For those of you who are Orthodox - Chair of Peter

[Jacob50]

Im pretty sure you have seen quotes like these:

“You cannot deny that you are aware that In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
-Optatus of Milevus

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus [2nd pope], the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus [3rd pope, also known as Anacletus] too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement [4th pope] follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus [5th pope] ruled the flock without crime. Alexander [6th pope], sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus [7th pope]. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus [8th pope]. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
-The Poem Against the Marcionites

“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you,** in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius [39th pope] sits today**?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

• Augustine

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

“In the Catholic Church I adhere to the** Chair of Peter. Whoever does not wish to stray from the true fold, must follow this voice of Peter**.” (Apostolic Digest pg 251, [A.D. 411])
-Augustine

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” (Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 [A.D. 393])
-Augustine

“They [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]” (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).
-Ambrose of Milan

“Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14 [A.D. 256]).

• Cyprian of Carthage

“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 another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

My questions for you (Orthodox preferably), are:

1- What is the Chair of Peter exactly according to you?
After this one is answered,

2- Do YOU have unity with such chair?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Nice quotes Jacob…

I prayed about my doubts about the Catholic church couple days ago and since have read alot of good quotes like these on the forum,which have helped me believe more strongly in the Catholic church

Thank you
God Bless

 

[Nine_Two]

Quote mining is fun!

All I have to say on the matter.

 

[Jacob50]

Quote mining is fun!

All I have to say on the matter.

It would help a lot if instead of saying such, you told me what you orthodox believe on the matter. I would really like to know.

 

[KathleenGee]

The more I understand my Catholic faith…the more I define it as ‘COMMUNION’ with God and all of creation through the Roman Catholic Church founded on Peter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Orthodox do not deny the primacy of the Chair of Peter. The problem is at the point of Great Schism, the Orthodox believe that the Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome abandoned the Orthodox faith and thus went into schism. That is why the Orthodox are in communion through Constantinople, instead of Rome. The other issue of course is Primacy doesn’t always mean Supremacy, and the Orthodox would not accept the Pope as Supreme ruler of the Church in the sense that he has absolute authority over every Church.

 

[Jacob50]

The Orthodox do not deny the primacy of the Chair of Peter. The problem is at the point of Great Schism, the Orthodox believe that the Bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome abandoned the Orthodox faith and thus went into schism.

This is quite problematic don’t you think? To believe that the Bishop of Rome (and therefore the Church of Rome) all went into schism. The Church Fathers speak so great about the Chair of Peter, the importance of being in communion with it (as if it were unable to fail) and not only them but Christ himself in Matt 16:18 in regards to the Rock, that would be enduring until the end. Isnt this calling Christ a Liar?

That is why the Orthodox are in communion through Constantinople, instead of Rome.

Isnt this what the Church Fathers themselves taught not to do? To be in communion with a “New” Rome is simply not in accordance with for instance this quote:

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

Or What Augustine or Ambrose said etc. You cant make a new Rome, Rome is Rome. Isnt this what the protestants do when they create a new Church?

Hope u can reply bcuz I would indeed like to know more on the topic.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Nice quotes Jacob…

I prayed about my doubts about the Catholic church couple days ago and since have read alot of good quotes like these on the forum,which have helped me believe more strongly in the Catholic church

Thank you
God Bless

Same here. In fact it happened exactly the same to me but around A year and a half ago. I prayed because I had some doubts, and suddenly after coming to this site it was all clear to me.

 

[dcointin]

I’m attempting to find the Cyprian references on ccel.org, and I’ll give a response when I can find them in context.

EDIT: I’m not able to find these statements so far under either epistle number given in your quotations.

 

[BrianH]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59659

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is quite problematic don’t you think? To believe that the Bishop of Rome (and therefore the Church of Rome) all went into schism. The Church Fathers speak so great about the Chair of Peter, the importance of being in communion with it (as if it were unable to fail) and not only them but Christ himself in Matt 16:18 in regards to the Rock, that would be enduring until the end. Isnt this calling Christ a Liar?

How come? They believe the faith is still preserved through them.

Isnt this what the Church Fathers themselves taught not to do? To be in communion with a “New” Rome is simply not in accordance with for instance this quote:

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

Or What Augustine or Ambrose said etc. You cant make a new Rome, Rome is Rome. Isnt this what the protestants do when they create a new Church?

Hope u can reply bcuz I would indeed like to know more on the topic.

Its not like they are not waiting for Rome come back into Orthodoxy. That is their view anyway.

 

[KathleenGee]

ConstantineTG…happened to review Vatican II’s documents on the Orthodox last night…and there was great acknowledgement of the Eastern Catholics upholding and overseeing their own jurisdictions…but I don’t see any justification in removing the seat of Peter on which Christ founded His church…

In total simplicity at face value…having two heads just doesn’t work for one body.

I would also add that Peter holds the keys to heaven and earth…the Seat of Peter provides us the Living Revelation of Christ present today as well as being the sign of unity and universality.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is quite problematic don’t you think? To believe that the Bishop of Rome (and therefore the Church of Rome) all went into schism. The Church Fathers speak so great about the Chair of Peter, the importance of being in communion with it (as if it were unable to fail) and not only them but Christ himself in Matt 16:18 in regards to the Rock, that would be enduring until the end. Isnt this calling Christ a Liar?

No, not at all. The connection between that passage and some sort of infallible charism attached to Rome didn’t come until much later, when Rome found itself geo-politically isolated from the East. In the first millennium, I think it is safe to say that the principle of ‘apostolicity’ was not (and to this day is still not) very well defined. It became common in the West for Rome to fashion itself as ‘the apostolic see,’ because it was the only city in the Western part of the Empire which had any claim to being visited by an apostle.

In the East, the situation was far different, with sees like Ephesus, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria all claiming apostolic founding. Because of this, no see really emerged, so to speak as being ‘the apostolic see’ as Rome did in the West. This is why you’ll see some, like pope Gregory, who put forth the theory that Alexandria, Antioch and Rome share in the one see of Peter. It wasn’t until later, when Rome became isolated that it began to claim for itself alone a Petrine foundation which also rightfully belonged to at least the see of Antioch, where Peter lived for several years and ordained the first bishop.

Isnt this what the Church Fathers themselves taught not to do? To be in communion with a “New” Rome is simply not in accordance with for instance this quote:

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

Or What Augustine or Ambrose said etc. You cant make a new Rome, Rome is Rome. Isnt this what the protestants do when they create a new Church?

Hope u can reply bcuz I would indeed like to know more on the topic.

No, not quite. The view that Rome was the center of all communion was one that sprung up in the West because Rome was the only apostolic center in the West. In the East, where it was common for different churches to go in and out of communion with each other, there was really no center of unity. Instead a rather different sign of unity based on sharing the same faith and Eucharistic concelebration emerged. It is erroneous to say that Constantinople is the center of communion, so to speak, in the Orthodox Church, because churches can break and have broken communion with Constantinople over disputes, and yet they can still remain in communion with the Church as a whole.

A good example of this non-centralized model of communion would be how the schism played out. When the dispute between Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Caerularius happened, Antioch did not break communion with Rome and choose communion with Constantinople. Antioch fell out of communion with Rome separately (when the Latin crusaders arrived and set up their own Latin patriarchate in Antioch would probably mark the definitive breaking point) at a later point.

 

[Jacob50]

It is erroneous to say that Constantinople is the center of communion, so to speak, in the Orthodox Church, because churches can break and have broken communion with Constantinople over disputes, and yet they can still remain in communion with the Church as a whole.

Ok now heres where I see a problem. You say according to my read that orthodox churches can break and have broken communion with one another, yet remain in communion with the Church as a whole? How is that possible? Is this why some orthodox churches can approve contraception use, and while others don’t, still have communion with one another?

Or at what point do they break in communion with one another? To the point where one teaches heresy?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok now heres where I see a problem. You say according to my read that orthodox churches can break and have broken communion with one another, yet remain in communion with the Church as a whole? How is that possible? Is this why some orthodox churches can approve contraception use, and while others don’t, still have communion with one another?

Or at what point do they break in communion with one another? To the point where one teaches heresy?

Often breaks in communion happen over jurisdictional matters, and more rarely over suspected heresy. These occurrences are common, and have happened in the East and the West since antiquity. For example, when Russia struck Patriarch Bartholomew from its diptychs over jurisdictional disputes in Estonia many years ago, it was not as if the other churches within the Orthodox Church had to choose to be in communion with either Russia or Constantinople. In fact, they all refused to participate in the dispute, remaining in communion with both and effectively forcing Russia and Constantinople to settle the matter themselves. Simply put, this messy system is basically how the Church has been governed since the beginning.

 

[Jacob50]

Often breaks in communion happen over jurisdictional matters, and more rarely over suspected heresy. These occurrences are common, and have happened in the East and the West since antiquity. For example, when Russia struck Patriarch Bartholomew from its diptychs over jurisdictional disputes in Estonia many years ago, it was not as if the other churches within the Orthodox Church had to choose to be in communion with either Russia or Constantinople. In fact, they all refused to participate in the dispute, remaining in communion with both and effectively forcing Russia and Constantinople to settle the matter themselves. Simply put, this messy system is basically how the Church has been governed since the beginning.

Alright I understand what “communion” is or may be according to the Orthodox. Now maybe were going off topic a bit, I still have not had the 2 questions answered by any Orthodox.

**1- What is the Chair of Peter exactly according to you?
After this one is answered,

2- Do YOU have unity with such chair? **

Maybe such isn’t important for you? or should be ignored

 

[dcointin]

Alright I understand what “communion” is or may be according to the Orthodox. Now maybe were going off topic a bit, I still have not had the 2 questions answered by any Orthodox.

**1- What is the Chair of Peter exactly according to you?
After this one is answered,

2- Do YOU have unity with such chair? **

Maybe such isn’t important for you? or should be ignored

I would imagine it was his favorite chair, probably something made of solid wood and rather handsomely carved. My dad has a favorite chair as well but it’s a rocking chair, so perhaps his was as well.

I don’t have unity with this chair because it was understood I shouldn’t sit on it since it was his and it would be disrespectful. I tended to sit on the couch.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Letters 59:14 [A.D. 253]).
-Cyprian of Carthage

Or What Augustine or Ambrose said etc. You cant make a new Rome, Rome is Rome. Isnt this what the protestants do when they create a new Church?

Hope u can reply bcuz I would indeed like to know more on the topic.

With all due respect,

What do we understand from Acts 15?

Was it not James the one who finally issued the “judgement”?

He did not differ the final decision to Peter, but based on Peter’s argument and that of Paul and Barnabas he reached a conclusion which was agreed upon by the founding Fathers. Clearly showing and demonstrating that the decisions were not made by Peter alone, but by common agreement and in respect of each other’s place of honor.

Why change from this into one individual?

In Him.

 

[Nicea325]

With all due respect,

What do we understand from Acts 15?

Was it not James the one who finally issued the “judgement”?

He did not differ the final decision to Peter, but based on Peter’s argument and that of Paul and Barnabas he reached a conclusion which was agreed upon by the founding Fathers. Clearly showing and demonstrating that the decisions were not made by Peter alone, but by common agreement and in respect of each other’s place of honor.

Why change from this into one individual?

In Him.

Not exactly.

Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem…
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,

“Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”

Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter. Now that is primacy.

Many opponents of Peter’s primacy try to show that James (Acts 15:13-21), held the primacy simply because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Well, he may have been the Bishop of Jerusalem during this Council, but Peter was the Bishop of the whole world. See Acts 1:8, where Jerusalem was only one of many Church locations to be founded by the Apostles. The books of Acts, Revelation, and a few others, record more than 30 additional locations for the Church other than Jerusalem.

Jerusalem would certainly not even have been considered by the Apostles to be the seat of Christianity, as they had been forewarned by Jesus Himself that the city would soon be totally destroyed. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Roman legions did indeed destroy it. See Matthew 24 beginning with verse 15.

The name James, is mentioned a total of 38 times and of that number there were 2 persons, James the Greater, and James the Less. So if James the Less is said to have the primacy, then why is he mentioned so few times compared to Peter?

Peter is mentioned 195 times, the rest of the Apostles only 130 times. The one mentioned next in frequency to Peter is John, to whom there are 29 references.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not exactly.

Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem…
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,

“Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”

Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter. Now that is primacy.

Many opponents of Peter’s primacy try to show that James (Acts 15:13-21), held the primacy simply because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Well, he may have been the Bishop of Jerusalem during this Council, but Peter was the Bishop of the whole world. See Acts 1:8, where Jerusalem was only one of many Church locations to be founded by the Apostles. The books of Acts, Revelation, and a few others, record more than 30 additional locations for the Church other than Jerusalem.

Jerusalem would certainly not even have been considered by the Apostles to be the seat of Christianity, as they had been forewarned by Jesus Himself that the city would soon be totally destroyed. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Roman legions did indeed destroy it. See Matthew 24 beginning with verse 15.

The name James, is mentioned a total of 38 times and of that number there were 2 persons, James the Greater, and James the Less. So if James the Less is said to have the primacy, then why is he mentioned so few times compared to Peter?

Peter is mentioned 195 times, the rest of the Apostles only 130 times. The one mentioned next in frequency to Peter is John, to whom there are 29 references.

St. John Chrysostom disagrees with you:

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom,Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.