Early Church Fathers & Papal Primacy

[Rohzek]

Bottomline,

Dual procession is correct, dual source is heretical.

Dual procession ≠ dual source
JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

The Orthodox attack a strawman.

I would think that it depends on what you mean by procession. The Filioque debate is much more complex than that. I’m not going to debate it here, since the issue as well as its history is so great that it deserves its own thread. I’m well aware there have been threads before, but it shouldn’t stop us from discussing it again. I’d be more than happy to discuss it via PM or in another thread should you so choose to start one.

The ROC dwarfs all the other Orthodox churches combined making them the majority of Orthodox. They believe in toll houses … A hugely complex notion of purification of the soul after death.

I never flat out rejected purgatory. I just simply stated that it shouldn’t be a necessary belief required among believers. I think you are mixing up the quotes here.

I’m not saying that Bp Kalistos Ware speaks for all Orthodox, but he is a well know and respected Orthodox author, who says clearly the IC is NOT your belief, However Bp Ware also states that if one is so inclined to believe in the IC he wouldn’t call it a heresy. That’s because

Quote: (all emphasis mine)

The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.

For reference and context (scroll down to “Mother of God”)
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P1B.HTM

That’s exactly what I said. Please, reread my post. I said it was a permissible opinion.

If that argument held any water which it doesn’t, then Constantinople would be the new capital city of the empire, because that’s where the emperor moved to, and the bishop of Constantinople would then be the new head of the Church.

And I could just as easily quip back that if the primacy argument held any water there would at least be 2-3 popes. Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria by extension trace their roots to Peter. Again, your simplifications of the debate really don’t do the discussion any service.

I’d like to also say that Rome was hardly abandoned politically with the transfer of the capitol. Much of the old senate and aristocracy remained there. It maintained political clout. So it isn’t surprising that Rome managed to hold its preeminence as first amongst equals.

We see where that went, a city who couldn’t keep it’s name or identity

Byzantium > Constantinople > Istanbul

Irrelevant.

Also, see this #30 Jesus Himself squashed the idea of 1st among equals in the upper room at the last supper.

Satan is the one who divides on this issue. Be careful my friend.

Peter was named specifically because his faith was more progressed. It does not imply papal supremacy.

 

[thinkandmull]

Yet, in keeping with Vatican I that would mean the period of the Eight ecumenical councils:

1. Nicea I
2. Constantinople I (local council, accepted at fifth)
3. Ephesus
4. Chalcedon
5. Constantinople II
6. Constantinople III
7. Nicea II
8. Constantinople IV (869)

From Vatican I - Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

46 From the speech of Philip, the Roman legate, at the 3rd session of the Council of Ephesus (D no. 112).
47 Leo I, Serm. (Sermons), 3 (elsewhere 2), ch. 3 (PL 54, 146).

From Vatican I - Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman PontiffSo the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

• The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

55 Mt 16, 18.
56 From Pope Hormisdas’s formula of the year 517 (D no. 171), see above p. 157 n. 1.

When Ratzinger said “Rome need not ask for more” I am sure he meant “in the present ecumenical situation”, not that Rome no longer required The East to accept post schism Councils

 

[thinkandmull]

“It is clear that… the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches… but stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider… this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the** ‘primacy of jurisdiction’**” “The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium.”

When he says that, it seems as if he is saying that the ecclesial content of the first thousand years after the Apostles was one in which primacy of jurisdiction was not believed. Maybe the last sentence there is to be interpreted to mean that the Patriarch was expressing an incomplete understanding of the Bishop of Rome but an understanding that was a great first step.

It sure helps to talk ideas out with others

 

[steve_b]

I would think that it depends on what you mean by procession.

I gave the pope’s explanation. The Orthodox pour a meaning into procession that we don’t mean. Ergo they attack a strawman
R:

I never flat out rejected purgatory. I just simply stated that it shouldn’t be a necessary belief required among believers. I think you are mixing up the quotes here.

That’s exactly what I said. Please, reread my post. I said it was a permissible opinion.

I responded to your post #19

I didn’t see such accomodations on your part in that post
R:

And I could just as easily quip back that if the primacy argument held any water there would at least be 2-3 popes. Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria by extension trace their roots to Peter. Again, your simplifications of the debate really don’t do the discussion any service.

One only has to look at the ancient ranking of sees to see what’s really going on

Before Constantinople (BC)

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   After Constantinople (AC)
   1. 
      *]Rome
      *]Constantinople
      *]Alexandria
      *]Antioch
      *]Jerusalem
      
      Constantinople was NEVER a see of Peter. So how do they presume 2nd place in ranking of sees?
      
      Note that Rome is always 1st. #123
      R:
      

      Peter was named specifically because his faith was more progressed. It does not imply papal supremacy.

      For the sake of argument, the apostles made a similar confession earlier
      Re: [Mt 14:33 ]
      32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” …
      
      Did Jesus stop what everybody was doing and say to the apostles, hey guys “your confession was a revelation from the Father” and so I’m going to change everybody’s name to Peter Rock), and give you the keys to the kingdom,? Nope! This would be the place to do it if it was based on one’s confession though, would you agree? But it didn’t happen that way. Nothing was said to them by Jesus for their response there. Jesus spoke to Peter personally in Mt 16:18… Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock, because that is who the Father chose to be the leader of the Church.
      
      As an aside, there is no such notion as first among equals in Jesus mind for Peter. Peter was the greatest of the apostles and Jesus confiormed it #30

 

[Vico]

When Ratzinger said “Rome need not ask for more” I am sure he meant “in the present ecumenical situation”, not that Rome no longer required The East to accept post schism Councils

The 3rd session of the Council of Ephesus and the fourth Council of Constantinople, given in the previous post, are pre-schism.

 

[Rohzek]

I gave the pope’s explanation. The Orthodox pour a meaning into procession that we don’t mean. Ergo they attack a strawman

Again, a matter for another thread.

I responded to your post #19

I didn’t see such accomodations on your part in that post

I’ll bold them. I specified that having them as required dogma was the problem, not the beliefs in and of themselves:

The only issues I see as serious on that list are 1, 6 (in that it is held as dogma rather than opinion), 7 (in that it is held as dogma rather than opinion), and 8.

One only has to look at the ancient ranking of sees to see what’s really going on

Before Constantinople (BC)

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   After Constantinople (AC)
   1. 
      *]Rome
      *]Constantinople
      *]Alexandria
      *]Antioch
      *]Jerusalem
      
      Constantinople was NEVER a see of Peter. So how do they presume 2nd place in ranking of sees?

1. 1. 
      You’ve messed up your history. Jerusalem did not hold patriarchal status until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. Constantinople achieved its patriarchal status in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople. Constantinople never surpassed Rome because Rome still had a large portion of the old senate and still maintained political clout. Not mention that its see had been around much longer. Furthermore, both Peter and Paul died there.
      
      The sole reason Constantinople got 2nd place was due to political and commercial importance, the major reason why any of the sees obtained patriarchal status. The lack of political and commercial importance of Jerusalem was the reason why it wasn’t a patriarchal throne until as late as 451.
      

      For the sake of argument, the apostles made a similar confession earlier
      Re: [Mt 14:33 ]
      32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” …

      That speaks nothing of their advancement of their faith. Being first does not imply their faith was more advanced by the time of the Luke verse.
      

      Did Jesus stop what everybody was doing and say to the apostles, hey guys “your confession was a revelation from the Father” and so I’m going to change everybody’s name to Peter Rock), and give you the keys to the kingdom,? Nope! This would be the place to do it if it was based on one’s confession though, would you agree? But it didn’t happen that way. Nothing was said to them by Jesus for their response there. Jesus spoke to Peter personally in Mt 16:18… Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock, because that is who the Father chose to be the leader of the Church.

      Anyone with basic Latin or Greek grammar should know better than to rest their papal primacy case on Matthew 16:18.
      
      Let’s look at the Latin Vulgate:
      
      et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam
      
      And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
      
      Okay, now in Latin grammar as well as Greek any demonstrative pronoun must refer to its noun in the same case, gender, and number. I have color coded the words respective to their grammatical function:
      
      red= noun
      blue= accusative/direct object
      pink= demonstrative pronoun
      
      Now the word for “rock,” if it refers to Peter, it MUST be in the masculine form because Peter (Petrus) is masculine. However, the word “petram” can either be masculine or feminine. It’s ambiguous. Yet, the demonstrative pronoun (“this”) that refers to the “rock”/“petram” is unequivocally feminine. Therefore, “petram” is intended to be feminine. If “petram” truly referred to Peter himself, then “petram” would have been masculine just as Peter is masculine. But because it is feminine, it is clearly referring to Peter’s faith. If “petram” refers to the person of Peter, it would have been “hunc petram” instead of “hanc petram.”

 

[Vico]

…
Now the word for “rock,” if it refers to Peter, it MUST be in the masculine form because Peter (Petrus) is masculine. However, the word “petram” can either be masculine or feminine. It’s ambiguous. Yet, the demonstrative pronoun (“this”) that refers to the “rock”/“petram” is unequivocally feminine. Therefore, “petram” is intended to be feminine. If “petram” truly referred to Peter himself, then “petram” would have been masculine just as Peter is masculine. But because it is feminine, it is clearly referring to Peter’s faith. If “petram” refers to the person of Peter, it would have been “hunc petram” instead of “hanc petram.”

The Haydock Commentary is extensive on this verse.Ver. 18. Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus)

— In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence)

— Thou art Peter;[2] and upon this (i.e. upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (i.e. upon myself or upon this rock, which Peter hath confessed: yet he owns that he had also given the other interpretation, by which Peter himself was the rock. Some Fathers have also expounded it, upon the faith, which Peter confessed; but then they take not faith, as separated from the person of Peter, but on Peter, as holding the true faith. No one questions but that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians; (Chap. ii, ver. 20.) but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented Apocalypse xxi. 14. In the mean time, St. Peter (called therefore Cephas, a rock) was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church. (Witham)

— Thou art Peter, &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John i. 42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

— Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew vii. 24, 25.)

— The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner)

— The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence)

 

[Rohzek]

The Haydock Commentary is extensive on this verse.

Ver. 18. Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus)

— In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence)
​

The argument is not very convincing. The grammar rules of Aramaic may have been more lax so it was less apparent in the regular speech of Jesus. However, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. The rules of Greek, like Latin, are much more strict. So when Matthew wrote the gospel, if “rock” was supposed to refer to Peter then it (“rock”) should have been masculine. But instead it (“rock”) was feminine. Jerome carried this over clearly into his Latin translation using the word “hanc” instead of “hunc.” The meaning is abundantly clear.

Your argument would be incredibly more persuasive if the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, but it was not.​

 

[Vico]

The argument is not very convincing. The grammar rules of Aramaic may have been more lax so it was less apparent in the regular speech of Jesus. However, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. The rules of Greek, like Latin, are much more strict. So when Matthew wrote the gospel, if “rock” was supposed to refer to Peter then it (“rock”) should have been masculine. But instead it (“rock”) was feminine. Jerome carried this over clearly into his Latin translation using the word “hanc” instead of “hunc.” The meaning is abundantly clear.

Your argument would be incredibly more persuasive if the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, but it was not.

It does not have to be precise, because writing may have some flexibility to provide for similies. The gloss on the NABRE has:

• 16:18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kēpā’ meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as CĒphas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7–8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in Jn 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kēpā’) and upon this rock (kēpā’) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, “rock.”

 

[Rohzek]

It does not have to be precise, because writing may have some flexibility to provide for similies. The gloss on the NABRE has:

• 16:18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kēpā’ meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as CĒphas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7–8 (“Peter”). It is translated as Petros (“Peter”) in Jn 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus’ statement would have been, in English, “You are the Rock (Kēpā’) and upon this rock (kēpā’) I will build my church.” The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple’s new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, “rock.”

That’s a pretty big maybe. Additionally, Matthew 18:18 refers to the same powers being conferred upon the rest of the apostles. Therefore, I find it more convincing of my theory in that he is referring to the faith of Peter.

 

[Vico]

That’s a pretty big maybe. Additionally, Matthew 18:18 refers to the same powers being conferred upon the rest of the apostles. Therefore, I find it more convincing of my theory in that he is referring to the faith of Peter.

Mush less of a* maybe *than the converse, however.

 

[steve_b]

You’ve messed up your history. Jerusalem did not hold patriarchal status until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. Constantinople achieved its patriarchal status in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople. Constantinople never surpassed Rome because Rome still had a large portion of the old senate and still maintained political clout. Not mention that its see had been around much longer. Furthermore, both Peter and Paul died there.

Peter was also bishop of Rome.

When I wrote

Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
One only has to look at the ancient ranking of sees to see what’s really going on

*Before Constantinople (BC)

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem

1. 
   After Constantinople (AC)
   1. 
      

      • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem

      Constantinople was NEVER a see of Peter. So how do they presume 2nd place in ranking of sees?*
      
      To answer your point, I did not talk about “patriarchal” status of a see. I’m talking about “apostolic sees”.
      
      BTW, no Roman Pontiff ever accepted the “patriarchal system” OR 1st among equal status for the pope. The Patriarchal system and 1st among equals, was invented by the East in the 4-5th century to equalize authority away from the pope in Rome and distribute it between 5 sees.
      R:
      

      The sole reason Constantinople got 2nd place was due to political and commercial importance, the major reason why any of the sees obtained patriarchal status. The lack of political and commercial importance of Jerusalem was the reason why it wasn’t a patriarchal throne until as late as 451.

      Well there ya have it. The Orthodox are all about secular politics and not about ecclesiology and theology passed on by Jesus.
      R:
      

      That speaks nothing of their advancement of their faith. Being first does not imply their faith was more advanced by the time of the Luke verse.

      When I said the following
      

      :
      Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
      For the sake of argument, the apostles made a similar confession earlier
      Re: [Mt 14:33 ]
      32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” …

      This has NOTHING to do with maturity of faith of thwe apostles. Do you honestly think Jesus didn’t know from the beginning, who He would make the leader of His Church?
      R:
      

      Anyone with basic Latin or Greek grammar should know better than to rest their papal primacy case on Matthew 16:18.

      Jesus settled the issue over primacy and who has it, when He ended the argument the apostles were having over this very issue at the last supper. Case closed my friend. It’s Peter. It’s soooo simple and clear. #[30 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12641120&postcount=30)
      R:
      

      Let’s look at the Latin Vulgate:
      
      et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam
      
      And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
      
      Okay, now in Latin grammar as well as Greek any demonstrative pronoun must refer to its noun in the same case, gender, and number. I have color coded the words respective to their grammatical function:
      
      red= noun
      blue= accusative/direct object
      pink= demonstrative pronoun
      
      [snip for space]

      I defer you to Vico’s response(s).
      
      I would just add
      
      When Jesus was speaking in the singular tense, to Peter directly
      • Who gets the keys to the kingdom, Petros or Petra?
      • Who gets the power to bind and loose, Petros or Petra?
      • Who did God pick from the beginning even before his profession? Petros or Petra
      Peter ALONE is the object of this dialogue with Jesus. If someone wants to say that Petra is Peter’s faith, or the statement he made, good. Peter and his faith are a package deal. They are one. This is who Jesus builds His Church on. Not a what but a who. It’s not either/or but both. Peter and his faith received the keys to the kingdom, and the power to bind and loose in that kingdom.
      
      also
      
      Keys to the kingdom are different than binding and loosing. Keys of the kingdom are given to one person, the chief steward under the king. Peter not only received the keys, but to bind and loose. The others received the power to bind and loose, but only Peter received the keys. With those keys he can bind and loose universally, but also bind what the others loose and loose what they bind,

 

[steve_b]

Matthew 18:18 refers to the same powers being conferred upon the rest of the apostles. Therefore, I find it more convincing of my theory in that he is referring to the faith of Peter.

What are the conditions? take it to** the Church** & when 2 or 3 agree.

Any mention of the keys? No

2 chapters earlier, who is associated with who the Church is built on? Peter

And no such restriction was put on Peter 2 chapters earlier.

 

[phil19034]

From this it makes the Pope not the first, not the last, but altogether out.

My opinion is that union will take place, but little by little by each church depending on the Patriarch. It will be slow, but will happen. There are some Patriarchs who are favorable towards union.

The Episcopal Ordinariate could be a model of this, where the whole parish or bishopric joins the Catholic church as one whole community.

I’m wondering too if some of this discord isn’t from the cold war the west had with Russia. Lots of left over national feelings from that.

If I’m not mistaken, that’s how the Eastern Catholics (Byzantine Rite) came into communion with Rome. In a way, the Anglican Ordinariate is really based on the Eastern Catholics.

 

[crai7]

Hi everyone me and my twin brother–sympathetic and interested by the Catholic claim–have recently been studying the proof of Papal primacy from the early Church Fathers.

We have also recently discovered the Eastern Orthodox claim that it was merely a primacy of honour, not authority. Furthermore we have recently read a website which claims that Catholics fail to quote the whole sentence when they use early Church Father quotes as proof of Papal primacy…it then proceeds to give examples to prove Papal primacy was not universally agreed. My twin found this quite convincing.

If interested, here it is:
patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-church-fathers-interpretation-of-the-rock-of-matthew-1618-an-historical-refutation-of-the-claims-of-roman-catholicism-by-william-webster/

Can anyone answer these or simply provide any resources to help us on our way in overcoming this issue?

Thank you for your time.

I suggest you Google “Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals” - forged documents from the 9th century used to ‘generate’ a non-existant papal history.

Here is a useful link in relation to this: christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

 

[steve_b]

I suggest you Google “Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals” - forged documents from the 9th century used to ‘generate’ a non-existant papal history.

Here is a useful link in relation to this: christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

11 yeas ago I posted this in response to an anti Catholic article presented on that subject. #211

Willian Webster who you link to, is a well know anti Catholic polemicist.

Here is a useful link on the following subject False Decretals

 

[fred_conty]

If I’m not mistaken, that’s how the Eastern Catholics (Byzantine Rite) came into communion with Rome. In a way, the Anglican Ordinariate is really based on the Eastern Catholics.

That is interesting.

 

[Rohzek]

Peter was also bishop of Rome.

It depends on how you define a bishop. Orthodox differentiate between bishops and the apostles. Peter also established Antioch and by extension Alexandria. I really don’t see how you can pick out Rome alone as special considering this.

When I wrote

To answer your point, I did not talk about “patriarchal” status of a see. I’m talking about “apostolic sees”.

BTW, no Roman Pontiff ever accepted the “patriarchal system” OR 1st among equal status for the pope. The Patriarchal system and 1st among equals, was invented by the East in the 4-5th century to equalize authority away from the pope in Rome and distribute it between 5 sees.

That is highly debatable, but the point is not something I am interested in discussing in this thread unless you wish to limit it to one specific case if only because the history is long and complex. I’d also like to forewarn that any evidence cited before the 5th century is so vague or open to interpretation, that it would not behoove us to debate it on its own terms. So I suggest whatever you might pick, let it be from the 5th century or afterwards.

Well there ya have it. The Orthodox are all about secular politics and not about ecclesiology and theology passed on by Jesus.

Did Jesus ever speak of Antioch or Alexandria specifically? Not that I am aware of. If ranking is defined solely by the prestige or authority of the individual who established the see, then undoubtedly Antioch should have always been higher than Alexandria. But that was never the case because Alexandria was far richer commercially and politically more important in the Mediterranean world.

When I said the following

This has NOTHING to do with maturity of faith of thwe apostles. Do you honestly think Jesus didn’t know from the beginning, who He would make the leader of His Church?

Yeah, he did know. It was himself and the faith is built upon Christ.

Jesus settled the issue over primacy and who has it, when He ended the argument the apostles were having over this very issue at the last supper. Case closed my friend. It’s Peter. It’s soooo simple and clear. #[30 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12641120&postcount=30)

The Luke example I don’t think is a very strong one for your case. Let’s first begin with the context. For the dispute among who was the greatest, Jesus compared their frivolous dispute to that of Gentiles, whom they abhorred. The whole point of the passage was to stress that greatness comes from meekness, which is in keeping with the message of the Beatitudes.

As for the Luke 22:31-34, again, I only see it as Jesus predicting Peter’s denial of Christ. He predicts the coming trials of their faith and that Peter will be especially weak. But when Peter recovers, he should be there for his fellow man. Nothing of this really conveys Peter as holding primacy as you understand it.

I defer you to Vico’s response(s).

I think we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree. The maybe’s and possibilities of defying basic grammar rules just seems too much of a stretch for me.

I would just add

When Jesus was speaking in the singular tense, to Peter directly

• Who gets the keys to the kingdom, Petros or Petra?
• Who gets the power to bind and loose, Petros or Petra?
• Who did God pick from the beginning even before his profession? Petros or Petra

Peter ALONE is the object of this dialogue with Jesus. If someone wants to say that Petra is Peter’s faith, or the statement he made, good. Peter and his faith are a package deal. They are one. This is who Jesus builds His Church on. Not a what but a who. It’s not either/or but both. Peter and his faith received the keys to the kingdom, and the power to bind and loose in that kingdom.

Peter received the keys, of course. But those powers were the result of God rewarding Peter’s faith. It was his faith that enabled him to do so.

Keys to the kingdom are different than binding and loosing. Keys of the kingdom are given to one person, the chief steward under the king. Peter not only received the keys, but to bind and loose. The others received the power to bind and loose, but only Peter received the keys. With those keys he can bind and loose universally, but also bind what the others loose and loose what they bind,

This is not a tenable argument. The keys are not separate from the powers of binding and loosing. First, let’s understand something, the “Gates of Hades” spoken of in the verse relates to Old Testament language. “Gates” suggests a fortified city that is locked up. This connotation is found in Genesis 22:17, 24:60 and Isaiah 14:31. By giving Peter the keys, he therefore possesses the power to effectively bind or loose people from the jaws of Hell. The keys are inextricably linked to those powers. I can also provide commentary from some Church Fathers who understood the keys and the powers as the same too, if you are interested.

 

[Rohzek]

11 yeas ago I posted this in response to an anti Catholic article presented on that subject. #211

Willian Webster who you link to, is a well know anti Catholic polemicist.

Here is a useful link on the following subject False Decretals

While his linked article leaves much to be desired, the link you provide is not much better. The Catholic Encyclopedia article is from 1914. A lot of its claims are now long debunked. The idea that the Roman Church under Nicholas was subject to the empire is no longer accepted. In fact, Nicholas actually led the vibrant and powerful Republic of St. Peter.

Many Latin bishops actually objected to Nicholas’ claims of power, Hincmar of Rheims being the most prominent case. They argued that they had never heard of such claims before. And Nicholas continued to use the documents a significant number of times. While the documents cited were based upon previous precedents in the Latin West, the objections of Hincmar and others suggests that Nicholas was going further in his authority than was traditionally accepted, which lends credence that there were novelties in the documents.

 

[steve_b]

It depends on how you define a bishop. Orthodox differentiate between bishops and the apostles.

Judas was a bishop.

Acts 1:21
“ For it is written in the Book of Psalms: Let his dwelling become desolate; let no one live in it; and Let someone else take his position ἐπισκοπὴν (episkopé) where we get the name “bishop”. They are speaking of Judas here

Jerome who translated and assembled the Vulgate, the 1st bible, wrote

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” ( CHURCH FATHERS: De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) paragraph1
R:

Peter also established Antioch and by extension Alexandria. I really don’t see how you can pick out Rome alone as special considering this.

Rome is Peter’s final see.

There is no indication Antioch or Alexandria claimed pre eminence, or that they were considered “THE” see of Peter by the Church. Not so with Rome.
R:

I suggest whatever you might pick, let it be from the 5th century or afterwards.

Okay, from then Card Ratzinger who became pope Benedict XVI

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
R:

Did Jesus ever speak of Antioch or Alexandria specifically? Not that I am aware of.

It’s about where Peter IS, not where he was.
R:

The Luke example I don’t think is a very strong one for your case. Let’s first begin with the context. For the dispute among who was the greatest, Jesus compared their frivolous dispute to that of Gentiles, whom they abhorred. The whole point of the passage was to stress that greatness comes from meekness, which is in keeping with the message of the Beatitudes.

As for the Luke 22:31-34, again, I only see it as Jesus predicting Peter’s denial of Christ. He predicts the coming trials of their faith and that Peter will be especially weak. But when Peter recovers, he should be there for his fellow man. Nothing of this really conveys Peter as holding primacy as you understand it.

You really didn’t read the link I posted.
R:

I think we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree. The maybe’s and possibilities of defying basic grammar rules just seems too much of a stretch for me.

Vico is answering you very well
R:

Peter received the keys, of course. But those powers were the result of God rewarding Peter’s faith. It was his faith that enabled him to do so.

He was selected because that’s what the Father wanted.
R:

This is not a tenable argument. The keys are not separate from the powers of binding and loosing. First, let’s understand something, the “Gates of Hades” spoken of in the verse relates to Old Testament language. “Gates” suggests a fortified city that is locked up. This connotation is found in Genesis 22:17, 24:60 and Isaiah 14:31. By giving Peter the keys, he therefore possesses the power to effectively bind or loose people from the jaws of Hell. The keys are inextricably linked to those powers. .

And the keys went to Peter.