T
Trebor135
Guest
What I’d like to know is this: what was the general view of the Early Church Fathers on Christ’s instructing of Peter to feed his sheep and his announcing to Peter that Jesus had prayed for him specifically?
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Why not look it up?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Yes, this is something that I’m interested in as well.
S
steve_b
Guest
I think there is some confusion between use of terms “full communion” and “open communion”
There is no “open communion” with Anglicans who aren’t in full union with the papacy. We need to distinguish between which Anglicans we’re speaking of.
E
Exsilivm
Guest
It could be. Is the pope really sui generis, such that our description of the pope as a bishop is more notional than real?
P
Peter_J
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
Cyprian
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
St. Epiphanius
“Blessed Peter, who for a while denied the Lord, Peter who was Chief of the Apostles, he who became unto us truly a firm Rock upon which is based the Lord’s Faith, upon which Rock the Church is in every way built.” (Epiphanius, Adv. Haeres).
"Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as the Chief of the Apostles testifies, he who was found worthy to be blessed by the Lord, because the ‘Father had revealed unto him.’ …This was befitting in that the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ ‘The gates of hell’ are heretics and heresiarchs. For, in every way, the faith confirmed in him who received the Keys of Heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith …And He heard from the same God, Peter, ‘feed my lambs;’ to him was entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of His own Master. (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor., 9).
Augustine
“[In] the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should… With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.)
J
Jacob50
Guest
Well maybe for you it doesn’t. It does for me though. Christ chooses a weak man to be this visible Shepherd (and I’m not saying the apostles aren’t Shepherds). One would say: Why not choose someone who didn’t deny him? Well ultimately, we all have. Its like why did he choose the 12 to be his disciples? Were they special in anyway compared to other people? Were they brilliant? Did they know much philosophy? If we look at them with the eyes of an earthly person, were they any better than other people? or Were they this or that?
Well not really…Peter and his brother were fishermen…
But those 12 he chose. In the same way he chose Peter. Why this man and no other? Why he who denied him? Well we only know he was chosen and that’s it. And him he established as a visible leader.
If neither of us label him as schismatic, let us not continue on this then. Another thing is failing. You’ve stated that one appointed directly by Christ to a pastoral role can fail. Yes, one can fail even if appointed by Christ. But the prayer done by Jesus has a special significance which also goes with “Strengthen thy Brethren” in future tense. And Christ’s prayer does not fail. What Christ did here is he prayed for the head, so that (after his denials), he wont fail him again. With this I don’t mean that a Pope cannot sin or make any normal mistakes as any other person does. Rather that the Pope has some kind of protection to keep him away from teaching heresy (when defining matters of faith). The prayer Jesus did is not only for Peter, but also for his successors who would be also “Heads” and as such would strengthen the brethren.
Because if this prayer was only for Peter and not his successors, then it is irrelevant to us. Because Peter already died a long time ago (and of course he went to heaven). So the prayer ends there, with Peter.
But if this prayer is also for his successors who have the primacy of St. Peter, then there is someone strengthening the brethren, and whose faith is protected by the prayer of Christ.
Jesus gave Peter the mission to keep his faith after every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it, this is how I see Luke 22.
Maybe a better question would be, What does it have to do with me, the fact that Jesus chose to pray for Peter and afterwards told him to strengthen his brethren?
And I ask this because we are the brethren.
I as a Catholic, I believe that his successors are leaders as well. It doesn’t end with Peter’s death. His successors are to “Strengthen the brethren”.
No worries, I work a lot so I have little time to make a response.edit: Please note, I’m writing this at midnight just before going to bed. If part doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, that is why.
J
Jacob50
Guest
Well you could look at them up. I could give you some examples but one has to look at them (I’m sorry I don’t have much time to respond). Since I was reading St. John Chrysostom’s writings and lucky for you I found some quotes regarding John 21, here ya go:
“For this reason to him, who was the coryphaeus of the apostles, and who loved Him more than the rest, He entrusted this (to feed His flock) having first asked him if he loved Him, that you may know that He sets this above all else as a testimony of love towards Himself, for it needs a noble soul.” (Hom 29 in Rom c. 15, vol IX, 660[737])
“Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that company, the ruler [Greek] of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the fervent lover of Christ (for He said: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me more than these?’) I speak his praises, that you may learn that he truly loves Christ, for the care of Christ’s servants is the greatest proof of devotion to Him; and it is not I who say this, but the beloved Master: ‘If thou lovest Me,’ saith He, ‘Feed My sheep.’ Let us see whether he has truly the primacy [Greek] of a shepherd, whether he really cares for and truly loves the sheep and is a lover of the flock, that we may know he also loves the Shepherd.” (In illud, scitote quod in noviss, diebus, 4, vol VI, 275[282-3])
“Addressing the coryphaeus of the apostles, he says: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me?’ and on his declaration that he does, He adds: ‘If thou lovest Me, feed My sheep.’ The Master asks the disciple if He is loved by him, not that He may learn (how should He, who searches the hearts of all?), but that He may teach us how much at heart He has the headship [Greek] over these sheep. Since that is plain, it will also be evident that a great and unspeakable reward will be laid up for one who has labored at a work so greatly honored by Christ.” …
“He said not to Peter, ‘If thou lovest Me, do miracles,’ but, ‘Feed My sheep’; and everywhere giving him more honor than the rest, with James and John, wherefore, tell me, did he prefer him?” (Hom 46[47] in Matt 3, vol VII, 480[485]).
“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])
“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]).
All these quotes are from Dom John Chapman’s Studies on the Early Papacy:
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm
The upper is a site from where I took these (because then I’m asked where I got them from and usually I lose the links). The site has other quotes referring to the same verses. Just find the word “Feed” on that site and you would filter the quotes you are not looking for and get to the ones regarding John 21.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Those who have done a lot of research into this issue will be fairly likely to have easy access to such quotations. I have a lot on my plate these days and don’t have the energy to do research if others can point me in the right direction.
Also…
Steve B and Jacob50: Thanks for the citations and the link.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
From the first Constitutum of Vigilius:
The proclamation from the end of the same document.:
From the eighth session of the Second Council of Constantinople:
If the Pope had a primacy in the first millennium, the one hundred and sixty-six fathers who signed the eighth session of the Second Council of Constantinople definitely did not recognize it to be capable of overriding their decision.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
ccel.org/ is an excellent place to start and finish most research on most questions related to the fathers.
The only reason I suggest looking it up for yourself is because the question is quite broad and impossible to answer. If you’re the one looking at what the fathers have said though, you can follow the strands that are of most interest to you - because neither you or anyone else is going to be able to dig through it all without a lifetime devotion to quest.
S
steve_b
Guest
In my previous response to you I just mentioned Florence as an example of the point I was making but I didn’t have the time at that posting to give you a fuller answer.
Here is a fuller answer.
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
If you scroll to the end of the council, ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#8
you’ll see how various single Churches were negotiated with. While the followers of Mark of Ephesus rescinded their agreement, other churches didn’t, and remained reunited with Rome.
This policy of negotiating with individual churches has been going on ever since.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
There are several problems with your statement. I see a bull of union with the Copts, Armenians, Syrians, Maronites, and Chaldeans. Unless Syrians refers to the Chalcedonian Antiochian patriarchate (which I doubt, since the Chalcedonian Antiochian patriarchate follows the Greek tradition, not the Syriac tradition, and does not style itself as the Syrian patriarchate), none of these groups were in communion union with Constantinople at the time (and to this day, none of them are).
Also only one group has remained fully united to Rome, the Maronites. The Chaldeans have a complex history of separate patriarchs (often in schism from each other), some of whom repudiated union with Rome and others who entered into union. The union with the Copts, Armenians, and Syrians was obviously only partial, since all three of those groups still exist within the Oriental Orthodox Church.
P
Peter_J
Guest
That section speaks of how Rome negotiated separately with the Chaldeans (Nestorians) than with the Orthodox. I don’t think there’s anything remarkable about that, it’s just common sense in fact.
But Rome began “negotiating with individual churches” in a different sense in (I believe) 1596. That is to say, at that time Rome didn’t deal with Orthodoxy as a whole, but directed union efforts very specifically at e.g. those Orthodox living in the Polish kingdom.
S
steve_b
Guest
One only has to look at the Eastern “rites” of the Catholic Church to see who is in communion with Rome and their heritage . ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
P
Peter_J
Guest
True. Although, some say that the Maronites were in communion with Rome even before the Council of Florence.
A
Art321
Guest
This may seem out of the blue but I need to ask something regarding the Council of Florence. Is it true that this council ended the Schism even though it was short lived?
I have heard this for awhile now.
D
dcointin
Guest
The attending Orthodox bishops signed an agreement of reunion, with exception of St. Mark of Ephesus. When they returned home, the laity and clergy repudiated the agreement, and the signing bishops did as well. The attempt at reunion was pushed by the Byzantine emperor who desperately wanted to secure western military aid against the Ottomans. No aid was forthcoming however, and Constantinople fell two decades later, ending the Byzantine empire. The agreement was never more than a signed document, and no change in ecclesiastical structures or communion occured afterward.
A
Art321
Guest
So in other words, there never was an authentic reunion.
- Status