James bishop of Jerusalem

[Hildebrand]

Catholic Dude:

Yea, but wasnt there a passage in James16:18 where the keys are given to James?

You actually fooled me for a second!

My train of thought:

"James… James?; keys given to James?!?

James Chapter 16, wait a minute, James only goes up to Chapter 5!"

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jordan:

One of the linked references Hildebrand provided earlier showing this passage in connection to the authority of the Church is the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917! version). So much for a post-VII novelty.

There was a revision of the online Encyclopedia a few years ago. It was badly done though.

Where are the references to this in the writing of the Church Fathers and in papal documents? I do not know all the papal documents but I’ve been reading the Fathers all my life and have not found this idea.

 

[Thal59]

Dear Fr. Ambrose

May I suggest Cardinal Newman’s work on the development of doctrine in which he points out that a doctrine is not defined until it is attacked. In other words, church fathers and papal decrees normally would not speak of the Isaiah text regarding the keys unless there was significant question regarding it. Since everyone in the early church knew of Peter’s primacy, there was no need to point out the text; at least not until the obstinate Protestants began questioning everything that was previously understood for 1,500 years.

But the following may be of help to you:

“Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (rock) because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures!”

(From the homilies of St. Ephraim 306 AD - 373)

Sure sounds to me like St. Ephraim was aware of the Isaiah parallel.

Thal59

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Thal59:

But the following may be of help to you:

“Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (rock) because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures!”

(From the homilies of St. Ephraim 306 AD - 373)

Dear Thal59,

Are you not aware that Saint Ephraim is Saint Ephraim the Syrian? When he speaks of Peter he is not thinking of any primacy whicb belongs to the bishop of far away ROME. If anything he is thinking of ANTIOCH, his own Church. Peter was apostle and bishop of Antioch for many years, for far more time than he spent in Rome. The Chair of Saint Peter (it is stone) is still preserved in the Church of Antioch with great veneration.

What Saint Ephrem is saying has no connection with Rome or with any claims for the supremacy of Rome. He is speaking only of Peter himself personally. If Ephrem were to be asked about the successors of Saint Peter, he would have pointed to his own Patriarch in Antioch.

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

If anything he is thinking of ANTIOCH, his own Church. Peter was apostle and bishop of Antioch for many years, for far more time than he spent in Rome.

This is how I thought it happened…

Peter is credited with starting the Church of Antioch. Some might say that since he founded the Church in Antioch, it was in Antioch where Peter’s Stewardship lies (not true). Not too long after founding the Church of Antioch, Peter left and there was another bishop of the church in Antioch, guiding the faithful of Antioch. His name was Evodius, and he is known as the first bishop of Antioch. Peter, Steward of the Church, then eventually goes to Rome and preaches the gospel to the people there. Peter became the leader of the Church of Rome (and at the same time, he was the leader of the entire Church). And it was in that location where Peter was crucified and died.

Peter was bishop of Rome for 25 years:

newadvent.org/cathen/05653a.htm

 

[jordan]

Fr Ambrose:

There was a revision of the online Encyclopedia a few years ago. It was badly done though.

Where are the references to this in the writing of the Church Fathers and in papal documents? I do not know all the papal documents but I’ve been reading the Fathers all my life and have not found this idea.

Yes, but the Isaiah 22:22 reference you say is a post-VII novelty is in the 1917 version, not the highly “condensed” post-VII versions.

The reference in the quote from St. Ephraim (Thal59) is a perfect example of what you say you are looking for. Peter/Cephas left authority for the local church in Antioch to Evodius when he left.

St. Ephraim’s 4th century quotation doesn’t make any attempt to justify that the authority of Peter over the entire Church remained in Antioch, even though Peter departed while still alive. While Christ was still on earth, would anyone have accepted any of the Apostles as greater than He? And yet He did make clear provision for an earthly vicar, and that authority didn’t stay wherever Peter left! Now that would be a recipe for division.

As Our Lord provided for earthly stewardship before His passion, the Chief among the Apostles provided for his before his martyrdom…in Rome.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jordan:

St. Ephraim’s 4th century quotation doesn’t make any attempt to justify that the authority of Peter over the entire Church remained in Antioch, even though Peter departed while still alive.

St Ephraim is speaking about the Apostle personally. There is no mention of Rome. It is not a matter of integrity to take words out of context and use them to bolster much later claims of which Ephraim had no possible conception.

I can provide you with the words of Saint Nilos Cabasilas from the 14th century, long after the schism. He was a Greek scholar and liturgist and while he could be fierce in condemning the erroneous teachings of the schismatic Church of Rome he could also write…

“We have never disputed with the Roman church about the primacy, …neither have we forgotten the old traditions and the decisions of the fathers, by which the Roman church is declared to be the oldest of all churches.”

You could take these words, just as people are now taking the words of Saint Ephraim, and, by decontextualising them, turn them into “proof” that the Orthodox Church taught Roman primacy long after the schism. That would be manifestly an absurd thing to attribute to an Orthodox Greek Saint of the 14th century. His words cannot be applied to the type of “primacy” which has been developed in Rome over the centuries; we must look for his intended meaning in terms of the first millennium when we were united. We must do the same for the words of Saint Ephraim.

Holy Father Ephraim
pray for us.
http://www.saintgeorge.org/images/saint_of_the_day/01jan/jan_28_saint_ephraim_of_syria.jpg

 

[Thal59]

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

Peter spent more time in Rome than he did in either Jerusalem or Antioch. St. Ephraim’s homily about Peter shows his support of Peter’s Primacy and his apparent understanding of the parallel between the Lord’s commission of Peter and the Isaiah text.

If I may jog your memory, this thread first questioned whether or not is was James who was the head of the church. After you seemed to accept this, without saying so of course, you changed the central issue to whether or not the popes or church fathers were aware of the connection between the Lord’s commission of Peter and the Isaiah text. I believe the St. Ephraim quote shows this. Now you are grasping at straws with such nonsense as…

St Ephraim is speaking about the Apostle personally. There is no mention of Rome. It is not a matter of integrity to take words out of context and use them to bolster much later claims of which Ephraim had no possible conception.<<

No possible conception! Ephraim’s quote is half a century after Constantin’s conquest of Rome and the “legalizing” of Christianity as the official religion of Rome. Are you inferring that St. Ephraim didn’t comprehend the enormous victory of the church over pagan Rome? Did Ephraim mention Jerusalem or Antioch?

If you are inferring that Antioch was the seat of Peter, why don’t you follow the words of this seats most famous holder St. Ignatius of Antioch who first called the church of the apostles Catholic?

I have stated before that Protestants have utter contempt for history and reality. You have demonstarted this to be true with…

…the erroneous teachings of the schismatic Church of Rome…<<

Rome is in schism??? Constantinople predates Rome??? Rome broke from the eastern orthodox???

I have heard this before in even more absurd terms when a Protestant tried to declare that when the Catholic church became corrupted in the 16th century that it in effect broke from Protestantism and it was therefore the Catholics who should be called separated brethren!

Until you study history Fr. Ambrose, and show an ability to keep historic fact in its proper chronological order, there is not much point in continuing with this debate further.

Thal59

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Thal59:

Rome is in schism??? Constantinople predates Rome??? Rome broke from the eastern orthodox???

I guess you have never heard how the Orthodox view the history of the Christian Church. I know that it can be a shock when first encountered. But the Orthodox are being totally serious when they say that Rome went into schism in the 11th century and broke communion with the rest of the Church.

Until you study history Fr. Ambrose, and show an ability to keep historic fact in its proper chronological order, there is not much point in continuing with this debate further.

I’ll have to forgive you for writing that. My knowledge of history is quite reasonable. I know both the Western version and the Eastern All you know is the Western version of history. You should study the other side too. It is fascinating.

 

[Asimis]

Fr Ambrose:

But the Orthodox are being totally serious when they say that Rome went into schism in the 11th century and broke communion with the rest of the Church.

And how can that be? Wan’t Rome’s primacy accepted even before the schism?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Asimis:

And how can that be? Wan’t Rome’s primacy accepted even before the schism?

Yes of course. The Ecumenical Councils give Rome the primacy among the Churches.

But what they meant in the early centuries by primacy and how it was exercised is the disputed point between the Orthodox and the Catholics.

 

[Thal59]

I apologize for having lost my patience. It happens from time to time with me. Contrary to what you may think, I have studied church history from both sides of the compass.

Rather than spend the rest of our lives reliving and revising the last 2,000 years, perhaps you could answer for me a few questions.

1. Did the western church send the crusades to liberate the east, or was it the other way around?
2. If so, when did the Eastern Orthodox church ever liberate Rome from the Turks, Saracens, Moors, Muslims etc.
3. Of all the cities, nations, or principalities mentioned in the bible, which became Christian and has remained Christian ever since?
4. Jerusalem, Antioch, Istanbul (formely Constantinople), Rome. Which of the above is not currently controlled by either the Jews, Muslims, or both?
5. If James was the head of the church in Jerusalem, if Antioch was the true seat of Peter, if the Eastern Orthodox church is not in schism, why is Rome (where Peter and Paul evangelized and died) the capitol of the largest single denomination on earth?

We can argue history until we are blue in the face. But I don’t need to argue. I can see in the Roman Catholic Church the words of the Lord, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Thal59

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1) Did the western church send the crusades to liberate the east, or was it the other way around?

Apart from the dislike felt in Rome that the Holy Places were under the control of non-Christians, there was no great need for the Crusades. The native Christians of the region had long ago settled into a modus vivendi with the Muslim rulers and provided they did nothing to antagonize them and provided they paid their taxes they lived in peace.

If it was so shameful for the Church of Rome that Jerusalem was controlled by non-Christians, why does Rome not raise new armies today and lead a Crusade to liberate it from its present day non-Christian rulers?

The Crusades brought immense suffering to the Christians of the Near East. They were just as vicious to the Christians as to the Jews and the Muslims. Blood flowed like water in Jerusalem and it was Orthodox blood as well as the Jews and Muslims. The Fourth Crusade captured and destroyed the greatest and most Christian city in the world, Constantinople, and murdered enormous number of Orthodox Christians, looted all their cathedrals and sent the loot back to Western Europe. Your bloody Crusades did more damage to Eastern Christendom than the Muslims ever did. Why do you think that Pope has apologized for them?

1. If so, when did the Eastern Orthodox church ever liberate Rome from the Turks, Saracens, Moors, Muslims etc.

If you really know your history you will know that the Muslims almost made it into Western Europe on two ocassions. In 1680 the Muslims actually made it as far as Vienna. Western Europe was in fear of the end of itr civilisation. The West fought them off on that ocassion but it was the ORTHODOX nations of Eastern Europe who fought them time and again and acted as a buffer for the West and bore the brunt of the Muslim aggression. You should be grateful.

1. Of all the cities, nations, or principalities mentioned in the bible, which became Christian and has remained Christian ever since?

a) Read the Book of Revelation. Of the Seven Cities it mentions five are reproached and two are blessed by God and their lampstands will not be taken away. Which are those cities? Are the Christians and bishops there today Orthodox or Catholic?

If you want to look at places better known to Western Christians and mentioned in the Bible, there is Athens, Thessalonica, Crete, Cyprus, etc., etc and other cities where the Apostles preached.

1. Jerusalem, Antioch, Istanbul (formely Constantinople), Rome. Which of the above is not currently controlled by either the Jews, Muslims, or both?

Christ the Saviour was born into a country occupied by the Romans. What’s your point? The Russian Church has just emerged from 70 years of persecution and is experiecing a springtime and a rejuvenation which makes it the envy of every other Church in the world. It is the largest national Church in the world.

Your question is interesting from another perspective… Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople are cities of believers and cities of faith, even if it is Islam, but Rome and Paris and Copenhagen are cities of atheism and their faith is not secure. They are sick with the malaise of Western civilisation. But do not worry, just as we rescued you from the Muslim advances we shall rescue you from this spiritual illness as well. Very soon, our Churches of Eastern Europe shall be in a position to help you. The Pope himself has said that it will be Orthodoxy which will revive the flagging Christianity of Europe. Do you doubt his wisdom and insight?

1. If James was the head of the church in Jerusalem, if Antioch was the true seat of Peter, if the Eastern Orthodox church is not in schism, why is Rome (where Peter and Paul evangelized and died) the capitol of the largest single denomination on earth?

Truth does not lie in numbers. If it did you should go and talk to the people at the mosque about conversion.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!”
-Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

Apart from the dislike felt in Rome that the Holy Places were under the control of non-Christians, there was no great need for the Crusades. The native Christians of the region had long ago settled into a modus vivendi with the Muslim rulers and provided they did nothing to antagonize them and provided they paid their taxes they lived in peace.

If it was so shameful for the Church of Rome that Jerusalem was controlled by non-Christians, why does Rome not raise new armies today and lead a Crusade to liberate it from its present day non-Christian rulers?

Huh? Dislike? Shameful? Settled?
The Fatmids did not kill or persecute Christian pilgrims. The Seljuk Turks DID!

All Muslims are not the same, as you may think.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Hildebrand:

Huh? Dislike? Shameful? Settled?
The Fatmids did not kill or persecute Christian pilgrims. The Seljuk Turks DID!

All Muslims are not the same, as you may think.

I was not sure how precise we need to be in this discussion but all the same I believe I have a reasonable knowledge of the Muslims and their variety. I ws a young monk in Serbia.

 

[Apolonio]

Fr. Ambrose,

I am familiar with the Eastern Orthodox arguments on “primacy of honor.” There are a couple of problems with this.

1. The first century Jew or Gentile does not separate the primacy of honor with that of primacy of jurisdiction. I can’t think of none. Possible? Yes, anything is possible in history. But very unlikely.
2. The East has acknowledged the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman bishop. Rather than quoting the Fathers and debating them, I would rather argue with this line of thought…Every Eastern Orthodox I have talked to or read, theologian or layman, has acknowledged that Rome was a court of appeal in the early church. Alexandria was the final court of appeals in the East and if they could not reach an agreement, they would appeal to Rome. But I do not know of a circumstance where Rome would ask East for a judgment on matters of faith, and maybe even discipline. They asked for support, but not for judgment. Again, no Eastern Orthodox doubts this.

From those two things, it seems that even though the style of the papacy was different, there was the jurisdiction there.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

2) The East has acknowledged the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman bishop. Rather than quoting the Fathers and debating them, I would rather argue with this line of thought…Every Eastern Orthodox I have talked to or read, theologian or layman, has acknowledged that Rome was a court of appeal in the early church. Alexandria was the final court of appeals in the East and if they could not reach an agreement, they would appeal to Rome. But I do not know of a circumstance where Rome would ask East for a judgment on matters of faith, and maybe even discipline. They asked for support, but not for judgment. Again, no Eastern Orthodox doubts this.

From those two things, it seems that even though the style of the papacy was different, there was the jurisdiction there.

I do not follow this line of reasoning. All the great heresies and those who founded them were adjudicated by Ecumenical Councils held in the Eastern Church. To my knowledge none of them appealed to Rome. The most grave problems of faith were judged in the East.

Even in this thread we can see that the first hiccup in the Church was appealed, not to Peter and to Rome, but to James and to Jerusalem.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This bishop talk brings up a question. For the Orthodox, in each branch there is a leader isnt there? Who were the original Head Bishops of the Greek, Russian, Armenian, Serb, etc? There had to be local ‘James’ in every region all originating from the originals, so who decided who controlled what regions? (eg, who decides who leads the areas between Greece and Ukraine, who controlls places like Jerusalem?) If different branches overlapp disagreements will surely arise.

 

[Hildebrand]

Fr Ambrose:

I do not follow this line of reasoning. All the great heresies and those who founded them were adjudicated by Ecumenical Councils held in the Eastern Church. To my knowledge none of them appealed to Rome. The most grave problems of faith were judged in the East.

I am pretty sure Apolonio was not taking about Ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical Councils can be held anywhere, as you well know. Anyways, I think there were only two councils held in the Vatican and five in Rome. So I guess the Vatican and Rome are not very important. The Council of Trent is a dumb council because it was outside of Rome. :whacky: Don’t even get me started on the Council of Vienne.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Catholic Dude:

This bishop talk brings up a question. For the Orthodox, in each branch there is a leader isnt there? Who were the original Head Bishops of the Greek, Russian, Armenian, Serb, etc? There had to be local ‘James’ in every region all originating from the originals, so who decided who controlled what regions? (eg, who decides who leads the areas between Greece and Ukraine, who controlls places like Jerusalem?) If different branches overlapp disagreements will surely arise.

Every bishop is equal to every other bishop. For the good order of the Church, bishops are grouped into synods and provinces and national Churches, based on territory, common culture, common language. While some are called archbishops and metropolitans and patriarchs, when push comes to shove, their only function is administrative and they have the duty of convening annual synods. In point of fact the authority lies with the local synod of bishops and every bishop is responsible for his actions and decisions before this body of his brother bishops. At every synod one bishop gets one vote, no matter if he is the least of them or the Patriarch.

The pattern for all this is formulated by the early Ecumenical Councils. Their canons lay out what bishops shall have precedence and over what territories. If you run through the canons of the Councils you can see how the early Church ordered these things.