Papacy question

[GeorgeCooney]

I commend many herein for their authoritative responses in defense of the primacy of Peter. I need not repeat all of that; but, I would like to emphasize that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of St. Peter. AND, most importantlt, the POPE is not the POPE because he is the bishop of Rome, he is the bishop of Rome because he is the POPE. Although I believe completely that it is by divine guidance that Peter ended his life in Rome. It is because he died in Rome and is buried in Rome that his successors have kept that as the seat of the Church.

 

[jco2004]

ZoeTheodora:

You’ve convinced me, Joe. The bishop of Jerusalem is the pope. :whacky:

Funny, Diane. Actually, there is more evidence for Jamesian primacy here than Petrine primacy. But, once again, you’ve missed the point. The point is, in the first major doctrinal dispute to hit the Church, and the only one described in detail in scripture, the dispute was resolved on the conciliar model of Orthodoxy, not on the papal model. That’s why it’s so inconvenient for you; it’s inconsistent with a clear belief in Petrine primacy in the early Church. So you resort to the usual tactics: downplay the importance of the council; give a tortured interpetation of it whereby Peter makes the decision; or some combination of the two.

Diane: But seriously–this famous passage from Chrysostom should be cited in context. Else you are pulling a Michael Whelton–a cut-&-paste trashing of the Fathers.

Then give the context. I’ve posted the whole passage, as I have it, and yes, I got it out of Whelton, who I’m reading for the first time, although I’ve seen it other places too. The context seems pretty clearly to be the Council of Jerusalem. If there’s a wider context which changes the import, or it’s inaccurate, then correct me, and I’ll never post it again. This couldn’t just be the usual tactic when confronted with an adverse passage, “It’s taken out of context!” could it?

Diane: Elsewhere, after all, the same Chrysostom makes it abundantly clear that he does NOT regard James as holding authority even equal to Peter’s, let alone higher. He calls Peter the Rock, the Coryphaeus of the apostolic choir, etc., and says that Peter “taught the whole world.” And that’s not even scratching the surface–Chrysostom has much to say re Peter’s unique role as supreme leader.

Yes, he does. But we were talking specifically about Chrysostom’s view of the Council of Jerusalem. Once again, you’re not focusing on the topic at hand. I wasn’t trying to debate Chrysostom’s overall view of the Petrine ministry. If you want, to, go ahead.

Diane: But I think you know that. Perhaps you’re just being disingenuous in citing this little snippet completely out of context (which gives a very misleading impression of Chrysostom’s views on Petrine primacy).

Again, that wasn’t my topic. Try to focus.

Diane: BTW–you do know how worn and hackneyed your arguments are, right? The very same arguments, the very same patristic passages, are routinely trotted out by people like James White, William Webster, and Eric Svendsen.
You’re in good company. :dancing:

So what? I doubt they make the exact same arguments, and even if they do, the fact that they’re wrong on some things doesn’t make them wrong about everything. You’re getting rather demagogic Diane. I’m sorry to see that. Guilt by association, always a good tactic. I don’t care if Adolf Hitler once used them, the quotes are there, and, like Acts 15, they pretty much speak for themselves. If they’re hackneyed, show that they are, don’t just state it.

ZT

 

[Sanosuke]

St. John Chrysostom
Homilies on the Gospel of John

HOMILY LXXXVIII.

“Here again He alludeth to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.”

It is also interesting to note that in Chrysostom’s homilies on the Gospel of Matthew (homily 54), he says that the rock is Peter’s testimony. And yet, four paragraphs later, he says that Jesus entrusted the keys of heaven to a mortal man. It isn’t a variety of opinions if one simply looks at one coin from different sides. Unless, of course, the coin is double-sided. ;p

 

[ZoeTheodora]

“Try to focus.” I love that. When all else fails, resort to sneering condescension.

Tell ya what, Joe. Why don’t you address your questions to Mr. Keating, who (I guarantee) has read more of the Fathers than you and I combined and cubed?

Meanwhile, for a good analysis of Chrysostom re the papacy–including effective rebuttals of precisely the arguments you’ve been making here – please go to: catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=34

Scroll down to “Webster Stumbles “Upon this Rock” 2: St. Chrysostom, Peter and the Primacy” and download it.

God bless,

ZT

P.S. In the forum whence we’ve both come, it was easy for contra-Catholics to bully Catholics, but I think you’ll find it’s somewhat less easy to do that here. There are a lot more of us. And, judging from this thread, I’ll bet many people here have read at least as much patristics as you have.

P.P.S. If you’re really sincere about finding an answer to your questions, why don’t you go to the “Ask an Apologist” forum below? Those folks really know their patristics, theology, and Church history. (Of course, that may be why you choose not to post there…but no, I won’t speculate as to motives…qui, moi? :angel1: Perish the thought. )

 

[ZoeTheodora]

I apologize for my snotty tone and unfair insinuations in the post above.

I would have edited the post, but the system won’t let me. :eek

ZT

 

[jco2004]

“Try to focus.” I love that. When all else fails, resort to sneering condescension.

I apologize for that, it was condescending. When my motives are being questioned constantly, it’s hard to remain perfectly respectful. Now that we’ve made mutal apologies, maybe we can make a fresh start.

Tell ya what, Joe. Why don’t you address your questions to Mr. Keating, who (I guarantee) has read more of the Fathers than you and I combined and cubed?

I will probably do that.

 

[jco2004]

The corinthians appealed to Rome: just as the early church of Antioch appealed to the Apostles at Jerusalem for a solution to their problems in Acts 15:2
Here is one example of Universal jurisdiction of an Early Pope intervening in the affairs of other churchs For doctrine there are other examples.
Clement’s letter to the Corinthians:

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions of Emperor Domitian), we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.” (First Clement, Chapter 1)
There was no living Apostle living in Rome at this time. The Corinthians should hae appealed to nearby Ephesus as they did in the days of Paul: 1 Cor 7:1 and 16:8, where the Apostle John was still alive and presiding.

Reply: Well, first, I Cor. 7:1 refers to an inquiry by the Corinthians of Paul, but says nothing about Ephesus. 16:8 merely has Paul say that he intends to stay at Ephesus. I don’t believe that there is any evidence that Ephesus was an early center of authority; Paul was a missionary, and the Corinthians wrote to Paul at Ephesus because that’s where he happened to be.
The Apostle John settled at Ephesus, but I don’t believe, despite his great authority on theological matters, he ever got involved in disciplinary matters. If someone has specific facts to the contrary on this, I’m open to correction. That simply wasn’t his role in the early church, to my knowledge; he had a unique charism as evangelist, theologian, and mystic. Catholic author Hans Urs von Balthasar writes extensively on this.
What this amounts to is that it is not surprising that Rome should write to the Corinthians. Ephesus was closer geograhically, but, as I said, was not a center of authority, although it was a center of renown. There is no doubt that Rome was a center of authority, on account of Peter’s episcopacy, and Peter and Paul’s martyrdom there. Rome was closer to Corinth than the other centers of authority at that time, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Therefore, the letter to the Corinthains can be used to show Rome’s primacy vis-a-vis Ephesus, but not necessarily vis-a-vis the others.

On the other hand, Pope Victor attempted to exercise universal jurisdiction over the Asian churches in the Easter date controversy in the mid-second century, and the Asian bishops, by way of Polycrates of Ephesus, basically told him to take a hike. Eusebius of Caesarea, the 4th century historian, says that Pope Victor then “attempted” to cut off, excommunicate, the Asian churches, but was “sternly rebuked” by some of the other western bishops, including Ireneaus of Lyons. The Asian churches remianed adamant in their position at that time, although Pope Victor’s position was eventually adopted by the entire Church, yet the excommunication never happened. At the very least, the fact that the Asian bishops were not cut off from the Church for failing to recognize Rome’s universal jurisdiction shows that such jurisdiction was not clearly established at that time.
​

​

 

[Sanosuke]

On the other hand, Pope Victor attempted to exercise universal jurisdiction over the Asian churches in the Easter date controversy in the mid-second century, and the Asian bishops, by way of Polycrates of Ephesus, basically told him to take a hike. Eusebius of Caesarea, the 4th century historian, says that Pope Victor then “attempted” to cut off, excommunicate, the Asian churches, but was “sternly rebuked” by some of the other western bishops, including Ireneaus of Lyons. The Asian churches remianed adamant in their position at that time, although Pope Victor’s position was eventually adopted by the entire Church, yet the excommunication never happened. At the very least, the fact that the Asian bishops were not cut off from the Church for failing to recognize Rome’s universal jurisdiction shows that such jurisdiction was not clearly established at that time.

jco2004: Correction: at the request of Victor, local councils were established, all of which agreed with Victor except Asia Minor (led by Polycrates, of course). In other words, the entire Church didn’t eventually adopt these Easter dates at some later date, they had already done so by the time this whole controversy with the Asian Churches had gotten underway. I believe it is important to note that Victor requested local councils, everyone obliged, and everyone but the churches of Asia Minor conformed to Victor’s opinions. When was the last time the bishop of Antioch requested local councils, and everyone obliged,conforming to the opinion of the bishop of Antioch? I can count on less than one hand.

I also believe you misinterpret Eusebius. I will type out the quote you are referring to and show you why.

Eusebius, THe History of the Church 5, 23-25:

Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Christians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a reques that he would turn his mind to the things that make for eace and for unity and love towards his neighbors. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them wwas Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was responsible in Gaul. While supporting the view that only on the Lord’s Day might the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection be celebrated, he gave Victor a great deal of excellent advice, in particular that he should not cut off entire churches of God because they observed the unbroken tradition of their predecessors.

Now I picked up a few things in their which were seemingly overlooked. First, read the last sentence. Does Ireneaus question Victor’s authority to excommunicate so many churches? No, he does not. It says, “…he should not cut off entire churches of God…”. I’m not a grammarian, but “should not” is entirely different than “could not”. Should not implies that one has the ability to do the act in the first place. For instance, “I should not jump of a cliff” implies that I have the ability to jump of a cliff, whereas “I could not jump of a cliff” implies that I do not have the ability to do so. So when I see Ireneaus telling Victor that he “should not cut off entire churches”, I take from it that Victor has the ability to do so if he wanted to.

Secondly, the bishops that did not like Victor’s ideas of excommunication “replied with a request that he…”. These bishops did not tell Victor that he did not have the authority to cut off entire churches, but told him that he’d be making a terrible mistake if he did. Sure, Victor was “sternly rebuked”, but so were several other Popes throughout the ages; it does not diminish their authority or the prestige of their post. At any rate, it seems clear to me that while Victor was about to make a terrible mistake, everyone acknowledged his ability to do so. I do not see anything about Victor not having the authority to do what he was about to do.

 

[Sanosuke]

As a closing note, jco2004, it is commendable that you come to a Catholic forum and espouse your views, but I had to kick myself, literally force myself, to enter into this discussion. I have nothing against you (in fact, I think you are doing a fine job against an entire message board ), but this thread has dabbled in a topic, skipped to another topic, and then moved on to yet another one. The problem with such a debate is that no topic is ever discussed in any real detail. Often times in such lengthy quote wars, many important points are swept under the table because, due to the numerous amount of facts being stated, one cannot possibly answer everything. Take this post, for example. I have written an entire page in a word document answering a paragraph long statement. In a thread that is growing larger by the day, we will soon have numerous page long responses, answered by even longer responses, and the vicious cycle continues without ever getting to the meat of the issue. I wasn’t even allowed to make my entire response in one post because it was too long. Think of how big this thread is going to get if we have people writing polemics against people’s polemics.

So while this thread deals with a very important topic, is definitely well intentioned, and is most certainly filled with intelligent people, I find that quote wars, due to their nature, convince no one and are often times counterproductive. Simplification is a virtue on message boards.

 

[jco2004]

Sanosuke:

jco2004: Correction: at the request of Victor, local councils were established, all of which agreed with Victor except Asia Minor (led by Polycrates, of course). In other words, the entire Church didn’t eventually adopt these Easter dates at some later date, they had already done so by the time this whole controversy with the Asian Churches had gotten underway. I believe it is important to note that Victor requested local councils, everyone obliged, and everyone but the churches of Asia Minor conformed to Victor’s opinions. When was the last time the bishop of Antioch requested local councils, and everyone obliged,conforming to the opinion of the bishop of Antioch? I can count on less than one hand.

I also believe you misinterpret Eusebius. I will type out the quote you are referring to and show you why.

Now I picked up a few things in their which were seemingly overlooked. First, read the last sentence. Does Ireneaus question Victor’s authority to excommunicate so many churches? No, he does not. It says, “…he should not cut off entire churches of God…”. I’m not a grammarian, but “should not” is entirely different than “could not”. Should not implies that one has the ability to do the act in the first place. For instance, “I should not jump of a cliff” implies that I have the ability to jump of a cliff, whereas “I could not jump of a cliff” implies that I do not have the ability to do so. So when I see Ireneaus telling Victor that he “should not cut off entire churches”, I take from it that Victor has the ability to do so if he wanted to.

Secondly, the bishops that did not like Victor’s ideas of excommunication “replied with a request that he…”. These bishops did not tell Victor that he did not have the authority to cut off entire churches, but told him that he’d be making a terrible mistake if he did. Sure, Victor was “sternly rebuked”, but so were several other Popes throughout the ages; it does not diminish their authority or the prestige of their post. At any rate, it seems clear to me that while Victor was about to make a terrible mistake, everyone acknowledged his ability to do so. I do not see anything about Victor not having the authority to do what he was about to do.

Sanosuke, I don’t have time right now to give your post, and the other one, the responses they deserve, but I thank you for your thoughtful and measured posts. You’ve brought up several good points that need to be conidered. Joe

 

[VociMike]

jco2004:

When is the power of the keys actually given? In Matt. 16:19 Christ promises He will give them to Peter. It couldn’t have been at the ordination of the apostles, since nothing special is mentioned about Peter, unless it was extrascriptural.

You do accept that the keys were given at some point (as Christ said they would), don’t you? If you do, then what is the purpose of your question?

 

[Richard_Lamb]

welcome aboard

 

[Thomas2]

Joe,

If you honestly read all the passages in the Bible that mention Peter, you could only draw one conclusion - in Jesus’ eyes , he was and still is top dog when it comes to His Church, which He has built and which is still standing after two thousand years of the gates of hell trying to prevail. You aren’t the first person to have a problem with Peter’s primacy, nor will you be the last, but I sure hope you get over it. To read into Scripture what you want it to say is rather short sighted. Try asking God to let you know if it is true. I’m sure He’ll answer you sincere prayer or are you afraid of the answer?

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[Sanosuke]

Now now, Thomas. No one has ever been converted after being called short-sighted/ other names. Recite with me: love is patient, love is kind…

 

[Thomas2]

P.S. I know it was spoken about a while back, but you mentioned the Council at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were providing an account of all they had done before arriving at Jerusalem with the Gentiles. James’ speech was concerned with avoiding idols, unlawful marriage, meat of strangled animals and blood. (all things that at that time were parts of the paganistic worship they were converting from!) The rest of the council’s time was spent picking men to go with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. Please re-read the passages concerned.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[jco2004]

Thomas2:

P.S. I know it was spoken about a while back, but you mentioned the Council at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were providing an account of all they had done before arriving at Jerusalem with the Gentiles. James’ speech was concerned with avoiding idols, unlawful marriage, meat of strangled animals and blood. (all things that at that time were parts of the paganistic worship they were converting from!) The rest of the council’s time was spent picking men to go with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. Please re-read the passages concerned.

After Sanosuke’s gracious influence, I hate to have to respond like this, but I guarantee I’ve read the passages concerned more times than you have, I’ve read more about the passages concerned than you have, and if the above is really all you got out of Acts 15, then you’re the one who needs to reread it. Hint: Something was decided there about whether Gentile converts needed to be cirumcised. You apparently missed that part.

 

[Sanosuke]

Is it just me, or is it getting a little warm in here?

 

[ZoeTheodora]

I highly recommend Fr. Luke Rivington’s The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, which has an extensive discussion of the controversy over the date of Easter.

You are correct, Sanosuke. Irenaeus certainly didn’t dictate to Pope Victor; to the contrary, he was cordial and deferential. He never questioned Pope St. Victor’s authority to excommunicate the churches in question but merely the wisdom of doing so.

Anyway, Fr. Rivington discusses the whole episode at length, with careful analysis of all the extant documents.

God bless,

Diane

 

[ZoeTheodora]

jco2004:

Thomas2:

P.S. I know it was spoken about a while back, but you mentioned the Council at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were providing an account of all they had done before arriving at Jerusalem with the Gentiles. James’ speech was concerned with avoiding idols, unlawful marriage, meat of strangled animals and blood. (all things that at that time were parts of the paganistic worship they were converting from!) The rest of the council’s time was spent picking men to go with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. Please re-read the passages concerned.

After Sanosuke’s gracious influence, I hate to have to respond like this, but I guarantee I’ve read the passages concerned more times than you have, I’ve read more about the passages concerned than you have, and if the above is really all you got out of Acts 15, then you’re the one who needs to reread it. Hint: Something was decided there about whether Gentile converts needed to be cirumcised. You apparently missed that part.

IIRC, Jesus, Peter and the Keys cites several prominent Protestant Scripture scholars who concede that the Catholic interpretation of Acts 15 is spot-on. Peter spoke first. The assembly fell silent. Peter laid down the doctrinal decision. The assembly accepted it–including James, who had been inclined toward the Judaizing party hitherto. James, in his capacity as bishop of Jerusalem, then provided practical directives for implementing the Petrine decision in a way that would not be offensive to Jewish Christian sensibilities. Even (thoughtful) Protestant scholars now concur that this episode attests Peter’s primacy (while not negating James’ role–there’s that old collegiality thang ).

Moreover, within just a few years James’ practical prescriptions were no longer applied. Paul makes no mention of them in his letters. And I daresay, Joe, that when your ancestors converted to Christianity, no one required that they refrain from eating strangled animals.

Peter’s decision–to admit gentiles without requiring circumcision–was passed down through the ages, with enormous consequences for the spread of Christianity.

James’ added prescriptions from the Noachide Law were not.

How that proves James’ superior authority vis-a-vis Peter is beyond me.

But as Sanosuke says, we can play “dueling Bible and patristic passages” till the cows come home without getting anywhere, because of the limitations of the medium and the scattershot way in which this particular thread has proceeded.

God bless,

ZT

 

[Sanosuke]

ZoeTheodora:

I highly recommend Fr. Luke Rivington’s The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, which has an extensive discussion of the controversy over the date of Easter.

You are correct, Sanosuke. Irenaeus certainly didn’t dictate to Pope Victor; to the contrary, he was cordial and deferential. He never questioned Pope St. Victor’s authority to excommunicate the churches in question but merely the wisdom of doing so.

Anyway, Fr. Rivington discusses the whole episode at length, with careful analysis of all the extant documents.

God bless,

Diane

Zoe, what other things does that book talk about? I have never heard of it.