Early Church Fathers that confirm the Catholic view of the Papacy?

[ComeHome2Rome]

If so, who are they & where & what did they say?

 

[fredystairs]

A good source would be “Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennett. The book has an appendix that lists some modern Church teachings along side some of the teachings of the early Church Fathers. There are several teachings by the Early Church Fathers listed for the Papacy – I will quote one of them:

There is one God and one Christ and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up anouther altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.

– 251 AD, Cyprian of Carthage Letter to All HIs People

Hope that this helps!

 

[R_C]

Early Church Fathers that confirm the Catholic view of the Papacy?

Of course

If so, who are they & where & what did they say?

Here Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, explains the biblical and historical bases for the Petrine ministry.

Here you find words from the Church Fathers on all aspects of the Catholic view of the Bishop of Rome.

An interesting article: Peter and the Eastern Orthodox

On a more general topic, other interesting notes here , here, and here.

 

[shaky]

Of course

Here Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, explains the biblical and historical bases for the Petrine ministry.

Here you find words from the Church Fathers on all aspects of the Catholic view of the Bishop of Rome.

An interesting article: Peter and the Eastern Orthodox

On a more general topic, other interesting notes here , here, and here.

I can understand Peter being first amongst equals and is in a Primary Position to speak for the whole church along as All the Apostles are in agreement about with what Peter Speaks, But how can Peter have [Supremacy] over the rest of the Apostles When Paul stood Peter to his face for his Hypocrisy over they way he acted Regarding the Gentiles when Jews were around ?
If Peter came out with some teachings that the rest of the Apostles disagreed with. Does that mean the Word of Peter is supreme over the rest of the Apostles even though they disagree ?

 

[MaryT777]

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

All that popcorn is gonna make you sick.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Yes please pass the kettle corn

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I see in the fathers primacy, not jurisdictional supremecy. Rome had a very esteemed place and was a court of appeal, not the end all and be all in of itself however.

 

[Fra_Angelo]

I can understand Peter being first amongst equals and is in a Primary Position to speak for the whole church along as All the Apostles are in agreement about with what Peter Speaks, But how can Peter have [Supremacy] over the rest of the Apostles When Paul stood Peter to his face for his Hypocrisy over they way he acted Regarding the Gentiles when Jews were around ?
If Peter came out with some teachings that the rest of the Apostles disagreed with. Does that mean the Word of Peter is supreme over the rest of the Apostles even though they disagree ?

Peter had primacy over others indeed. It doesn’t mean that all his words were the truth. But also remember the words of our Lord that his faith will not fail. “But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Lk: 22: 32.
Therefore with regard to faith and morals he is indeed infallible (it cannot fail) It’s the promise of Our Lord.

 

[vsedriver]

I can understand Peter being first amongst equals and is in a Primary Position to speak for the whole church along as All the Apostles are in agreement about with what Peter Speaks, But how can Peter have [Supremacy] over the rest of the Apostles When Paul stood Peter to his face for his Hypocrisy over they way he acted Regarding the Gentiles when Jews were around ?
If Peter came out with some teachings that the rest of the Apostles disagreed with. Does that mean the Word of Peter is supreme over the rest of the Apostles even though they disagree ?

Yes, Peter was being hypocritical in his behavior but he was not teaching a different moral truth. Paul was right to correct Peter’s behavior. That did not change Peter’s authority to teach on morality.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, Peter was being hypocritical in his behavior but he was not teaching a different moral truth. Paul was right to correct Peter’s behavior. That did not change Peter’s authority to teach on morality.

Yep. Otherwise Paul wouldn’t have called him Peter. Paul still respected his Office.

MJ

 

[Indifferently]

I highly recommend ‘The Petrine Claims’ by Richard Frederick Littledale. The truth is that the papal claims now made by the See of Rome were largely foreign to the Church Fathers, and thus fails the test of catholicity by the standards of the Church itself, by not conforming to anything resembling the Vincentian canon.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“For if really, as you say, they did some wrong, the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus. You should have written to all of us, so that justice might have been decreed by all. For it was Bishops who were the sufferers; and it was not obscure Churches which have suffered, but Churches which Apostles in person ruled. With regard to the Church of Alexandria in particular, why were we not consulted?[Rome] Do you now know that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and thus for what is just to be defined from hence?[Rome] If, therefore, a suspicion of this sort fell upon the bishop of that place, it was necessary to write to the Church here [Rome]. But now, though you gave us no information, but have done as you pleased, you ask us to give our agreement, though we have not ourselves condemned. These are not the statutes of Paul, these are not the traditions of the Fathers; this is another rule, a new custom. I beseech you to bear willingly what I say, for I write for the common welfare, and what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you.”

"And why were we[Chair of Peter] not written to especially about the church of the Alexandrians?

Are you ignorant that the custom was first to write to us, and then for justice to be determined from here[Chair of Peter]? If then the bishop there was at all suspect, it should have been reported in writing to the church here. As it is they failed to inform us, but acted as they pleased, and now want to obtain our concurrence, though we have not condemned him. Not so the statutes of Paul [1 Tim 5:19,20], not so have the fathers handed down; this is another model, and a new procedure. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, that I point out to you; and as I believe these things to be obvious to all, I should not have written if the events had not distracted us…"

Letter from Julius in regards to the Church and in particular Athanasius.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No reason to believe the Primacy hasn’t always existed. Misunderstanding and disobedience has been “common” in history as witnessed above. And elaborated on below. in particular with the Anglicans.

therealpresence.org/archives/Papacy.htm

Example from above…

“Irenaeus wrote of the necessity for every Church to agree doctrinally with the Church of Rome.”

“For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church should agree (or come together), that is the faithful from everywhere, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from everywhere.” St Irenaeus

 

[CatholicKnight3]

I think the debate is whether or not Peter himself held a specific office. Did he?

If we assume he did hold a specific office, then it is logical that his office would need to be fulfilled by another.

We see how the disciples filled the position of Judas for example in Acts. Then they all prayed,…and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven.

We see how it was necessary to replace the OFFICE and they did it through prayer.

When Peter died, certainly early church fathers would have continued the OFFICE held by Peter. So, like they prayed to replace the office of Judas, they would have prayed to replace the office of Peter.

That is the bibilican “hint.”

Also, there is certainly confusion about the “infallibility” of the Pope. This is with Catholics and protestants alike.

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other “Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: **“He who hears you hears me” **(Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

 

[GaryTaylor]

What evidence does the EO provide to support their claim? Perhaps it would be much easier to address those points.

Which of course would be “early church fathers who do not support the Primacy of Peters Chair” which is the “more powerful principality” as Divinely established Biblically.

That is the “what” the early church fathers such as St Irenaeus and Pope Julius refer to. And Augustine clearly speaks on in “City of God”. The physical Church in Rome is just that.

 

[R_C]

I can understand Peter being first amongst equals and is in a Primary Position to speak for the whole church along as All the Apostles are in agreement about with what Peter Speaks, But how can Peter have [Supremacy] over the rest of the Apostles When Paul stood Peter to his face for his Hypocrisy over they way he acted Regarding the Gentiles when Jews were around ?
If Peter came out with some teachings that the rest of the Apostles disagreed with. Does that mean the Word of Peter is supreme over the rest of the Apostles even though they disagree ?

Peter could not err when teaching on faith and morals as vicar of Christ. That did not make Peter impeccable. This is why Paul, his brother in the faith and a fellow bishop, faced him honestly and charitably, admonishing him that there was hypocrisy in his acts inasmuch as his teaching was correct, but he himself was not quite going along with them.

And the fact that Paul mentions this places an emphasis on the figure of Peter. He was not just mentioning another fellow bishop, because that would have been quite uninteresting to be honest. The fact that this was Peter made it an extraordinary lesson.

Then we have the issue of collegiality. It is not to be thought that the bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, can do as he wants. Rather, his office consists in listening very carefully to the voice of his brothers, bringing to him the voice of the universal flock, along with the voice of the Sacred Tradition, and then say the final word, like a pater familias would, sealing it with the Fisherman’s Ring, under the assurance that the Lord would not let him err in matters concerning official teachings of faith and morals. But ultimately it is possible that all the bishops may be in error on a matter and the bishop of Rome alone be correct. I do not think this has ever been the case, but it is possible, and obviously the hierarchy of Holy Church would move us to bow in obedience to the word of Christ’s vicar.

 

[Nicea325]

I can understand Peter being first amongst equals and is in a Primary Position to speak for the whole church along as All the Apostles are in agreement about with what Peter Speaks, But how can Peter have [Supremacy] over the rest of the Apostles When Paul stood Peter to his face for his Hypocrisy over they way he acted Regarding the Gentiles when Jews were around ?
If Peter came out with some teachings that the rest of the Apostles disagreed with. Does that mean the Word of Peter is supreme over the rest of the Apostles even though they disagree ?

Exactly! Paul stood in Peter’s face about his hypocrisy, he did not question or challenge his authority. Is it wrong to correct one’s boss when he or she is out of line?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I think the debate is whether or not Peter himself held a specific office. Did he?

If we assume he did hold a specific office, then it is logical that his office would need to be fulfilled by another.

We see how the disciples filled the position of Judas for example in Acts. Then they all prayed,…and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven.

We see how it was necessary to replace the OFFICE and they did it through prayer.

When Peter died, certainly early church fathers would have continued the OFFICE held by Peter. So, like they prayed to replace the office of Judas, they would have prayed to replace the office of Peter.

That is the bibilican “hint.”

I think the debate is, Did St. Peter have a “different” Office than that of the other Apostles? Do the EFC indicate that he did?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Different as in how, could you please communicate your thinking and in relation to the early church fathers as you suggest?