Orthodoxy & The Papacy

[Alethiaphile]

Here’s a nice quote:

“What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever.”- Robert Taft, SJ, Pontifical Oriental Institute

 

[Miserere_Mei]

It is a Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times.

To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes.

Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons.

First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226).

Second, St. Gregory believed that such a title would be perilous to the Church. * “It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall” * (Ibid., p. 223).

Finally, he refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal with and not superior to his fellow Patriarchs. He wrote to the Bishop of Alexandria these words: “Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227).

Is it possible that Pope Gregory the Great, one of the greatest of all popes, would be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church? Is this fact not proof enough that Peter’s supremacy over the Church as well as his passing on that power to the Bishops of Rome, was an invention and not instituted by Christ?

 

[Deconi]

It is a Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times.

To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes.

Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons.

First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226).

Second, St. Gregory believed that such a title would be perilous to the Church. * “It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall” * (Ibid., p. 223).

Finally, he refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal with and not superior to his fellow Patriarchs. He wrote to the Bishop of Alexandria these words: “Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227).

Is it possible that Pope Gregory the Great, one of the greatest of all popes, would be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church? Is this fact not proof enough that Peter’s supremacy over the Church as well as his passing on that power to the Bishops of Rome, was an invention and not instituted by Christ?

You need to understand that it is the Universal Church, that is, The Catholic Church, that views the Pope as The Vicar of Christ; not the Pope promoting or lauding himself as The Vicar!

The humility, so aptly demonstrated by St Gregory, emulates The Founder’s own humble life, behaviour and teachings, whilst He walked this planet! “The Popes” do not proclaim themselves as anything other than just ANOTHER BISHOP! It is the rest of The Catholic Church, including the bishops, that recognise in the Pope, the Vicarage instituted by Christ for His Church when He spoke these eternal words;
"…and upon this Rock, I …WILL…build my church"

Now, it is quite acceptable to postulate that ‘we’ have an erroneous understanding of this and other relevant passages. It is also acceptable to accuse ‘us’ of misusing and misappropriating Scriptures to serve our misguided views…and whatever else about the Papacy anyone else wishes to advance.

What you all NEED to accept though, since your understanding is that WE ARE WRONG and you are correct,…is the other side of that coin!

 

[Gofer]

It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word.

The Pope is not the “only” Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the “only” power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or “sole” bishop in his Patriarchate.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm

 

[Gofer]

St John Chrysostom says many wonderful things.
For example:

St John Chrysosotom
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.

However, you will never see a quote from St John which says that the bishop of Rome is the supreme/infallible pontiff.

Blessings,
Mickey

The coins hadn’t been minted yet, but the metal is there. It is the easiest thing in the world to understand that “keys” here was meant as reference to forgiveness of sins, and thus all priests hold the keys after a fashion. Yet it was also understood as something more.

St. Optatus expounds on the relationship of the keys of heaven to the apostles:

But even if the Catholic Church should hesitate about receiving you [Donatists], ought you not to have striven to attain the pattern of unity? But you have shrunk from bringing forward the examples to be found in the Gospel, as for instance what has been written concerning the person of the most blessed Peter, where we may read a description of the way in which unity is to be retained or procured. Without doubt it is evil to do anything against a prohibition, but it is worse not to have unity when you may. We see that this unity was preferred to punishment by Christ Himself, who chose that all His disciples should be in unity rather than punish a sin against Himself. For, as He did not wish to be denied, He declared that whosoever should deny Him before men him would He deny before His Father [but He did not declare that He would punish one who should give up any Scripture, since it is more serious to deny Him who spoke, than to give up the words which He has spoken]. And though this has been thus written, nevertheless, for the sake of unity, blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and** alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest. **(link)

Here the keys can easily mean both forgiveness of sins and episcopal authority. There is a shared usage and application (“holders”), but there is one steward (“keeper”), and one master (“owner”).

Optatus earlier states:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. (link)

 

[Miserere_Mei]

SO Christ delivers Teaching that is implicit only and unfulfilled? We can’t expect the apostles to really grasp what they’re doing? THeir knowledge is imperfect?

It’s not for no reason Paul decries those who claim “I am of Cephas,” that is Peter.

Think of Peter as a type for the Whole Church’s Bisops in matthew 16:18 (A valid interpretation of St. Cyprian) and John’s representing all the CHurch when CHrist delivered the Theotokos to his care.

Many Parallels.

 

[Gofer]

Who can claim to have perfect knowledge? Certainly not you, me nor the Apostles.

 

[Miserere_Mei]

FIrst of all Gofer, this is not about you or me, but about Christ.

Did Christ delegate to Peter alone a divine Commission that grants immediate supreme and universal Jurisdiction?

No.

The Church is built upon ALL the apostles Christ himself being the Chief Cornerstone.

Peter holds the Primacy of Honour for his Confession.

His reception of the keys is done on behalf of all the apostles and bishops of the church.

Did Peter realize this? YES.

EVERY Church father, whenever he seems to interpret Matthew 16:18 in a pro Roman sense fails to do so if you just read one paragraph further than your proof texts.

Example, in one of his writings Tertullian identifies the rock with the person of Peter on which the Church would be built:

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth?”

How Noble, how Roman, how irrefutable! Or not…

‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are*** ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…(***Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).

You see, Peter excercises the FUnction of the Keys at Pentecost and the day after when he unbars the gates of Heaven through the Proclamation of Salvation! THIS IS THE POWER OF THE KEYS!

THat’s one Example, Let’s find a Very Rman proof text. On the Unity of the Church Cyprian gives the following interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:

*“The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). *To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—**yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one **(A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church” (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

Cyprian clearly says that Peter is the rock. If his comments were restricted to the above citation it would lend credence to the idea that he was a proponent of papal primacy. However Cyprian’s comments continue on from the statements given above.** His additional statements prove conclusively that although he states that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in a pro–Roman sense.** His view is that** Peter is a symbol of unity**, a figurative representative of the bishops of the Church. Cyprian viewed all the apostles as being equal with one another. He believed the words to Peter in Matthew 16 to be representative of the ordination of all Bishops so that the Church is founded, not upon one Bishop in one see, but upon all equally in collegiality. Peter, then, is a representative figure of the episcopate as a whole. His view is clearly stated in these words:

“Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her” (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

 

[Miserere_Mei]

One More. Augustine made more comments upon this passage than any other Church father. At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ. The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:

“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).

Nor was this an interpretation that ran counter to the prevailing opinion of his day. The following quotation is representative of the overall view espoused by this great teacher and theologian:

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).

THat clinches it, but I can provide more quotes from the FATHERS if necessary.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Here’s a good summary on Peter’s primacy and the institution of a SUPREME HEAD (from New Advent):

The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band – not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (see THE CHURCH, III).

If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life. For the Church must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ established. But in an organized society it is precisely the constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution other than Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a Divine institution. None who believe that Christ came on earth to found a Church, an organized society destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its Founder.

The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by Christ’s declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He was to give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong to the Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church’s life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle.

Thus an analysis of Christ’s words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike.

And also from the same article:

Those who succeed Peter in Rome succeed him also in the supreme headship

St. Victor

During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty.

 

[Alethiaphile]

catholic1seeks wrote: Here’s a good summary on Peter’s primacy and the institution of a SUPREME HEAD (from New Advent):

St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so.

There is nothing in Eusebius’ account of this affair that suggests that St. Irenaeus “assumes” Victor could have unilaterally excommunicated the Asian churches. If anything, the language Eusebius uses, that Irenaeus and other bishops “harshly rebuked” Victor, suggests they thought he was exceeding his authority, although it doesn’t conclusively prove this.

 

[catholic1seeks]

There is nothing in Eusebius’ account of this affair that suggests that St. Irenaeus “assumes” Victor could have unilaterally excommunicated the Asian churches.

Well, I doubt there’s NOTHING, considering New Advent, which is based off an incredible and extensive Catholic Encyclopedia made in the early 1900s, says it’s one of the best examples, and the other examples were worth looking into!

I’ll look into it…

 

[Miserere_Mei]

It’s interesting that all of what you wrote before your account of St. Victor, Catholic1Seeks, is nothing but a theory.

You do not show from The Fathers or the Scriptures Peters Divine institution as the Supreme Head of the Church, above all Bishops, irreproachable (not subject to Judgement, which is erroneous for Paul calls Him out) or above the rest of the apostles.

You will never Find in any of the Fathers before 1024 EVER any one who claims for the Pope what he is claiming for himself.

As for Pope St. Victor, Here is the quote:

Eusebius of Caesaria’s Church History will be cited on the matter (Book V Chapter 24):

"But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him…

'Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith…I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’.

(Obviously Victor’s view of himself wasn’t accepted by the church at large, which brings it’s whole validity into question)

"He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, **immediately attempted **to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. AND THEY BESOUGHT HIM TO CONSIDER THE THINGS OF PEACE, AND OF NEIGHBORLY UNITY AND LOVE. Words of theirs are extant, **sharply rebuking Victor. **Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom."

It is also worth noting the words of St. Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons who mediated between the two parties here and notice how he approached this dispute in speaking to Pope St. Victor on the matter:

“Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus… NONE WERE EVER CAST OUT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS FORM; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter…But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”

These Bishops were not merely suggesting, they were upset, and they took Victor to task over acting outside his See in a rash manner.

As Irenaeus when France was Still Orthodox, and the Other bishops, so too the Holy Catholic Church. That is, The Orthodox Catholic Church. No innovation! Let Tradition be maintained!
Peter Has the Primacy among Bishops, not above them. He cannot ignore his brothers and trade honor for power. That is a betrayal of Tradition and the faith and reveals a truly Luciferean ideal. “I will ascend to the heights…”

 

[Miserere_Mei]

But how about some more of the Fathers? A little O/orthodoxy anyone?

Let’s start with Origen:

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

**But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

Longer for context, Origen is heady, and you have to weed through Him.

How about more Augustine? The west has only built its entire thrology on him. Or not?

Augustine:

“Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged preeminence, **that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, *‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all ***(Sermon 295).”

“For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on ***account of the primacy ***which he bore among the Disciples; as it is written, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other passages of like purport: so Judas doth represent those Jews who were enemies of Christ” (Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 119).

“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.” (Sermon 229).

It’s Funny, this is What the Orthodox probably get slammed for the most in the Papal debates: “Christ built his church on one man! It’s so obvious just read the words!”

Apparently not friends. We just wanna be Catholics too - minus Roman/Innovators.

 

[Miserere_Mei]

More O/orthodoxy. Sorry.

Augustine again: “And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).

I think we made our point with Augustine.

How about his inspiration, The great Ambrose!

It is to Peter himself that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1979), Volume 2, St. Ambrose, On Twelve Psalms 440, 30, p. 150).

The impression given by Roman Catholic apologists is that in these comments Ambrose supports the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. They apply the following logic to his statement: The above quote seems to suggest that Peter’s person is the rock. And since the bishops of Rome are the successors to Peter they are, therefore, by succession, the rocks of the Church.

Often a quote like this is given out of the context. The result is that an interpretation is given the words of Ambrose that is completely foreign to his true meaning. This becomes clear upon examination of his other statements:

“He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies”

(The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).

John Chrysostom anyone?

It is also evident from Chrysostom’s exegesis of Matthew 16 that he did not teach that Peter was made supreme ruler of the Church. He did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, but his confession of faith, pointing to Christ himself as the rock and only foundation of the Church:

“And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd…For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven” (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).

“He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…”(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).

Strange Unanimous Agreement with Cyprian so far! What the heck is going on…

 

[Deconi]

Maserere…

Is it your desire, or position, to divorce a man’s confession from the man?

Are you seriously citing the ECFS as supportive of the novelty that a man is not accountable for his confession?

Were it true that The Church was built on JUST the confession of any man, then The Church should either expire or abandoned to the winds of change upon that man’s death!

Once again I say to you, and likewise views, you are free to BUILD YOUR SUPPOSITIONS in any direction you like, but please spare us enough intellect to at least learn what we hold and why! If, thereafter, you remain aloof, at best, or unconvinced, at worse, then the issue is moot.

 

[twf]

Miserere Mei…:
You and others seem to fail to realize, again and again on these boards, that the Catholic Church has always, and does now, teach that the Rock is at the same time, Peter, his confession, his office, and Christ! We are not fundamentalist Protestants who understand Scripture in black and white, either/or terms! Of course the entire Church exercises the authority of the keys. The Church is clear that her supreme authority is the Pope AND bishops in union with him. Both the Pope and ecumenical councils exercise binding and loosing power over the entire Church. All bishops share in the power of binding and loosing, in the power of the keys, but this power is given first, and in a special way, to Peter and his sucessors at Rome. Opponents of the papacy seem to forget that the Church teaches that while the Pope is THE Vicar of Christ, all bishops are also vicars of Christ in their own local churches and NOT simply vicars of the Pope. St. Optatus and many other fathers (as well as the historical precedents cited here and elsewhere on this forum in the past) are clear that one chair was given special authority to ensure unity. This is the Catholic position…not that all authority is held by the Roman papacy.

There is no point in debating the nature of the papacy if the teachings of the Catholic Church are not properly understood. Sadly, many Latins do not fully understand the Church’s teachings themselves.

 

[Miserere_Mei]

DId you not read the quotes of Ambrose? Primacy of COnfession, not of Rank!

It’s very Simple, the church is founded on Peter’s OCnfession of Faith, That Jesus is the CHrist, the Son of the Living God. THe Pope is not Supreme, but First.

We cannot believe or accept that Christ meant more than what he said, not as Protestants do (Picking and CHoosing) but remaining faithful to what was, is and ever shall be the Truth.

If the Fathers are not enough, then you don’t understand their place or significance.

Catholic means everywhere, always and at all times. SHow me that there is more meaning to the Papacy than what the Fathers have to say. Show me the Fathers who clarify all the other aspects and describe it like you do.

No one can or will ever be able to…Because they don’t.

Papal infallibility is an invention. It is a necessary Corollary for the ROmans who want, who NEED to have a Universal Bishop to preside over the others and centralize Unity/Uniformity.

Gregory the Great says NONE can claim the Title of Universal bishop, for if that Universal one Fall, the Church falls.

So just Make the UNiversal one infallible, right?

Wrong, how about abandoning an innovationist mindset and coming to the Church.