Interesting quote on the Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monica4316

Guest
St. Methodius the Slav (9th century)

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority… How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council… " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)
 
The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).
 
“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated … by bishops … as you have done, the example of ancient tradition … For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived … that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)…you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

“Can you be ignorant, that this is the custom, that we should be written to first, so that from here what is just may be defined” (Epistle of Pope Julius to Antioch, c. xxii).
 
The question is, do these quotes indicate a universal jurisdiction as well as a universal primacy?

My understanding is that the Orthodox may agree with primacy but not jurisdiction. However the Catholic position is that of jurisdiction too and also links being in communion with the Church with being in union with Rome - a source of unity

“After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

“But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445).

(This is why in Catholicism schism from Rome is schism from the Church… Of course it needs to be willful to be a personal sin though, where the person is not invincibly ignorant… But these quotes illustrate that view that being in union with Rome is integral to unity)
 
If Peter was the first Pope, what evidence exists to exhibit that Peter had any Jurisdiction? From my understanding, the Church Father that agree in Papacy only have quotes that list the span of Peter and further up. The Annuario Pontificio I believe, right? Is there anything to provide early sources what legal decisions and judgements from the earliest lines of Popes such as; Peter, Linus, Aneclutus, and so on?
 
If Peter was the first Pope, what evidence exists to exhibit that Peter had any Jurisdiction? From my understanding, the Church Father that agree in Papacy only have quotes that list the span of Peter and further up. The Annuario Pontificio I believe, right? Is there anything to provide early sources what legal decisions and judgements from the earliest lines of Popes such as; Peter, Linus, Aneclutus, and so on?
Matt. 16
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,*and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Luke 22
but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Acts 9
So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.
Acts 15
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.*And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;*and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.*Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?*But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”And all the assembly kept silence.
 
Matt. 16
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,*and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
How did Peter exercise this authority? What legal decisions did he make, what judgements, ect?
 
The question is, do these quotes indicate a universal jurisdiction as well as a universal primacy?
You should disregard quotes by popes, not as a matter of fact, of course, but of research.

And be very careful to distinguish primacy from supremacy in quotes. It’s better to read them in their full context.
 
Do Catholics or the Catholic Church believe that Matthew 20:25-26 are relevant passages to them regarding Peter or irrelevant?

Also Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians explaining how some put emphasis on “I follow Cephas.” Again, relevant or no?
 
Do Catholics or the Catholic Church believe that Matthew 20:25-26 are relevant passages to them regarding Peter or irrelevant?
This Catholic believes the Church’s Teachings do not contradict this guidance from the Lord. Some leaders will fail to become the servant Jesus wishes. Still, they were given authority nevertheless. How they execute that authority can mean all the difference. That is what Jesus was driving at. Consider the Apostle referring to his authority being neglected in 3 John 1
I have written something to the church; but Diot′rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.
Also Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians explaining how some put emphasis on “I follow Cephas.” Again, relevant or no?
Remember dronald, Paul also mentioned Jesus along with Peter and Apollos.
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided?
Paul was pointing out that even those who were saying “I belong to Christ” were separating themselves from their brothers. So, I think it’s great that you do bring this passage to attention! Because what was Paul’s response?
Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?.. For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
What is the purpose of the Papacy? Unity of mind and judgement! What is the Sacrament of the Cross? His Eucharist! Both of these are meant to bring us together. Paul was admonishing the Corinthians for their division. The remedy is the Crucified Lord. He was broken, so that we may be healed.

Later in Chapter 10 and 11, Paul addresses the need to receive worthily.
I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Chapter 10 warns the Church how with even some of the Israelites, who had Moses, and supernatural food and drink, God was not pleased with! So please, warn Catholics that we are not immune to the fate of some of these Israelites, even though we have the office of St Peter, or the body and blood of the Lord. Both of these things are Christ Himself. But they are a curse, if we partake of them in an unworthy manner. But you do us all harm, if you say they are not of Christ.
 
Do Catholics or the Catholic Church believe that Matthew 20:25-26 are relevant passages to them regarding Peter or irrelevant?

Also Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians explaining how some put emphasis on “I follow Cephas.” Again, relevant or no?
I wouldn’t say “I follow Francis”. I respect his apostolic authority. I submit to him, where appropriate, as I submit to my local archbishop. I follow Jesus.
 
😃 The decision to replace Judas.
Personally, I remember clearly reading the NT and find out that Judas was replaced. I even forgot it was Mathias. If its not too much to ask, could you provide me the verse when it says Peter was the one that added him among the disciples?

My second question would be, how did ‘Saint Linus’ the alleged second Pope, practice his jurisdiction?
 
I wouldn’t say “I follow Francis”. I respect his apostolic authority. I submit to him, where appropriate, as I submit to my local archbishop. I follow Jesus.
I am tempted to ask, do Orthodox follow Jesus by disbelieving in Primacy?
 
Personally, I remember clearly reading the NT and find out that Judas was replaced. I even forgot it was Mathias. If its not too much to ask, could you provide me the verse when it says Peter was the one that added him among the disciples?
Acts 1
In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said… So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. Peter was the one, among the Apostles, to decide to appoint a replacement of Judas.
My second question would be, how did ‘Saint Linus’ the alleged second Pope, practice his jurisdiction?
I do not know the deeds of Linus, or the majority of Peter’s either.
 
I am tempted to ask, do Orthodox follow Jesus by disbelieving in Primacy?
Orthodox claim to believe in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Yet, they believe they had the authority to excommunicated him. Perhaps a more knowledgeable Orthodox Christian could correct my understanding.
 
Acts 1
In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said… So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. Peter was the one, among the Apostles, to decide to appoint a replacement of Judas.
Sounds like you are right, it was Peter who appointed Mathias according to Acts 1. However, did not others partake in legalizing things in the early Christian community? Saint Paul argued circumcision and other laws in the old testament were no longer valid and majority of them accepted it.
I do not know the deeds of Linus, or the majority of Peter’s either.
My problem with this is, there is lack of evidence to prove in the Primacy at all considering history does not tell us anything to prove the Catholics position on this.
 
Sounds like you are right, it was Peter who appointed Mathias according to Acts 1. However, did not others partake in legalizing things in the early Christian community? Saint Paul argued circumcision and other laws in the old testament were no longer valid and majority of them accepted it.
Again, the council assembled, and there was “much debate”. Then Peter stood up and gave his judgment, and everyone fell silent. Who argued with Peter?
Also, regarding the Gentiles (who were not circumcised), Peter had already preached the Word, which converted them before the Council. And Peter commanded them to be Baptized. He asserted this at his declaration in the Council.

Acts 10
While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.*And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.*For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,“Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ**. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
My problem with this is, there is lack of evidence to prove in the Primacy at all considering history does not tell us anything to prove the Catholics position on this.
Start a thread about that very thing. You would probably be surprised at what evidence there is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top