Papal Supremacy

[Nine_Two]

693 mi Athens to Antioch
653 mi Athens to Rome

---

40 miles

That’s cutting it close

And?

 

[steve_b]

This is why I think that either you have no idea what you’re arguing against, or what you are actually arguing for. None of those things are something we disagree with.

So you agree with Rome* exercising jurisdiction over other sees in other countries, isn’t some new development as late commers want to argue. It was already happening DURING apostolic times.? *
N:

Your final point, however, is exactly what the issue is, and what I’ve been arguing about. Though the Bishop of Rome (Peter had three sees, even according to the Roman reconing) was involved in other juristictions, it has not been shown that this is anything like the immediate juristiction believed by the modern Catholic Church.

When Peter moved, his new place was his see. Peter’s see is Rome.

Let me ask you. What kind of jurisdiction did Clement exercise in dealing with Sedition in Corinth?
N:

Any Bishop could intervene in any other see,

Oh really?
N:

and Rome, as the highest in honour, was the one who was asked in the bulk (if not all) major cases. But that doesn’t mean the Bishop of Rome had the right to interfere.

How do you distinguish between intervene and interfere?
N:

They were all Catholic, as am I. They were also all Orthodox, as am I. I’m not sure what your point is with labels.

Are you claiming to be the Catholic Church?
N:

You mean by saying he wasn’t a micromanager in charge of every aspect of the Church? How dare I! That’s blasphemy, or something.

When I asked why Corinth didn’t ask St John who was living less that 200 miles away, for assistance to fix sedition among their bishops, you responded
“St. John was NOT supreme over the Church. Ever. Nor was he a mediator of all the disputes that arose in the Church. He had his own mission within the Church.”
You realize by saying that, you’re the one saying, when Clement was asked instead of John, that means Clement has supreme authority over the Church, a mediator of all disputes in the Church.
N:

I’m a bit stunned that you’re the one dismissing him as less important than the Roman Bishop, and then you accuse me of dismissing him when I said he didn’t arbitrate over every dispute because he had other things he was doing.

You’re the one that said
“St. John was NOT supreme over the Church. Ever. Nor was he a mediator of all the disputes that arose in the Church. He had his own mission within the Church.”
You realize, by that statement, you’re saying the one Corinth chooses to mediate, will be the one who fits that description.
N:

Explain to me why I was watching two prominent communing Catholics on TV during my lunch hour (Colbert and Pelosi) basically saying the Bishops (and therefore the Pope) was wrong on this whole contraception thing?

Let’s not be hypocritical here. You don’t have name only Orthodox in your ranks? Every Orthodox tows the line without any disagreements or scandal?
Everybody knows what the CC teaches. Good Catholics obey the Church. Disobedient Catholics don’t. Bishops have told Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Sebelius, et al, not to receive communion. The onus now is on the offending individuals. They know, during final judgment, they will answer for what they do.
N:

The view of the pope is certainly equivalent to the Anglo view of the Monarchy. You have some people who really care, but most don’t.

nonsense.
N:

As for the prominence of Rome. Study your history. It was a cesspool for much of its history, it was abandoned for Avignon for a significant period of the Middle Ages, when Byzantium retook Southern Italy (Including Rome), they made the capital Ravanna.
Like most major cities, the influence of Rome has waxed and waned throughout the years.

Yet it’s the eternal city, see of St Peter. With all the promises Jesus gave the papacy. And here we are 2000 years later. That gives me great peace of mind

 

[Nine_Two]

So you agree with Rome* exercising jurisdiction over other sees in other countries, isn’t some new development as late commers want to argue. It was already happening DURING apostolic times.? *

At their request. Absolutely.

Let me ask you. What kind of jurisdiction did Clement exercise in dealing with Sedition in Corinth?

That of a mediator.

Oh really?

On the condition that he is invited.

How do you distinguish between intervene and interfere?

To interfere is to forcibly intervene. It is a type of intervention, but a type that should be avoided.

Are you claiming to be the Catholic Church?

I am claiming to be a member of the Catholic Church, the same Catholic Church in which they were members.

When I asked why Corinth didn’t ask St John who was living less that 200 miles away, for assistance to fix sedition among their bishops, you responded
“St. John was NOT supreme over the Church. Ever. Nor was he a mediator of all the disputes that arose in the Church. He had his own mission within the Church.”
You realize by saying that, you’re the one saying, when Clement was asked instead of John, that means Clement has supreme authority over the Church, a mediator of all disputes in the Church.

Being asked to arbitrate does not make one a supreme authority.

You’re the one that said
“St. John was NOT supreme over the Church. Ever. Nor was he a mediator of all the disputes that arose in the Church. He had his own mission within the Church.”
You realize, by that statement, you’re saying the one Corinth chooses to mediate, will be the one who fits that description.

Would you mind clarifying. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
Are you saying that Rome had supremacy by virtue of the fact that Corinth asked them to mediate? If you are I’d certainly agree that Rome was granted it in that dispute Corinth certainly didn’t have the authority to grant it for all time over every See.

Let’s not be hypocritical here. You don’t have name only Orthodox in your ranks? Every Orthodox tows the line without any disagreements or scandal?
Everybody knows what the CC teaches. Good Catholics obey the Church. Disobedient Catholics don’t. Bishops have told Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Sebelius, et al, not to receive communion. The onus now is on the offending individuals. They know, during final judgment, they will answer for what they do.

You missed the point entirely. I was not trying to point out that there are Caffeteria Catholics. I was pointing out the influence of the Pope. You seem to hold the opinion that he is of supreme influence in all the world. I was suggesting this is not true, even among those numbered as Catholics.

nonsense.

Yes, you’ve been doing that throughout this discussion. You don’t have a counter, you just give a one liner dismissal. Tell me why this isn’t an apt description, or conceed that the Pope is not overly influential in the modern world.

Yet it’s the eternal city, see of St Peter. With all the promises Jesus gave the papacy. And here we are 2000 years later. That gives me great peace of mind

And this has what to do with anything?

 

[steve_b]

That of a mediator.

Then why didn’t they ask John?
N:

On the condition that he is invited.

using the EO as an example, you mean if you had a diocese with a bishop(s) in sedition, no EO bishop regardless of rank could step in and try to fix it unless invited?
N:

To interfere is to forcibly intervene. It is a type of intervention, but a type that should be avoided.

What about the previous example?
N:

I am claiming to be a member of the Catholic Church, the same Catholic Church in which they were members.

So you believe the following

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-3 “Against Heresies”
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist everywhere.
N:

Being asked to arbitrate does not make one a supreme authority

Arbitrators settle matters. Their decisions are binding.
N:

Would you mind clarifying. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
Are you saying that Rome had supremacy by vertue of the fact that Corinth asked them to mediate? If you are I’d certainly agree that Rome was granted it in that dispute Corinth certainly didn’t have the authority to grant it for all time over every See.

Rome has supremacy because it’s the chair of Peter.
N:

You missed the point entirely. I was not trying to point out that there are Caffeteria Catholics. I was pointing out the influence of the Pope. You seem to hold the opinion that he is of supreme influence in all the world. I was suggesting this is not true, even among those numbered as Catholics.

The pope is a highly visible force and witness in the world. President Reagan and JPII became allies to defeat the Russian communists. And they did it without fireing a shot. Gorbechev even credits JPII for the collapse of communism.

Not bad. eh?

otoh Patriarch Alexie II head of the ROC, who was a KGB member, codename Drozdov, didn’t even let JPII visit Catholics in Russia.
N:

Yes, you’ve been doing that throughout this discussion. You don’t have a counter, you just give a one liner dismissal. Tell me why this isn’t an apt description, or conceed that the Pope is not overly influential in the modern world.

I’d say I gave you a pretty good counter. No One argues the visibility of the pope on the world stage.

 

[Jacob50]

Hmmm since ill probably not see the quotes I wanted (at least not very soon), I guess ill just hop in the discussion a lil bit. Though I may take time to respond due to RL stuff.

St Irenaues wrote:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Adversus Heresies Book 3, Chapter 3).

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Lets look at this quote from Irenaeus. For Irenaeus, Rome is the very great and very ancient and universally known church founded and organized, by (according to Irenaues) the 2 most glorious apostles (Peter and Paul). I ask you Orthodox (knowing the answer), do you consider this same Church in schism? Why doesn’t he say: "of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Antioch? Wasn’t Peter also there? So why Rome?

He continues and says “for it is a matter of necessity” that every Church should agree with this Church. Why? Why is it a matter of necessity Irenaues?
He says: On account of its preeminent authority. Wait. What preeminent authority?

Orthodox, do you agree with this Church? If the answer is no (which is obviously the answer) then you are not doing what Irenaeus said, was a matter of great necessity are you?

Lets look at the definition of the word preeminent on 3 different dictionaries.
1- pre·em·i·nent or pre-em·i·nent. Superior to or notable above all others; outstanding.
thefreedictionary.com/preeminent

2- eminent above or before others; superior; surpassing
dictionary.reference.com/browse/preeminent

3- Exceeding others in quality or rank; of outstanding excellence, extremely notable or important. [from 15th c.]
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preeminent

To sum it up, Rome has Superior (Preeminent) Authority. That is why every Church must agree with this Church. If not, why then do all Churches must agree with this one? If it has the same authority than others, why did Irenaeus bothered to even mention it with so high esteem (very great, very ancient etc)?

The next paragraph, Irenaeus, goes on with the succession of the Popes, ending the paragraph: “And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

Nicholas Afanassieff writes:

“This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches. Rome’s vocation [in the pre-Nicene period] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the centre where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…”

St. Irenaeus says every Church must agree with the Church of Rome, not almost every Church. Not only the Churches in or near Rome, he said every…

 

[Nine_Two]

Then why didn’t they ask John?

using the EO as an example, you mean if you had a diocese with a bishop(s) in sedition, no EO bishop regardless of rank could step in and try to fix it unless invited?

What about the previous example?

So you believe the following

Bk 3 ch 3, vs 2-3 “Against Heresies”
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Arbitrators settle matters. Their decisions are binding.

Rome has supremacy because it’s the chair of Peter.

The pope is a highly visible force and witness in the world. President Reagan and JPII became allies to defeat the Russian communists. And they did it without fireing a shot. Gorbechev even credits JPII for the collapse of communism.

Not bad. eh?

otoh Patriarch Alexie II head of the ROC, who was a KGB member, codename Drozdov, didn’t even let JPII visit Catholics in Russia.

I’d say I gave you a pretty good counter. No One argues the visibility of the pope on the world stage.

You’re either going in circles, begging the question, or coming in with non-sequiters with the odd ad hominem thrown in for good measure.

If this is not going to be an open and honest discussion, I want no more part in it.

 

[Ignatios]

Then why didn’t they ask John?

According to a number of scholars that St John at that time was in exile around the year 95 that is the same year (or 96) that St Clement wrote his letter,however in that Epistle he did not act of his own authority, but in the name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity, nowhere it mentions that he was speaking in the name of the Chair of St Peter or in the office that he occupies, if the Bishop of Rome himself had written the letter, one might expect him to assert his authority ( as the RCC claims) by mentioning his position.

All we have that he spoke in the name of the Church of Rome not in the name of the office of Peter or in the name of the Pope …etc

Hermas, who was also from Rome, nowhere calls Clement or anyone else in his day, the Bishop of Rome, it is striking that few years later the Bishop of Antioch Saint Ignatios could write the Church in Rome and give no indication that there was a single Bishop in charge where he mentioned the names of the Bishops in all other Churches except Rome.

 

[1AugustSon7]

The difference is that I haven’t yet seen it demonstrated that the Pope is the bishop of all churches.

Read Acts 15.

[1] And some ***coming down ***from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. [2] And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should ***go up to ***the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question…

[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them:

Notice what happens. The authorities in the Church meet at Jerusalem, which is Saint Jame’s See/Bishopric, to consider a matter. They consider the matter (just like the Council Fathers at Trent, for example), and once it devolves into disputing, Saint Peter rises up (the only person recorded to have done such a thing) and declares something to them all. And what is the consequence of this?

[12] And all the multitude held their peace;

Voila. “All the multitude” it says, even! But in case you didn’t catch it the first time, the very next verse begins,

[13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying:

 

[Ignatios]

Read Acts 15.

[1] And some ***coming down ***from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. [2] And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should ***go up to ***the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question…

[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them:

Notice what happens. The authorities in the Church meet at Jerusalem, which is Saint Jame’s See/Bishopric, to consider a matter. They consider the matter (just like the Council Fathers at Trent, for example), and once it devolves into disputing, Saint Peter rises up (the only person recorded to have done such a thing) and declares something to them all. And what is the consequence of this?

[12] And all the multitude held their peace;

Voila. “All the multitude” it says, even! But in case you didn’t catch it the first time, the very next verse begins,

[13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying:

This is what you say, but here is what one of the greatest Doctors of your church says about this matter ( St. John Chrysostom):

"This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for** James was invested with the chief rule**, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom,Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.
"

And again here:

“…Peter too hearing this joins in the feint, as if he had erred, that they might be corrected by means of the rebuke administered to him. Had Paul reproved these Jews, they would have spurned at it with indignation, for they held him in slight esteem; but now, when they saw their Teacher silent under rebuke, they were unable to despise or resist** Paul’s sentence**” St John Chrysostom,Homily on Galatians.

 

[steve_b]

According to a number of scholars that St John at that time was in exile around the year 95 that is the same year (or 96) that St Clement wrote his letter,however in that Epistle he did not act of his own authority, but in the name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity, nowhere it mentions that he was speaking in the name of the Chair of St Peter or in the office that he occupies, if the Bishop of Rome himself had written the letter, one might expect him to assert his authority ( as the RCC claims) by mentioning his position.

· “scholars” as a term , without naming names is rather nebulous. There are also “sclolars” like William Jurgens who date Clement’s letter early 80’s.
· rarely do Popes in writing, use “I” referring to themselves.
· John being exiled on Patmos is open to debate. The point is, Clement and John are alive at the time Clement settles sedition in Corinth. And John is living less than 200 miles from Corinth whether it is Patmos or Ephesus
I:

All we have that he spoke in the name of the Church of Rome not in the name of the office of Peter or in the name of the Pope …etc

If one only had Clement’s letter alone, in all of history, to try and build a case for the office of Peter, and Clement as his successor, I agree that would be silly. But putting his letter with 2000 years of writings, some to follow, the job becomes easy.
I:

Hermas, who was also from Rome, nowhere calls Clement or anyone else in his day, the Bishop of Rome,

I wouldn’t make Hermas the smoking gun for that point.

Hermas, in the writings we have from him, never mentions Jesus either. Does that mean Hermas doesn’t think Jesus exists?
newadvent.org/fathers/0201.htm
I:

it is striking that few years later the Bishop of Antioch Saint Ignatios could write the Church in Rome and give no indication that there was a single Bishop in charge where he mentioned the names of the Bishops in all other Churches except Rome.

Ignatius wrote the following to Smyrna. You know the quote

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; [snip] Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. [snip] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop [snip] so that everything that is done may be secure and valid…

Why assume Ignatius would break his own rule when writing to the Church of Rome and bypass the bishop? In 107 a.d., Pope Alexander is in the chair of Peter.

Irenaeus mentions Alexander, in the lineage of popes mentioned in “Against Heresies” . Irenaeus also describes Clement’s letter to Corinth. Ignatius would also know this up to his time

Bk 3 Ch 3
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate.

[snip for space]

given Ignatius frame of mind and what he taught. “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop” he knew his letter would need to go to the bishop of Rome 1st.

 

[Jacob50]

This is what you say, but here is what one of the greatest Doctors of your church says about this matter ( St. John Chrysostom):

"This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom,Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.
"

And again here:

“…Peter too hearing this joins in the feint, as if he had erred, that they might be corrected by means of the rebuke administered to him. Had Paul reproved these Jews, they would have spurned at it with indignation, for they held him in slight esteem; but now, when they saw their Teacher silent under rebuke, they were unable to despise or resist Paul’s sentence” St John Chrysostom,Homily on Galatians.

Read the first quote you cited here carefully which can be interpreted supporting the Catholic position as it says: Peter spoke more strongly while James more midly…talk about James being more authoritative than Peter…

The second quote does not say anything about supremacy or not. A Pope can make mistakes when he isn’t speaking ex-cathedra or in an authoritative council. Peter did a mistake so? That doesn’t prove anything at all. Nowhere will you find Paul having a higher rank than Peter.

Now Lets see some quotes for St. John Chrysostom, who happens to be you Father as well:

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))

-St John Chrysostom

This quote from St. John may be interpreted this way: St. James had teaching authority in his throne (Jerusalem, in his own Jurisdiction). Peter, of the whole world.

Lets see another:

“(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.” (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3 St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)).

-St. John Chrysostom

 

[Jacob50]

Now since you began quoting St. John, you do know that he is one of the fathers that left more writings concerning Peter right?

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

“Peter, the base, the pillar…” (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

“Peter was to be entrusted with the keys of the church, or, rather, he was entrusted with the keys of heaven, and he was to be entrusted with the multitude of the people…That Peter the head of the apostles, the unshaken foundation, the unbroken rock, the first in the Church, the unconquerable port, the unshaken tower…he who was to be entrusted with the Church, the pillar of the Church, the port of the faith, Peter, the teacher of the whole world…Peter, that column, that bulwark. (homily of SS. Peter and Elias (vol II, 727[731]))”

“It seems to me that He washed the feet of the traitor first…Though Peter was the first, it is probable that the traitor being impudent, reclined even above the Coryphaeus.” (Hom 70[69] in Joann 2, vol VIII, 383[415])

“The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the faith, Paul the vessel of election.” (Contra ludos et theatra, 1, vol VI, 265[273])

“He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart…Why does he take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…‘We are able to drink the chalice.’” (Hom 56[57] in Matt, vol VII, 550[566])

“Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation (by Herod).” (Hom 26 in Acta, vol IX, 198[208] and ibid, 199[209])

“In the Kingdom, therefore, the honors were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three were above the rest; and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact tot he last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left,’ he said, ‘is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,’ And He set Peter before them saying: ‘Lovest thou Me more than these?’” (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750])

“See the unanimity of the apostles,” he says, on Acts 2:4: “they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach.” “Hear how this same John, who now comes forward (to ask for a seat at Christ’s right hand) in the Acts of the Apostles, always gives up the first place to Peter both in preaching and in working miracles. Afterwards James and John were not thus. Everywhere they gave up the first place to Peter…”

“He received his name for the unchangeableness and immobility of his faith; and when all were asked in common, he says, leaping forth before the others: ‘Thou art the Christ,’ etc, when he was entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (chap 2 of Galat 4, vol X, 640[686]; also Hom 2 in Inscr Act 6, vol II, 86[70], and Hom 19[18] in Joann, vol VIII, 121[111-112]; also Palladius “Upon this rock, that is, upon this confession” Dial de vita Chrys, vol 1, 68).

 

[Jacob50]

“After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: ‘Peter lovest thou Me more than these?’” (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])

“He saith to him, ‘Feed My sheep.’ Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep.” (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])

“Peter, therefore, turning seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also reclined on His breast at supper, following, and saith: ‘Lord, what shall this man do?’ Why did he mention the reclining? Not without reason or by chance, but to show what confidence Peter had after his fall. For he who then had not dared to ask a question, but committed it to another, was given the presidency over the brethren. And he not only commits his own case to another, but even himself puts a question to the Master about another, and John this time is silent, while it is Peter who speaks…Peter loved John greatly…Since then He foretold great things for Peter, and entrusted him with the world, and predicted his martyrdom and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, Peter wishing to receive John as his fellow, saith: And what of this man? Shall he not go the same way?” (Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, Migne PG 59:478, Giles page 164)

“Whence also the city [of Rome] is more renowned for this than for all else; and like a great and mighty body, she has two eyes, the bodies of those two saints. The heaven is not so bright when the sun shoots forth his rays as the city of the Romans, shedding forth the light of these two lamps throughout the world. Thence shall Paul be caught up, thence Peter shall rise. Consider and be amazed! What a sight shall Rome then behold, when Paul sudden shall arise with Peter from the tomb, and be caught up to meet the Lord. What a rose shall Rome send forth to Christ! What diadems are those two, with which the city is crowned, with that chains of gold it is girded; what fountains it hath! [4] It is for this that I admire the city, not for its much gold, for its columns, or any other fantasy, but because of these two pillars of the Church. Who will grant me to embrace the body of Paul, to cling to his sepulchre, and to see the dust of that body which ‘filled up what was wanting’ to Christ [cf. Col 1:24], which bore His stigmata, and sowed His teaching everywhere!” (Hom 32 in Rom 2, vol IX, 678[757])​

Of course I wont copy and paste them all, as this thread is more concerned on Peter’s Supremacy, rather than on him being Rock/Foundation/Pillar etc. Though these things are related in a way…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Read the first quote you cited here carefully which can be interpreted supporting the Catholic position as it says: Peter spoke more strongly while James more midly…talk about James being more authoritative than Peter…

Only if you omit the part where he says that it behooves those in high authority to leave what is unpleasant to say to others. That would be a very twisted hermeneutic, for sure.

 

[Jacob50]

Only if you omit the part where he says that it behooves those in high authority to leave what is unpleasant to say to others. That would be a very twisted hermeneutic, for sure.

No one needs to omit it. The first quote given by “Ignatios”, does not state that James has higher authority than that of Peter (nor am I saying you stated it). If any, it states that James has high authority. This doesn’t mean his authority is of a higher rank than Peter. Lets look at some of the possibilities interpreting this quote.

1- St. John states that Peter has Higher authority
2- St. John states that James has higher authority
3- Neither

One could argue Number 1 because of Peter speaking more strongly. But one would need to ignore that here St. John is speaking more about St. James and his authority.

One could are argue Number 2 because of 2 sayings here. The first one is: “for James was invested with the chief rule”. But this does not undermine Peter’s authority. Here St. John speaks that James was “chief”. I posted this quote before but will do so again to make my point clear:

“He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart…Why does he take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…‘We are able to drink the chalice.’” (Hom 56[57] in Matt, vol VII, 550[566])

• St. John Chrysostom

The word “coryphaei” can mean leader, head, spokesmen, or even “chief”
thefreedictionary.com/coryphaei

There is also another quote (which I unfortunately do not have in hand right now) where St. John refers to these 3 as “chiefs”.

He also wrote:
“Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James?.” (Hom 26 in Acta, vol IX, 198[208] and ibid, 199[209]).

The other 3rd not mentioned here is St. John (the apostle).

But St. John Chrysostom in many of his writings says that Peter is above in authority than even those other two holy apostles.

“In the Kingdom, therefore, the honors were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three were above the rest; and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact tot he last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left,’ he said, ‘is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,’ And He set Peter before them saying: ‘Lovest thou Me more than these?’” (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750]).

Other quotes ive cited support this idea.

Now lets suppose for once that St. John actually said that St. James had more authority than Peter (which im sure he did not). I would like to see more writings of other Church Fathers stating that…

I’m pretty sure neither Catholics or Orthodox believe in such.

Now lets look at number 3. I see St. John describing in different ways the Authority of these 2 apostles. Peter speaking strongly, and James he describes as a “chief” and with "High authority. Thats it. Nothing more.

To sum it up, I think this quote neither favors the Catholic or the Orthodox position. Its just a simple comment from St. John speaking of 2 apostles, the authority they had in a council, and that’s it. I see no supremacy from neither here. You may interpret otherwise though.

Other quotes though…have a more clear language which support the Catholic position regarding Peter’s Supremacy. Orthodox of course, interpret otherwise.

 

[Ignatios]

• “scholars” as a term , without naming names is rather nebulous.
Check your church and see which date they find more agreeable.

There are also “sclolars” like William Jurgens who date Clement’s letter early 80’s.

Yes and there is some scholars who date the revelation back to the 50s.

• rarely do Popes in writing, use “I” referring to themselves.

The contention point is not the word “I” or “we” it is about the claim that the RCC tries to attach to this event as a proof of Papal Supremacy while there is no indication of it at all, for the simple reason that the Letter was written in the name of the Church of Rome and the Papal claim states that the Pope’s jurisdiction derive not from the Church but from CHRIST HIMSELF and it is clear that there is no indication of such thing in Clement’s letter

• John being exiled on Patmos is open to debate.
Are you suggesting that you doubt john banishment into exile???

The point is, Clement and John are alive at the time Clement settles sedition in Corinth. And John is living less than 200 miles from Corinth whether it is Patmos or Ephesus

John was “banished into exile” if one is being banished in that time during a major persecution and forcefully then it would be obvious that he was out of reach, and it would make lots of sense for the Corinthian to call up on the closest one to the Apostles that is Clement since he also was very close to Paul the one who found that Church.

If one only had Clement’s letter alone, in all of history, to try and build a case for the office of Peter, and Clement as his successor, I agree that would be silly. But putting his letter with 2000 years of writings, some to follow, the job becomes easy.

Easy??? Is that why the RCC been trying to assert this for well over a millennium and every time they try a schism happens should I remind you that one of the reasons that the schism happens because of this assertion not to mention the schisms that took place prior to this one and they were healed let alone the schisms within the Roman church all the way up to recent centuries…besides likewise I say, if it was only Clement’s letter than that would be fine and okay but there is well over a millennium of such proves and even much better.

I wouldn’t make Hermas the smoking gun for that point.

Well not “the” smoking gun but one of many.

Hermas, in the writings we have from him, never mentions Jesus either. Does that mean Hermas doesn’t think Jesus exists?

But he did mention HIS Power, Miracles, Authority and he even called LORD and GOD when he referred to his commandments …etc, but nowhere did he refer to the Power of the Pope or his universal jurisdiction he didn’t even spoke of the Pope of Rome but on the contrary what he said actually back up the theory that there was no organized hierarchal yet established in Rome for he was still talking about presbyters over the Church in Rome in which it proves the orthodox stand that the Papacy power is a development that it accumulated with time and not of divine origin.
Here read this from Hermas writing in which it goes in line with what I was talking about:
“…You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so.And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church.”
Notice here, it says Clement not Pope or the Bishop or the head of the Roman Church, then at the end it says with the “presbytersssss who preside over the Church” and no it is not the CHURCH universal because she said just before this “you will read the words in THIS CITY”. newadvent.org/fathers/02011.htm

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued

Ignatius wrote the following to Smyrna. You know the quote

TO SMYRNA…not to Rome… why??? Because if there was a Bishop in Rome at that time and especially of great importance aaaaand as the RCC suggest that his jurisdiction was of divine aaaand a major Bishop who ruled over all others, then by all means this is where we would have seen it if it was not a flawed, as Ignatios named every bishop major and small alike, now if he didn’t mention Rome at all then maybe that would have been okay, but the longest letter and he spoke very lofty of the Church of Rome BUTTTT no word about the Bishop there let alone the “POPE”.

. [snip] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude…
Okay was there a Bishop in Rome? If you answer yes as I suppose you do and a bishop of lofty rank actually who presides over the whole universal Church per the RCC …etc then how come he wasn’t even mentioned ???

Why assume Ignatius would break his own rule when writing to the Church of Rome and bypass the bishop? In 107 a.d., Pope Alexander is in the chair of Peter.

OOOHHH I agree Ignatios wouldn’t break such rule, but then why did he not mention the Bishop of Rome or directed any words or salutation to him as he did with the others??? What says you?

Irenaeus mentions Alexander, in the lineage of popes mentioned in “Against Heresies” . Irenaeus also describes Clement’s letter to Corinth. Ignatius would also know this up to his time

Bk 3 Ch 3
3. The blessed apostles, then, …(snip for space by Ignatios)

[snip for space]

I wouldn’t use that as a prove, for you have Chrysostom says something and Irenaeus says something else and yet Eusebius something else.

given Ignatius frame of mind and what he taught. “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop” he knew his letter would need to go to the bishop of Rome 1st

.
Okay great and well… but how come there is no mentioning of the Bishop of Rome, please do not give any supposition for if you do then a zillion diffrent supposition can I provide, I mean it if there is any historical fact whatever it is I welcome it with great thanks.

 

[Ignatios]

No one needs to omit it. The first quote given by “Ignatios”, does not state that James has higher authority than that of Peter (nor am I saying you stated it). If any, it states that James has high authority. This doesn’t mean his authority is of a higher rank than Peter. Lets look at some of the possibilities interpreting this quote.

1- St. John states that Peter has Higher authority
2- St. John states that James has higher authority
3- Neither

One could argue Number 1 because of Peter speaking more strongly. But one would need to ignore that here St. John is speaking more about St. James and his authority.

One could are argue Number 2 because of 2 sayings here. The first one is: “for James was invested with the chief rule”. But this does not undermine Peter’s authority. Here St. John speaks that James was “chief”. I posted this quote before but will do so again to make my point clear:

“He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart…Why does he take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…‘We are able to drink the chalice.’” (Hom 56[57] in Matt, vol VII, 550[566])

• St. John Chrysostom

The word “coryphaei” can mean leader, head, spokesmen, or even “chief”
thefreedictionary.com/coryphaei

There is also another quote (which I unfortunately do not have in hand right now) where St. John refers to these 3 as “chiefs”.

He also wrote:
“Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James?.” (Hom 26 in Acta, vol IX, 198[208] and ibid, 199[209]).

The other 3rd not mentioned here is St. John (the apostle).

But St. John Chrysostom in many of his writings says that Peter is above in authority than even those other two holy apostles.

“In the Kingdom, therefore, the honors were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three were above the rest; and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact tot he last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left,’ he said, ‘is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,’ And He set Peter before them saying: ‘Lovest thou Me more than these?’” (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750]).

Other quotes ive cited support this idea.

Now lets suppose for once that St. John actually said that St. James had more authority than Peter (which im sure he did not). I would like to see more writings of other Church Fathers stating that…

I’m pretty sure neither Catholics or Orthodox believe in such.

Now lets look at number 3. I see St. John describing in different ways the Authority of these 2 apostles. Peter speaking strongly, and James he describes as a “chief” and with "High authority. Thats it. Nothing more.

To sum it up, I think this quote neither favors the Catholic or the Orthodox position. Its just a simple comment from St. John speaking of 2 apostles, the authority they had in a council, and that’s it. I see no supremacy from neither here. You may interpret otherwise though.

Other quotes though…have a more clear language which support the Catholic position regarding Peter’s Supremacy. Orthodox of course, interpret otherwise.

Since you retracted in your post from what you were trying to imply in your earlier ones, I would leave it at that for the sake of your humility that you have showed in your retraction.

May GOD bless you and all †††

 

[Jacob50]

Since you retracted in your post from what you were trying to imply in your earlier ones, I would leave it at that for the sake of your humility that you have showed in your retraction.

May GOD bless you and all †††

Um… no I haven’t retracted from any of my positions. Read again. All my comments.

What I said is that the quotes provided by yourself don’t help your position. Since Cavaradossi commented regarding your first quote, I explained (according to my interpretation of St. Johns quotes) why they don’t help your position in any way. I explained that I see no supremacy issues with any of the quotes cited by yourself. I stated why. Read my posts again.

You however have, not made any comments on the ones I myself provided. You have not tried to interpret any of the quotes provided by me. I gave my opinion of the ones you cited. And why they dont help you. How about you do it now?

Lets start with this one:

“(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.” (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3 St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)).

-St. John Chrysostom

What does St. John mean by ruler of the whole world? Or by the “head of the company”?

Or this one:

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))

-St John Chrysostom

What does St. John mean in the whole paragraph, specially in the bold words?

 

[steve_b]

Check your church and see which date they find more agreeable.

Clement ~88 - 97
I:

Yes and there is some scholars who date the revelation back to the 50s.

“some this” and “some that” isn’t helpful. That’s why I say, quote the scholar by name.
I:

The contention point is not the word “I” or “we” it is about the claim that the RCC tries to attach to this event as a proof of Papal Supremacy while there is no indication of it at all, for the simple reason that the Letter was written in the name of the Church of Rome and the Papal claim states that the Pope’s jurisdiction derive not from the Church but from CHRIST HIMSELF and it is clear that there is no indication of such thing in Clement’s letter

Are you arguing that Clement didn’t write that 1st letter to the corinthians?
I:

Are you suggesting that you doubt john banishment into exile???

we’re talking about dates.

According to tradition, John left Patmos and went back to Ephesus. This would have been around the time Clement writes his letter to the Corinthians.
I:

John was “banished into exile” if one is being banished in that time during a major persecution and forcefully then it would be obvious that he was out of reach,
.

See my previous point.
I:

Easy??? Is that why the RCC been trying to assert this for well over a millennium and every time they try a schism happens should I remind you that one of the reasons that the schism happens because of this assertion not to mention the schisms that took place prior to this one.

The chair of Peter is still here and 1.3 B people are in communion with Peter’s successor.
Those that broke away from the chair of Peter… Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc etc . … how are they doing today?
I:

But he did mention HIS Power, Miracles, Authority and he even called LORD and GOD when he referred to his commandments …etc, but nowhere did he refer to the Power of the Pope or his universal jurisdiction he didn’t even spoke of the Pope of Rome but on the contrary what he said actually back up the theory that there was no organized hierarchal yet established in Rome for he was still talking about presbyters over the Church in Rome in which it proves the orthodox stand that the Papacy power is a development that it accumulated with time and not of divine origin.

From Clement

Ch 57
You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people. For thus speaks all-virtuous Wisdom: "Behold, I will bring forth to you the words of my Spirit, and I will teach you my speech. Since I called, and you did not hear; I held forth my words, and you regarded not, but set at naught my counsels, and yielded not at my reproofs; therefore I too will laugh at your destruction; yea, I will rejoice when ruin comes upon you, and when sudden confusion overtakes you, when overturning presents itself like a tempest, or when tribulation and oppression fall upon you. For it shall come to pass, that when you call upon me, I will not hear you; the wicked shall seek me, and they shall not find me. For they hated wisdom, and did not choose the fear of the Lord; nor would they listen to my counsels, but despised my reproofs. Wherefore they shall eat the fruits of their own way, and they shall be filled with their own ungodliness. Proverbs 1:22-33

Ch 59
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin,………

Ch 63
submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless amongst us,—the same shall be witnesses between you and us.

Ch 65
Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you"

That’s some pretty strong language, true?
I:

Here read this from Hermas writing in which it goes in line with what I was talking about:
“…

your commentary is not