Five apostolic see’s does not come from Apostolic Sacred Tradition. This subject is never heard of until post Constantinople.

To have more than one judge with the keys to Kingdom of heaven to bind and loose on the whole earth will always lead to schism and chaos. To have only one judge and key holder to bind and loose on earth, follows the Hebrew Tradition of judges and key holder with one King.

The Orthodox are not wrong on this premise of all bishops possessing the keys to bind and loose just as Peter has when in communion and unity with Peter’s Chair.

Yet all single Apostolic bishops possess the same powers and authority as Peter, to bind and loose at the local level within their own jurisdiction. Jesus gives Peter his keys individually and singularly in the presence of all the other apostles to bind and loose on the whole earth. What more jurisdiction is there except the whole earth, when Jesus binds and looses in heaven. The binding and loosing Jesus reveals to Peter is an unquestionable jurisdiction Peter has upon the earth and Jesus from heaven, when the head is never divided, especially when all bishop’s local jurisdictions are in full communion and in unity with Peter’s Chair, when it is Peter’s Chair that unites the Eastern Apostolic successors with the Western Apostolic successors on earth.

Thus Peter’s authority becomes a subject of disunity, when Jesus teaches that Peter is the one who is to call his brethren back and unite them as one.

Greetings Gabriel of 12: Yes I was referring to the 5 patriarchs, and I agree that Peter was given the keys to bind and loose just as the rest of the Apostles but Peter Jesus choose to be the head of His Church and to strengthen his brethren. Jesus was the leader of all of the Apostles and also of those disciples that followed Jesus and I will have to assume that these disciples also followed Peter afterwards. It just seems to me that from what I have been reading of the posts by Orthodox that if Peter is not the leader of the Church on earth and all of the Apostles have equal billing like Peter then there should have 12 Patriarchs not 5 nor one head Peter. It does not make any sense to have 12 equal people leading the Church as then each can do as they please. I think from reading the Gospel accounts in Matthew that Jesus intended that Peter be the leader of His Church with the other Apostles as in unity with Peter. I am just playing devils advocate here.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Bingo! I posted on this very point yesterday in another thread. The dietary restrictions specified by James were ignored even by Paul in the years not long after the Council. Peter’s ruling at Jerusalem stands to this very day.

Peter was and is the head of the universal Church.

Nice work, Gabriel!

Thx Randy, I hope to offer a different perspective to Peter’s Chair fulfilled from the Hebrew Tradition which the Popes never left. Kudos’ to your immense work you have produced of these boards, with excellent sources, you should know your doing a great job:thumbsup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thx Randy, I hope to offer a different perspective to Peter’s Chair fulfilled from the Hebrew Tradition which the Popes never left. Kudos’ to your immense work you have produced of these boards, with excellent sources, you should know your doing a great job:thumbsup:

The truth is out there. Sometimes you just have to point it out.

:tiphat:

 

[GaryTaylor]

In the narrative of Matthew Jesus said the only sign this generation will see is the Sign of Jonah. His faith was blessed, Peter is named as Simon bar Jonah. Jonah was one of the great prophets of Israel and he had been called by God. Bar is Aramaic for “son”