Early Church Fathers & Papal Primacy

[Rohzek]

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[πισκοπ (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)](http://bibleapps.com/greek/1984.htm) paragraph1

Thank you for this. I’ll concede that apostles were the first bishops. I’m not sure where I picked up the idea of the apostles not being the first bishops, so thank you for this.

Evidence, however, suggests that Peter was not the first bishop or only bishop there. The see was originally founded by both Peter and Paul.

From Eusebius’s Church History

"The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.

So? If Peter appoints successors to oversee his ministries, then logically they have his powers and authority regardless of whether they were first or last.

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.

And that’s my point. Those sees never claimed it, because it was a novelty.

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 ChurchesIn 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."

No Byzantine historian doubts the existence of the Pentarchy before the 12th Century. It is accepted to have been long before then. A good article discussing it can be found here:

Herrin, Judith. “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality in the Ninth Century.” In Cristianità d’Occidente e cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI) : 24-30 aprile 2003, 591-628. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004.

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

Peter is long dead. He was at many places and established many successors. Ending one’s life in Rome doesn’t have a magical incantation thereby making that successor more powerful than his successors elsewhere in the Mediterranean world.

You really didn’t read the link I posted.

Yes, I did. You linked me to a post where you expounded upon Luke. I read it, and responded specifically to it. If I have somehow missed something, then please point to me exactly what you want me to see.

Vico is answering you very well

His answer rests on the following supposition:

may

be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male

There is no surety in the matter for either side of the argument it seems.

 

[Rohzek]

I usually try to take the time to do my own translations, but I am in a hurry now. So I hope that you can forgive me.

And the keys went to Peter.

And since those keys are the same as the powers, the other apostles also received them in Matthew 18:18. The Church Fathers understood these keys to be the same as those powers. I can provide excerpts of their works if you are interested.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you for this. I’ll concede that apostles were the first bishops. I’m not sure where I picked up the idea of the apostles not being the first bishops, so thank you for this.

You’re welcome, it’s my pleasure
R:

Evidence, however, suggests that Peter was not the first bishop or only bishop there. The see was originally founded by both Peter and Paul.

Keep in mind, in Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome, Paul, is writing to a Church he hasn’t been to YET. He ultimately goes to Rome thereby joining Peter, and they build the Church of Rome together.

Peter focusing on the Jews, Paul focused on the Gentiles.
R:

From Eusebius’s Church History

From Irenaeus of Lyons:

Yes. And I use those quotes copiously myself
R:

If Peter appoints successors to oversee his ministries, then logically they have his powers and authority regardless of whether they were first or last.

Popes ordain bishops all the time during their pontificate. Does that make every bishop they ordain a pope and their successor? Obviously NO
R:

And that’s my point. Those sees never claimed it, because it was a novelty.

Except for the see of Rome
R:

No Byzantine historian doubts the existence of the Pentarchy before -]the 12th Century/-].
It is accepted to have been long before then. A good article discussing it can be found here:

Herrin, Judith. “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality -]in the Ninth Century/-].” In Cristianità d’Occidente e cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI) : 24-30 aprile 2003, 591-628. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004

before -]the 12th Century/-] , -]in the Ninth Century/-].

What about before the 5th century, the bar you set…remember? There was no pentarchy BEFORE THE 5TH CENTURY.
R:

.
Peter is long dead. He was at many places and established many successors. Ending one’s life in Rome doesn’t have a magical incantation thereby making that successor more powerful than his successors elsewhere in the Mediterranean world.

All you’re doing is proving Jesus point. Those who argue over the system of authority Jesus put in place, shows they are being succesfully sifted by Satan away from Our Lord’s design. Face it, Satan divides. That’s what he does. And he does a real good job of it. But know this, all those who divided from the design Jesus established, will have to answer to HIM for that.

So your argument isn’t with me.
R:

You linked me to a post where you expounded upon Luke. I read it, and responded specifically to it. If I have somehow missed something, then please point to me exactly what you want me to see.

If my simple example wasn’t clear enough how about if I say it in a few different ways dissecting the words in Lukes passages as well as other scriptures.

#616 , #660 , #483 , #84 , #86 , #385
R:

There is no surety in the matter for either side of the argument it seems.

Wanna bet?

 

[steve_b]

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.

False Decretals Site last updated Aug 12, 2013 Pope Nicholas I, is mentioned 17 times in that article.
R:

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.

I read a different story line.

Bp Hincmar apparantly had a lousy disposition. He was the one trying to use the false dectetals to build his case for his actions.

taken from Hincmar (Bishop of Laon)

"A much discussed question and one that is important in judging the position taken by this pope is, whether he made use of the forged pseudo-Isidorian papal decretals. After exhaustive investigation, Schrors has decided that the pope was neither acquainted with the pseudo-Isidorian collection in its entire extent, nor did he make use of its individual parts; that he had perhaps a general knowledge of the false decretals, but did not base his view of the law upon them, and that he owed his knowledge of them solely to documents which came to him from the Frankish Empire [Schrors, “Papst Nikolaus I. and Pseudo-Isidor” in “Historisches Jahrbuch”, XXV (1904), 1 sqq.; Idem, “Die pseudoisidorische ‘Exceptio spolii’ bei Papst Nikolaus I” in “Historisches Jahrbuch”, XXVI (1905), 275 sqq.].

Taken from pope Nicholas I, Saint

 

[Rohzek]

Popes ordain bishops all the time during their pontificate. Does that make every bishop they ordain a pope and their successor? Obviously NO

Of course not. And that’s my point. Just because Peter appointed a bishop in Rome, it does not mean that they were the sole successor. If they were, then you’d have to have some sort of criteria that distinguishes the Peter’s appointed successor in Rome from the other successors in Antioch and elsewhere. Otherwise, papal claims are not exclusive to the Roman throne.

before -]the 12th Century/-] , -]in the Ninth Century/-].

What about before the 5th century, the bar you set…remember? There was no pentarchy BEFORE THE 5TH CENTURY.

Although the article itself focuses mostly on the 9th century, it does speak of a Pentarchic system in the time of Constantine. It references a source for it, but that source I do not have. Additionally, it is in Italian.

If you’d like, I’d be more than happy to share my copy of Herrin’s article with you via PM.

All you’re doing is proving Jesus point. Those who argue over the system of authority Jesus put in place, shows they are being succesfully sifted by Satan away from Our Lord’s design. Face it, Satan divides. That’s what he does. And he does a real good job of it. But know this, all those who divided from the design Jesus established, will have to answer to HIM for that.

My argument isn’t that I disagree with Jesus. My argument is that you’re misinterpreting what Jesus meant, so I don’t see how any of this adds to your case unless you expect me to already be convinced.

If my simple example wasn’t clear enough how about if I say it in a few different ways dissecting the words in Lukes passages as well as other scriptures.

I don’t think it was due to any lack of clarity. Most of what you linked me to was the exact same. I stand by my understanding of Luke. As for what you mentioned about your understanding of who led at the Council of Jerusalem, I really don’t agree that Peter oversaw it and James simply enacted it. They both were equal leaders the way I see it. Again, this is why evidence before the 5th century is just hopelessly vague.

False Decretals Site last updated Aug 12, 2013 Pope Nicholas I, is mentioned 17 times in that article.

Yes, that web page was last updated last on August 12, 2013. However, the article itself is just a copy and pasted article from over a hundred years ago: newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm That’s my point. Historians now know more. The pseudo-Isidorian decretals were instrumental in the increase of papal power long after their creation. I can provide a second article via pm too on this issue if you’d like.

Bp Hincmar apparantly had a lousy disposition. He was the one trying to use the false dectetals to build his case for his actions.

Many people used parts of them. What’s your point?

"A much discussed question and one that is important in judging the position taken by this pope is, whether he made use of the forged pseudo-Isidorian papal decretals. After exhaustive investigation, Schrors has decided that the pope was neither acquainted with the pseudo-Isidorian collection in its entire extent, nor did he make use of its individual parts; that he had perhaps a general knowledge of the false decretals, but did not base his view of the law upon them, and that he owed his knowledge of them solely to documents which came to him from the Frankish Empire [Schrors, “Papst Nikolaus I. and Pseudo-Isidor” in “Historisches Jahrbuch”, XXV (1904), 1 sqq.; Idem, “Die pseudoisidorische ‘Exceptio spolii’ bei Papst Nikolaus I” in “Historisches Jahrbuch”, XXVI (1905), 275 sqq.]

Again, this is from 1904. No one today disputes that Nicholas used the pseudo-Isidorian collection to his advantage. I’d be more than happy to provide the more recent sources for you if you are interested.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Consider this, when one is convicted by the Holy Spirit be it Peter, Paul or you and I. You are convicted and both person and faith.

Also you seem to change thinking the following page and propose that its Christs faith. Also problematic.

Also as the Rock-Greek-Aramaic John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

Peace, its also a working theory a Hebrew-Aramaic Matthew existed prior to the greek though this wouldn’t alter that Christ being Jewish probably spoke to Peter in both of their native tongues. Anyway just passing thoughts. Anyway I see no way around Peter convicted by the HS and both person and faith,

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.”

Lets think about this deeper as I suggested above and consider this.

Matthew 7:24: “built his house upon a rock:”
Matthew 7:25: “for it was founded upon a rock.”
Matthew 16:18: “Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;”
Matthew 27:51: “did quake, and the rocks rent;”
Matthew 27:60: “he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone”
Mark 15:46: “which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone”
Luke 6:48: “laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the”
Luke 6:48: “for it was founded upon a rock.”
Luke 8:6: “some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked”
Luke 8:13: “They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive”
Romans 9:33: “Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense: and whosoever”
1 Corinthians 10:4: “they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was”
1 Corinthians 10:4: “Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
1 Corinthians 10:4: “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the”
Revelation 6:15: “and in the rocks of the mountains;”
Revelation 6:16: “to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and”
1 Peter 2:8 and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to those who stumble at the word, not obeying in that for which they were ordained.
Matthew 21:44 Whoever falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whoever it falls, it will grind him to powder!"

So the point being as you suggest would apply to Christ also. Its better to understand all of this from Aramaic thus a rock is a rock without qualification as is a stone. If you add qualification then Christ is admitted along with a host of other translation modifications. Imho.

Peace

 

[Sirach2]

I believe at issue here is that an orthodox believer is not really questioning the belief of Catholics for greater understanding, but rather attempting to impose his beliefs as though Catholics have not rightly understood Jesus. Jesus privately instructed His disciples during His 40-days after His resurrection, in addition to His teachings during his ministry. We call this Sacred Tradition which was handed down. One cannot fully discern these truths by scripture alone, and this causes wars of private interpretation which have no other basis than the Word. Today’s first reading attested to this, very timely to our topic.
“Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes.”
But since scripture is the only recourse available to some, we will try to meet the need with what they know, after first showing that the underlying principle is clearly evident for Primacy. I refer those following along to post #5 where the concept in the Old Covenant designed by God was prelude and foreshadowing to His ultimate will in the New Covenant. As a perpetual reminder to those who opposed His will in wishing to become equals with Aaron, although not called to that rank by God, Aaron’s staff was to be placed before the Ark perpetually – only Aaron and his successors were to Shepherd God’s people.

As we know, all kingdoms have a King, as God initiated with Saul, followed by David, and his successor, Solomon. In our time, we have a President who has powers of veto, and England has monarchs. There is no such thing as equally shared leadership.
Is. 28:16 “Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.’” I’m confident that we all know Who that Cornerstone is in the N.T. Did anyone catch the analogy? Cornerstone / rock?
Isn’t it compelling that Jesus, knowing His time is short, would then designate a new cornerstone/rock to be the foundation of His Church?

John 1:40-42 "Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah.’ (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

Wrapped up in Peter’s very name is his God-given mission, Rock (foundation). Any time in scripture that a name was changed by God, the new name signified the new relationship and identity. The formal identification of his full name (Simon Son of John) was again used by Jesus when He summoned the affirmation of Peter’s love. The significance of “Feed my lambs” ( the entire flock) and finally, “Feed my sheep” (bishops and others who will assist in governing the flock). Jn. 21:15-17

This scripture further strengthens the fact of Peter’s primacy:
Lk 22:32 “And I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail, and when you are restored, confirm your brothers.” What need would there be to signify that he was to do this, if in fact, he was not chief among them? Verse 15 indicates Jesus said this in the presence of the others. 15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" We can clearly see that Jesus singled Peter out from among the rest, with the charge of shepherding the flock.

 

[Rohzek]

It will take me some time to respond to your posts above. In the meantime, I would like to object to the idea that I am attempting to impose my beliefs upon anyone here. I am not trying to do such a thing. My entry into this thread began when steve_b stated that even Orthodox don’t follow their own understanding of Petrine primacy to which they profess, which somewhat insinuated that we don’t put our money where our mouth is. I explained as to why in order to avoid such a misunderstanding of our position. Since then, I’ve only disputed some evidence that steve and some others have presented, to which I find either unconvincing or wrong, all for reasons to which I have explained in detail. Again, I am not trying to convert or impose upon others.

 

[pablope]

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.

The letter of St. Optatus to the Donatist Schism:

calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

St. Optatus’s Against the Donatists is composed of seven books (see the table of contents). After laying out the history of the schism in Book One, he turns in Book Two to the question: “Which is the One True Catholic Church and Where is it to be Found?” In what may be the most important and revealing statement in the whole of his work, he writes:

For it was not Caecilian who went forth from Majorinus, your father’s father,12 but it was Majorinus who deserted Caecilian; nor was it Caecilian who separated himself from the Chair of Peter, or from the Chair of Cyprian — but Majorinus, on whose Chair you sit — a Chair which had no existence before Majorinus himself.13

Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:

*You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], 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 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25
*

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3485

Chrysostom’s comments directly engage a modern argument Eastern Orthodox and other apologists use in denying Petrine primacy. They insist that under varying circumstances any of the apostles could preside over the brethren, as James did at the Council of Jerusalem. Therefore, they conclude, what was said to Peter in John 21 was intended for all the apostles.
Here is how Chrysostom unconsciously anticipates and refutes that argument. Because Peter was given the rule [prostasia] over the brethren, some might wonder why he did not automatically become head of the church in Jerusalem. Says Chrysostom: "If anyone should say, ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that he [Christ] made Peter the teacher not of that See, but of the world."14 In other words, says Chrysostom, after Peter’s fall (his denial of Christ), Christ "brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship [epistasia] of the universal Church."15

But Eastern opponents of Petrine primacy still have Galatians 2:11-14 as a cudgel. Here was the situation. In Antioch Peter had been freely associating with Gentile Christians. On the scene came some hard-nosed Judaizers, part of James’s crowd. Even though the Church was officially open to Gentiles, those Judaizers would have criticized Peter had they seen him in fellowship with the Gentile Christians. To avoid the Judaizers’ criticism, Peter began avoiding public contact with the Gentile Christians. (Meyendorff argues that James had "priority over Peter who is even forced to ‘fear’ his [James’s] representatives.“28) Paul rebuked Peter, and rightly so.
This rebuke, says the anonymous author of Myth, shows that Peter could not have been Paul’s superior in any respect.29 Guettee says Paul “believed so little in any authority of Peter, that he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” In his reprimanding Peter, Paul affirms that he is [Peter’s] equal.”
Note first that the rebuke in itself does not deny Petrine authority. Catherine of Siena could rebuke the pope for his human failures without any thought of equating her ecclesial status with his. Moreover, we must ask what Paul actually did. He rebuked Peter for not adhering to the policy which God had established through Peter (Acts 10 again): The vehemence of Paul’s criticism underlines, rather than denies, Peter’s primacy: "You, of all people – you, the Rock!"30

 

[pablope]

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.

From St. Jerome:

defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html

A historical look at the issue:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

 

[steve_b]

Of course not. And that’s my point. Just because Peter appointed a bishop in Rome, it does not mean that they were the sole successor. If they were, then you’d have to have some sort of criteria that distinguishes the Peter’s appointed successor in Rome from the other successors in Antioch and elsewhere. Otherwise, papal claims are not exclusive to the Roman throne.

Although the article itself focuses mostly on the 9th century, it does speak of a Pentarchic system in the time of Constantine. It references a source for it, but that source I do not have. Additionally, it is in Italian.

If you’d like, I’d be more than happy to share my copy of Herrin’s article with you via PM.

My argument isn’t that I disagree with Jesus. My argument is that you’re misinterpreting what Jesus meant, so I don’t see how any of this adds to your case unless you expect me to already be convinced.

I don’t think it was due to any lack of clarity. Most of what you linked me to was the exact same. I stand by my understanding of Luke. As for what you mentioned about your understanding of who led at the Council of Jerusalem, I really don’t agree that Peter oversaw it and James simply enacted it. They both were equal leaders the way I see it. Again, this is why evidence before the 5th century is just hopelessly vague.

Yes, that web page was last updated last on August 12, 2013. However, the article itself is just a copy and pasted article from over a hundred years ago: newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm That’s my point. Historians now know more. The pseudo-Isidorian decretals were instrumental in the increase of papal power long after their creation. I can provide a second article via pm too on this issue if you’d like.

Many people used parts of them. What’s your point?

Again, this is from 1904. No one today disputes that Nicholas used the pseudo-Isidorian collection to his advantage. I’d be more than happy to provide the more recent sources for you if you are interested.

You have given zero references to support your case.

 

[Sirach2]

It will take me some time to respond to your posts above. In the meantime, I would like to object to the idea that I am attempting to impose my beliefs upon anyone here. I am not trying to do such a thing.

I’ve only disputed some evidence that steve and some others have presented, to which I find either unconvincing or wrong, all for reasons to which I have explained in detail. Again, I am not trying to convert or impose upon others.

It is rather offensive to Catholics to be told we really don’t understand our basic beliefs and teachings regarding the papacy. Maybe if you read your comments as I understood them, you can appreciate how you came across as trying to undo our faith, in lieu of yours. Here are a couple examples.

• Furthermore, Rome must also uphold correct and orthodox beliefs. As it is currently and has been for the longest time, at least according to us Orthodox, the papacy does not live up to either standard. Here
• My argument isn’t that I disagree with Jesus. My argument is that “you’re” (all Catholics included?) misinterpreting what Jesus meant, (But you have all the truth and Catholics should pay heed to you?)

We need to honor one another’s beliefs and refrain from using such denigrating statements.

 

[steve_b]

Of course not. And that’s my point. Just because Peter appointed a bishop in Rome, it does not mean that they were the sole successor. **If they were, then you’d have to have some sort of criteria that distinguishes the Peter’s appointed successor in Rome from the other successors in Antioch and elsewhere. **Otherwise, papal claims are not exclusive to the Roman throne.

Here’s early evidence of that. #505
R:

Although the article itself focuses mostly on the 9th century, it does speak of a Pentarchic system in the time of Constantine. It references a source for it, but that source I do not have. Additionally, it is in Italian.

Then Card Ratzinger head of the Doctrine of the Faith, under JPII, said the following

Both points play off each other (Pentarchy, & 1st among equals)

"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."

R:

My argument isn’t that I disagree with Jesus. My argument is that you’re misinterpreting what Jesus meant, so I don’t see how any of this adds to your case unless you expect me to already be convinced.

Read this quote from Irenaeus #**505 **
Then let’s talk
R:

I don’t think it was due to any lack of clarity. Most of what you linked me to was the exact same.

The point being, it can be said in different ways using the same passages but the conclusion is the same. It’s an argument among the apostles over primacy and who had it among THEM. And Jesus settled the apostles argument. Peter is the greatest among THEM, making Peter over the Church as well.
R:

I stand by my understanding of Luke.

One can’t deny that episode in Luke describes an argument over primacy. Peter was validated by Jesus as the greatest among the apostles. Ergo Peter is head of the Church.
R:

As for what you mentioned about your understanding of who led at the Council of Jerusalem, I really don’t agree that Peter oversaw it and James simply enacted it. They both were equal leaders the way I see it. Again, this is why evidence before the 5th century is just hopelessly vague.

James was the bishop of Jerusalem. He led the local council. Peter settled the debate, and James made his decision based on Peter’s decision

It’s like the pope overseeing a council
R:

The pseudo-Isidorian decretals were instrumental in the increase of papal power long after their creation.

Ya have to Prove it
R:

Many people used parts of them. What’s your point?

“They”, you don’t identify, and what specifically changed with papal authority?
R:

No one today disputes that Nicholas used the pseudo-Isidorian collection to his advantage.

Which canons that are false, did he use to his advantage?
R:

I’d be more than happy to provide the more recent sources for you if you are interested.

go ahead and post them

 

[Rohzek]

It is rather offensive to Catholics to be told we really don’t understand our basic beliefs and teachings regarding the papacy. Maybe if you read your comments as I understood them, you can appreciate how you came across as trying to undo our faith, in lieu of yours. Here are a couple examples.

• Furthermore, Rome must also uphold correct and orthodox beliefs. As it is currently and has been for the longest time, at least according to us Orthodox, the papacy does not live up to either standard. Here
• My argument isn’t that I disagree with Jesus. My argument is that “you’re” (all Catholics included?) misinterpreting what Jesus meant, (But you have all the truth and Catholics should pay heed to you?)

We need to honor one another’s beliefs and refrain from using such denigrating statements.

The reason Rome and the East separated was a split over beliefs and practices. It’s sort of a zero sum game. Either Rome is correct and the Orthodox aren’t living up to the standard of correct and orthodox beliefs, or vice versa. Such a frank view should not be seen as offensive. Recognizing this frank reality is not an ad hominem.

The second excerpt you cited follows along the same criteria. I and the rest of the Orthodox interpret the gospels and Jesus’ words one way. Rome interprets them the other. In some places of our interpretations, the two are diametrically opposed to one another. So of course, either of us will claim the other is misinterpreting Jesus’ words. We should not be offended by these claims, whether I make them or whether steve makes them.

Being incorrect or attempted to be shown to be incorrect should not be considered offensive. You either agree with my arguments or not. It’s fairly simple. By your standard of offense, I should be just as offended by your assertions. However in reality, I am not offended. I take everyone’s arguments seriously, and I take for granted that those who disagree with me love the truth and their fellow human being just as much as I do.

 

[Sirach2]

Being incorrect or attempted to be shown to be incorrect should not be considered offensive.

With one serious exception. When one asserts that Catholicism is wrong, and implies that its members are walking in error, it is highly offensive to one who holds those beliefs. You will not find an iota of my alleging that your faith is missing the mark in understanding Jesus, or that your leaders are not living up to standard for orthodoxy.

Either Rome is correct and the Orthodox aren’t living up to the standard of correct and orthodox beliefs, or vice versa.You either agree with my arguments or not. It’s fairly simple. By your standard of offense, I should be just as offended by your assertions.

Again, you misread my words, if that is what you understood by them. Nowhere did I make assertions, but simply shared scripture and made no allegations or insults of wrong toward the Orthodox. Yet you never held back one whit in readiness to accuse Rome of error.

I hope you will ask the Holy Spirit to convict you of the truth of my scripture passages and leave off accusing Catholics of error. FWIW, I am having a hard time with your having been Catholic, then Protestant, now Orthodox. It seems you are very confused.

 

[Rohzek]

Consider this, when one is convicted by the Holy Spirit be it Peter, Paul or you and I. You are convicted and both person and faith.

Also you seem to change thinking the following page and propose that its Christs faith. Also problematic.

I’m not sure how it is problematic. My point is that the rock that is being spoken of is faith in Christ, as it is in the Corinthians verses you cited.

Also as the Rock-Greek-Aramaic John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

I know this, and I don’t deny that Peter held a special place since he was adamant in his faith. However, I believe that it was his particularly strong faith that made him special. Being named “Petrus” doesn’t mean that Peter is the rock on which the church is built.

Peace, its also a working theory a Hebrew-Aramaic Matthew existed prior to the greek though this wouldn’t alter that Christ being Jewish probably spoke to Peter in both of their native tongues. Anyway just passing thoughts. Anyway I see no way around Peter convicted by the HS and both person and faith,

Fair enough on our different convictions. As for the Gospel of Matthew being written in Aramaic, that’s one theory. However, generally now scholars accept that it was originally written in Greek. There is not indication from the text itself that it is a translation.

 

[Rohzek]

Here’s early evidence of that. #505

Iranaeus is writing against the Gnostics, and is urging them to adhere to proper bishops. The Gnostics believed in secret knowledge that is not propagated via the traditional means. I don’t think Iranaeus is a good example. He is stressing the authority of Rome in this case because unlike the Gnostics, it has a reputable lineage and therefore is more likely to hold correct and orthodox belief.

Then Card Ratzinger head of the Doctrine of the Faith, under JPII, said the following

Both points play off each other (Pentarchy, & 1st among equals)

I’ll send you two articles on the matter via pm.

Read this quote from Irenaeus #**505 **
Then let’s talk

See my answer above and tell me what you think.

The point being, it can be said in different ways using the same passages but the conclusion is the same. It’s an argument among the apostles over primacy and who had it among THEM. And Jesus settled the apostles argument. Peter is the greatest among THEM, making Peter over the Church as well.

I really regard the Luke passage differently. In the Gospels Matthew and Mark, the dispute is clarified as being between James and John only. In those accounts, the prediction of Peter’s denial comes in a completely different location. The closeness between the two events in Luke is misleading. Further more the NU-Version of Luke does not include the the portion of Luke 22:31, which says “And the Lord said…” which further emphasizes the separateness of the matter. All in all, I think Matthew 16:18 is the strongest scriptural case you’ve cited, but I find it problematic for its own reasons.

One can’t deny that episode in Luke describes an argument over primacy. Peter was validated by Jesus as the greatest among the apostles. Ergo Peter is head of the Church.

See my comments on Luke above.

“They”, you don’t identify, and what specifically changed with papal authority?

I’m not sure what you mean by the question. Could you be more specific?

Which canons that are false, did he use to his advantage?

go ahead and post them

I’ll send you the materials.

 

[Sirach2]

I’m not sure how it is problematic. My point is that the rock that is being spoken of is faith in Christ, as it is in the Corinthians verses you cited.

Being named “Petrus” doesn’t mean that Peter is the rock on which the church is built.

As for the Gospel of Matthew being written in Aramaic, that’s one theory. However, generally now scholars accept that it was originally written in Greek. There is not indication from the text itself that it is a translation.

I see that you are not going to address my post explaining the important significance of the name change, but cling to your own error in denial of truth. If, as you say, the Greek gospel reveals a different translation that does not mean Aramaic **Cephas **(rock), then why do current bibles not change it? Try this website and click on the many bible versions available, and take note that the present usage is still “Cephas.”

Apparently, you are unwilling to come to truth, with your consistent denials of Peter being the rock upon which Christ built His Church, despite clear evidence being given to you. There can be no real debate when you insist on your own interpretations.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure how it is problematic. My point is that the rock that is being spoken of is faith in Christ, as it is in the Corinthians verses you cited.

The greek below then must be a compared to Christ as you say. So the standard you created below for Peter applies to Christ no?? And my further point is Rock-stone is used in various means what makes you think this is correct above? What historic teaching co-exists with your understanding?

Further there are seven pronouns of “you” in direct relation to Peter 17-19 Matthew, one is hard pressed with grammar gymnastics to rationalize them away. Which is why the Church is the authority least we would discussing the ambiguity of “it” in 19 as Augustine documented.

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.”

It must be masculine for Christ or no in your opinion?

I know this, and I don’t deny that Peter held a special place since he was adamant in his faith. However, I believe that it was his particularly strong faith that made him special. Being named “Petrus” doesn’t mean that Peter is the rock on which the church is built.

The seven pronouns do. And further where does God convict a soul not person and faith? Its non existent as it would also be for you an I today. It would be no different than myself declaring every soul who comes to God by Gods conviction through the HS is not convicted person and faith. How does that make sense? I can’t grasp where this is logical?

Fair enough on our different convictions. As for the Gospel of Matthew being written in Aramaic, that’s one theory. However, generally now scholars accept that it was originally written in Greek. There is not indication from the text itself that it is a translation.

Generally there are many theories so no I don’t see where “generally” your theory is the accepted mo, and further it still avoids John above and the fact Jesus and Peter would have spoke in their native tongue what reason is there to believe otherwise as Christ is quoted in His native tongue per Bible. Simple fact is because it documented in Greek its implausible everyone spoke Greek. Especially those with a native language other than Greek.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source