Orthodoxy and St peter

[Paul_theApostle]

From these quotes,it seems clear the Chair of Peter resides in the Roman church
*
“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

“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

“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

“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 *

So then it says here below that there is One God ,One Christ,One Church and One Chair founded by Peter by the Lord,which as we read in the above quotes ,the Chair of Peter is in Rome
*
“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*

Then here it says if one doesnt hold fast to this unity of Peter,does he still hold the faith?
And if one deserts the Chair of Peter,can he be still confident he is in the Church?

"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

Then here it says that if one doesnt want to stray from the true fold ,he must follow the voice of Peter and adhere to the Chair of Peter,(which we learnt is the Roman church)

“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

So when reading this, are you Orthodox which are not united to the Roman church confident that you still hold the faith,being seperated from the Chair of Peter?

And since the Orthodox dont adhere to the Roman church which is the Chair of Peter,wouldnt that mean that you have strayed from the true fold according to Augustine?

Bless

 

[Hesychios]

So when reading this, are you Orthodox which are not united to the Roman church confident that you still hold the faith,being seperated from the Chair of Peter?

Absolutely.

And since the Orthodox dont adhere to the Roman church which is the Chair of Peter,wouldnt that mean that you have strayed from the true fold according to Augustine?

Bless

Two problems with the logic.

1- Since the time of the separation the Orthodox have not changed theologically (I think the Roman Catholic church has also admitted that fact on several occasions, and some Catholics today attempt to emulate the Orthodox in their Faith). So the Faith once handed from the Christ through the Apostles is whole and entire. It was and remains the Teachings of Christ and the Faith of Peter.

2- The Orthodox churches, each soverign in themselves as they were from the beginning, did not initiate tthe schism (which means cutting). The facts of the matter are that the western church did that in the persons of Cardinals Humbert and Frederic, and the document they presentented inluded many falsehoods.

Furrthermore, it was a time of turmoil and transition in the western church as it was going through a reform period. The Cardinals took it upon themselves to sever their church from the communion at a time when there was no Pope, it was an interregnum in the workings of the Metropolitan See at Rome.

Perhaps the reason was the rest of the communion, the Eastern churches, would have acted as a conservative brake on the changes the Cardinals were hoping to accomplish in the western church, I don’t know. But the next two hundred years saw many new changes in how the western church organized itself and conducted itself (and essentially thought about itself).

I think you will agree that the patristic authors quoted were
-1- not prescient (only God is)
-2- Not infallible

They were speaking from their own experience, which was our experience too.

The bottom line is that, over time, it was Rome that left the Faith of Holy Orthodoxy, not the other way around. It is Rome which made the significant changes in the faith of Peter.

No one could be more surprised, and saddened, than the Orthodox.

 

[BrianH]

=

Paul theApostle;8728773]From these quotes,it seems clear the Chair of Peter resides in the Roman church
*
“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

“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*
  I am going through the quotes and am already stuck on the first two. What is the Apostolic Digest? Is it a book that quotes an earlier Augustine work? What is the earlier Augustine work?
  Next quote. The title of the work is In Answer to the Letters of Petiliani. But in Book Two there is not a 118.
  newadvent.org/fathers/14092.htm

Do you have more information on these two quotes? I will go over the others as well.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

As Hesychios noted correctly, the above authors are NOT infallible.
BUT, they are examples (and many many more could be given, from all over the
empire) of how the early Christians viewed the Bishop of Rome as being the successor of Peter, upon whom as a Rock Christ built his Church, and IN COMMUNION WITH WHOM one must be in order to remain fully Catholic.

The Catholic Church has not significantly changed it’s teachings, and certainly HAS NOT rejected any previously DEFINED teachings since 1041 A.D.
The doctrine of Mary being sinless is attested to in all the Fathers who wrote about her.
The Church simply later clarified that God made her soul sinless from the beginning, and not later in her mother’s pregnancy, nor as some (non-infallibly) thought, at the Annunciation. Contrary to the false claim made in one Orthodox pamphlet I read,
the Immaculate Conception does NOT “Deify” Mary. She remains a creature, not a goddess. She is the moral equivalent of the pre-Fallen Mother Eve, not the
equivalent of God or Christ.
As for the doctrine of Purgatory, which the Orthodox reject, it was widely believed in the early Church, derived from Jewish prayers for the dead to be purified after death from their sins, and was accepted as true by most believers who wrote about these subjects.
Even in the time of Saint Augustine, who taught the doctrine EXPLICITLY and EMPHATICALLY, in CITY OF GOD, this doctrine was even the official teaching of the Church of Rome in HIS lifetime. It is NOT some aberration that arose at Rome after the separation of 1041 A.D.
We all know that the development of the College of Cardinals was later, but that does not contradict any “teaching.” It is actually an improvement on the earlier Roman practice of the citizens directly electing the Bishop of Rome. Why? Because he is the Rock of Unity for the entire Church, and the Cardinals come from all over the World. And since the people of Rome don’t raise cain in protest, it’s obvious that they accept the Roman Pontiffs elected by those cardinals.
As for the Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, the early Church DID TOO accept his intervention in their affairs, and with authority, too. In his letters to Corinth, Clement commanded the Corinthians, who were part of the Eastern churches, to restore their lawful priests to their offices. He didn’t ask them to, he told them to.
When the Council of Sardica met in 300 A.D. (today’s Sofia, Bulgaria) they “honored the memory of the Apostle Peter” by having the Bishop of ROME, the POPE, approve this council. How do you honor Peter by having the Roman pope approve your decrees,
unless the Roman Pope IS, in fact, Peter’s god-approved, lawful successor???
Why not have the Bishop of Corinth approve the decrees? Or the Bishop of Antioch?
Why Rome? It is clear that East and West regarded the Roman Pope as the successor of Peter. The 1870 declaration was a clarification of what should have been obvious to all from the very beginning, and for many, from the beginning, it WAS.
Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed the Office of PETER held by the Roman Pope, and that was around 180 A.D. Tertullian, who sadly later apostasized into Montanism, himself taught the Office of Peter held by the Bishop of Rome. He was a North African writer, and would today be considered part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, even though he is called a
“Latin” Father.
The LORD wants the East and West churches back in FULL communion with each other.
No matter who, in East OR West, wants to prevent it, one day it IS going to happen.
What happened in 1041 A.D. was awful. The papal legates excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, who in turn, excommunicated them. From there it spread throughout the entire church. This should never have happened and was a shocking failure in charity on both sides. I am very glad that both sides mutually lifted the Excommunications in the early 1960s.

 

[Volodymyr]

Dear Jaypeeto,

My Orthodox brother in American, Hesychios, has I think touched a nerve in you, a convert probably from Protestantism to Catholicism. Perhaps diffferences between Orthodoxy and Catholic church are much more subtle although also profound - we are not Protestants.

We believe in Sinless, All-holy, Spotless Mother of God. So, saying that this is constant teaching of Church will not lead us to believe in Immaculate conception by St. Anne and St. Joachim. Certainly Mother of God is not the moral-equivalent of Eva - who was the first sinner!! Ever-virgin, all holy and spotless Mother of God is Sinless, Eva was not!!

We have always prayed for dead. So just saying Church always prays for dead does not lead to belief in such a place as Purgatory. Purgatory is some kind explanation, not a belief of Church.

We always recognize Rome as Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, the primary Apostles. We know kindly advice of St. Kliment bishop of Rome to Churches. But such friendly letters are not what comes from Rome now. Catholic bishops now are now less brothers of Pope - and more his delegates. Papal authority has been universal. You can read about what such learned bishops of Catholic church who opposed Papal infallibility decree in 1871. Did no know that Catholic catechisms in Ireland at time said that this was rumor used to discredit Catholic Church, which did not hold such teaching?

Also Great Schism as is called occured in 1054 a.d., not 1041 a.d.

But you are a very ardent defender of your Church. You have convincing arguments - but arguments against Protestantism!

Maybe you can understand from this series of basis of Orthodoxy how different is Orthodoxy from Protestantism:

youtube.com/watch?v=FC0DZSce2l8

 

[Paul_theApostle]

2- The Orthodox churches, each soverign in themselves as they were from the beginning, did not initiate tthe schism (which means cutting). The facts of the matter are that the western church did that in the persons of Cardinals Humbert and Frederic, and the document they presentented inluded many falsehoods.

Furrthermore, it was a time of turmoil and transition in the western church as it was going through a reform period. The Cardinals took it upon themselves to sever their church from the communion at a time when there was no Pope, it was an interregnum in the workings of the Metropolitan See at Rome.

The bottom line is that, over time, it was Rome that left the Faith of Holy Orthodoxy, not the other way around. It is Rome which made the significant changes in the faith of Peter.

Peace

So you say absolutely that you are still in the true fold ,havnt strayed and hold the faith still,because you believe that Rome itself and the Chair of Peter itself has strayed from the faith and the fold

By these quotes it says that Rome ,the see of Peter is the Rock which the gates of hell do not prevail,and that Apostolic faith is derived from there whither no errors can come.
**
“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

“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**

So it seems you are speaking differently from Augustine and Cyprian when they say that Rome cannot err and that it is the Rock which the gates of hell do not prevail.

Should i believe you or these Saints?

I read that Patriach Michael Celuarius did acts such as trampling on and throwing the Catholic Eucharist in the street ,so Rome excommunicated him

Do you think that was a fair reason for the excommunication?

 

[Nine_Two]

Peace

So you say absolutely that you are still in the true fold ,havnt strayed and hold the faith still,because you believe that Rome itself and the Chair of Peter itself has strayed from the faith and the fold

By these quotes it says that Rome ,the see of Peter is the Rock which the gates of hell do not prevail,and that Apostolic faith is derived from there whither no errors can come.
**
“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

“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**

So it seems you are speaking differently from Augustine and Cyprian when they say that Rome cannot err and that it is the Rock which the gates of hell do not prevail.

Should i believe you or these Saints?

I read that Patriach Michael Celuarius did acts such as trampling on and throwing the Catholic Eucharist in the street ,so Rome excommunicated him

Do you think that was a fair reason for the excommunication?

Not to answer for Hesychios, but he already answered that those fathers are not infallible and did not forsee a future where Rome erred.

The excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius was not for the reason you listed, there was a list of reasons, some of them so ridiculous that it puts even the more reasonable in doubt.

 

[dcointin]

There are some problems with the quotations you gave that have been discussed on these forums. Basically they don’t always match the writings themselves, and Catholic Answers has been made aware of this but the tracts have not been changed. I can’t respons to these quotations until I know what was actually said.

 

[Marybeloved]

Not to answer for Hesychios, but he already answered that those fathers are not infallible and did not forsee a future where Rome erred.

Why on earth would they presume this about Rome? Was it not headed by sinful men just like every other see in the world? Why couldn’t they foresee it erring in future? The fact that they took this for granted about Rome says a lot to me…

 

[Nine_Two]

Why on earth would they presume this about Rome? Was it not headed by sinful men just like every other see in the world? Why couldn’t they foresee it erring in future? The fact that they took this for granted about Rome says a lot to me…

Because it had been a beacon of Orthodoxy, a rallying point.

Sadly this made it proud, it lost the humility which it held in the days of those men, and as the old saying goes, Pride comes before the Fall.

 

[Mickey]

So it seems you are speaking differently from Augustine and Cyprian when they say that Rome cannot err and that it is the Rock which the gates of hell do not prevail.

The problem arises when you take the Holy Fathers and try to retroactively read today’s Roman Catholic understanding of “infallibility and supremacy” into their writings. I assure you that they would not understand the doctrine as set forth by Pius IX and the Ultramontanists in 1870.

St Augustine****
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

And I tell you…**‘**You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

 

[Marybeloved]

Because it had been a beacon of Orthodoxy, a rallying point.

I fail to see how this could have caused the fathers to presume that no errors could come from Rome? Those wise fathers?- They thought that good behavior of past Bishops (as if only Rome had demonstrated that?) alone could guarantee that no error could ever issue, even from different occupants of the see? I’ve never seen evidence of such a presumption issue from any institution, secular or religious, unless it was presumed infallible/guaranteed from error by Divinity, like the Muslim belief that their Qur’an or Prophet could not err:shrug:

 

[Nine_Two]

I fail to see how this could have caused the fathers to presume that no errors could come from Rome? Those wise fathers?- They thought that good behavior of past Bishops (as if only Rome had demonstrated that?) alone could guarantee that no error could ever issue, even from different occupants of the see? I’ve never seen evidence of such a presumption issue from any institution, secular or religious, unless it was presumed infallible/guaranteed from error by Divinity, like the Muslim belief that their Qur’an or Prophet could not err:shrug:

I doubt they had such a presumption. I can’t see it in the above quotes. What they did have was a presumption that Rome had not erred and would not. Note the distinction between “would not” and “could not”. It is very important.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

From these quotes,it seems clear the Chair of Peter resides in the Roman church
*
“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

“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

“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
*

I need to give you a headsup in regards to these quotes. Even though it is quite clear for us that Peter is the rock upon whom the Church was built (the name change,his primacy etc), some orthodox try to deny this by quoting Church Fathers stating that the Rock is not Peter, but his confession (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”). However it should be noted that the Catholic position accepts both:

Catechism:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

That has been discussed here on CAF in the following links:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8370028
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=587192
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=579151

 

[Marybeloved]

I doubt they had such a presumption. I can’t see it in the above quotes. What they did have was a presumption that Rome had not erred and would not. Note the distinction between “would not” and “could not”. It is very important.

Would not is just as much a guarantee as could not when speaking about a ***future ***you have not seen .

Besides, the quotation says “no error can ever come”, not “*will *ever come”

 

[Nine_Two]

Would not is just as much a guarantee as could not when speaking about a ***future ***you have not seen .

Besides, the quotation says “no error can ever come”, not “*will *ever come”

Which quote? I don’t see it up there and when I enter those words into my find box it directs me back to this quote.

And no, to say another would not is opinion with an element of uncertainty, to say another could not is a statement of fact, that such an action would be impossible.

 

[Marybeloved]

Which quote? I don’t see it up there and when I enter those words into my find box it directs me back to this quote.

And no, to say another would not is opinion with an element of uncertainty, to say another could not is a statement of fact, that such an action would be impossible.

Read your post #7 and your quotation of the post you were responding to- the quotes are there and you responded to them already. It was this #7 that I replied to at first.

And will(would) not is an assurance about the future- why give it? What you’re looking for is may not, or likely not, *(**most)*probably not- These all contain elements of doubt- Will not/would not expresses certainty.

 

[Jacob50]

=
I am going through the quotes and am already stuck on the first two. What is the Apostolic Digest? Is it a book that quotes an earlier Augustine work? What is the earlier Augustine work?
Next quote. The title of the work is In Answer to the Letters of Petiliani. But in Book Two there is not a 118.
newadvent.org/fathers/14092.htm

Do you have more information on these two quotes? I will go over the others as well.

Theres 2 problems here:
1- Some books are not in the Newadvent page u cited. They simply are not there (and this happens with many fathers). And I dont think theres a website that contains all books really.
2- And sometimes the quotes are not cited correctly here.
Augustine spoke of the chair of Anastasius in the same book u cited, but u will find it in chapter 51. Its just a matter of lookin.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

The bottom line is that, over time, it was Rome that left the Faith of Holy Orthodoxy, not the other way around. It is Rome which made the significant changes in the faith of Peter.

What those two cardinals did was in my opinion simply the straw that broke the camels back. The rivalry and hatred between the West and East built up over the course of hundreds of years. The fact is that the Eastern Church set itself up as a rival to Rome. The Byzantine Bishops constantly sided with the emperor, with persistent opposition to the Pope. 1.

The Roman Catholic Church has simply built up in understanding of the Faith through the life of the Church and it’s Ecumenical Councils.

1. Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I read that Patriach Michael Celuarius did acts such as trampling on and throwing the Catholic Eucharist in the street ,so Rome excommunicated him

Personalities and politics: Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope St. Leo IX weren’t friends, and each one mistrusted the other. Cerularius crossed the line when he wrote in a letter that the Latin use of unleavened bread was Jewish but not Christian. He was denying the validity of the Holy Eucharist in the Western Church. Leo countered by saying that the patriarchs had always been puppets of the Byzantine emperors.

In the end, Pope Leo and Patriarch Michael excommunicated each other and their respective churches. But more than 900 years later, in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.

That’s what it says on “dummies.com”.