Peter's "confession"

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
this is the foundation of infallibility.
I believe that is what you were taught. But it is wrong. St Peter’s confession of faith is what is being highlighted here. Matthew 18:18 tells us that all the Apostles had the same authority to bind and to loose.

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Eph 2:19-20

Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

1 Peter 2:6-8

Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. **To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. **
do you believe the Orthodox church is infallible?
We believe that the Holy Spirit protects and guides Christ’s holy Orthodox Church. And Christ comes to us at every Divine Liturgy in the Holy Eucharist. But we do not believe that the bishop of Rome is Christ’s replacement on earth in the form of a supreme/ infallible pontiff.

That was an invention of the ultramontanists. 🤷
 
Just as a note on the “numbers” thing - a while back I posted a question about how long Jesus was in the tomb, because we are always told - three days, but if one looks at the hours, - mid afternoon Friday to Wee hours Sunday - It looks like less than two days.
I was told by many people that numbers and time were often used symbolically in those days.

So really, based on this idea of symbolism etc, I can’t put a lot of stock in the only “seven councils” idea. This is just my Opinion of course.
Of course saints can be wrong. They are not infallible. 😃

But seven sacraments, seven gifts of the holy spirit, seven councils…coincidence?

Maybe. 🙂
 
Catholics understand confidence in their positions as well as anyone, but I do not recall the Church simply saying: ‘‘Just because I said so!’’ I have been able to find extensive discussion and explanation of every point I research.
LOL! Viva voce!
Frankly, your rhetorical sarcasm is not totally unappreciated, but I do find it flippant since it is mostly unsubstantiated.

Your categorical but unspecific castigations — such as this one and the failings of New Advent — strike me more as a rhetorical crutch than an argument. I have often noticed that many confuse the practices of some Catholics (even some of our clergy) with the teachings/practices of the Roman Catholic Church, per se. Until your barbs are substantiated, why would anyone interpret them as anything else?
I cannot say if there will ever be another council–I am not clairvoyant.
How you love your rhetorical devices! Who asked you ‘‘if there will ever be another council’’? Certainly not I.
Here’s what I did ask:
How do you know what would or would not ‘‘have been an impossibility in the undivided Church’’?
It was you, Mickey, who flatly stated it would be an impossibility.
I do not believe East and West will reunite unless West becomes Orthodox–because I believe that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Are you presenting this a reason or an opinion? The question is why you believe things, not what it is you believe. Is it disdain or pessimism?
I am ignorant. I do not understand the term “morally riskless”.
My understanding is that many Christian teachings are couched in terms of people’s moral choices and the consequences, including the risk (threat) of eternal (or temporal) punishment in the afterlife. Is this true of Orthodoxy?

If the flock can be more comforted by more assuredness, is that a good thing?
Could he do it today if he wanted to? Many say that Pius IX forced the strange ultramontane innovation of infallibility down the throats of the council in 1870.
Again, I am no scholar but a try-to-be analyst, so there are major gaps in my religious knowledge base. Would you please explain why you believe Pius IX ‘’forced…(anything) down the throats’’ of the Council.
 
I believe that is what you were taught. But it is wrong. St Peter’s confession of faith is what is being highlighted here. Matthew 18:18 tells us that all the Apostles had the same authority to bind and to loose.
Peter’s confession of faith was summed up around post 14, this has to do with authority spoke about in post 17.

to Peter first was given the authority to bind and loose, do you not agree?

then indeed it was given to the other Apostles.but we know Peter was the Cheif Apostle. his authority was evident in Acts 11 where he silenced the criticism of the others. and also Acts 15 where he silenced the party of the pharisees.

you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church, is that not infallibility? and if the Church , which has the authority to bind and loose whatsoever, declares the Bishop of Rome as its chief authority, and concerning matters of Faith and Morals to be infallible in his teaching because he is guided by the Holy Spirit, then by what authority do you declare it to be wrong? you believe the Orthodox church to be infallible , but not the Pope. you believe the church has supreme authority , but not the Pope. why is it not possible for one person to represent the Church as we see the very model of this in the old testament?
 
Frankly, your rhetorical sarcasm is not totally unappreciated, but I do find it flippant since it is mostly unsubstantiated.
I’ve been called worse than flippant.😃
Until your barbs are substantiated, why would anyone interpret them as anything else
You may interpret it as anything you like. It will not hurt my feelings. As a Roman Catholic for 40 plus years and then Eastern Catholic for almost a decade before entering Holy Orthodoxy, I gained a decent understanding of the Western Church. But there is always more to learn.

I am sorry that you feel I am throwing barbs. Please forgive this sinner. I have disturbed you and it may be most beneficial that I limited my discussion with you. I do not like to upset anyone.
How you love your rhetorical devices!
The use of language is a wonderful thing. 🙂
It was you, Mickey, who flatly stated it would be an impossibility.
I said that it is my belief that there will not be another council of East and West. Why? Because the West must return to Orthodoxy. Yes. That is me speaking.
Is it disdain or pessimism?
Such a negative choice you have provided for me. 😦

I believe the way I do because I believe that the Holy Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
 
Would you please explain why you believe Pius IX ‘’forced…(anything) down the throats’’ of the Council.
Council of Basel (1431–49) A controversial Council of the Church. It was intended to continue the work of the Council of Constance, against heresy, and initiating reform, but fell into dispute with Pope Eugene IV for asserting the authority of the Council over that of the pope. When the pope attempted to dissolve it, the Council appointed Felix V (Amadeus VIII), the last of the antipopes.

SESSION 8 18 December 1432 –Council of Basel
Since, therefore, by decrees of the sacred general councils of Constance and of Siena and by the approval of two Roman pontiffs, namely Martin V and Eugenius IV of happy memory, a general council was instituted and established in this city of Basel and assembled legitimately in the holy Spirit, it is clear that during this council another general council cannot exist elsewhere.

SESSION 11 27 April 1433—Council of Basel
Also, all ecclesiastical persons who by law or custom ought to attend general councils are bound henceforward to come in person without further summons to general councils, both by force of the constitution The frequent and by the authority of this sacred council of Basel or of some other future council legitimately assembled, unless they are prevented by a legitimate impediment, in which case they are bound to send suitable persons with a sufficient mandate. If the Roman pontiff or other above-mentioned persons fail to do this, or in any way take means to impede change, prorogue or dissolve the council, and shall not have repented with real satisfaction within four months, thereafter the pope will be automatically suspended from the papal administration and the other persons from the administration of their dignities; the papal administration will devolve by law upon the sacred council. If they persist with hardened hearts under the aforesaid penalties for a further two months after the said four months, then the general council shall proceed against both the Roman pontiff and the above-mentioned persons up to and including the penalty of deprivation.

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.
Keenan Catechism

'I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the barque of Peter; I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church; and they who are not with me are out of the Church. They are out of the way, the truth and the life.
Pope Pius IX “The Guardian”, April 11, 1866.

As early as January 1870, at the initiative of Bishops Martin and Senestre a petition was sent to the pope; it immediately received the support of the majority of the Council members and thus anticipated the decision before any discussion on the subject. The petition asked for the proclamation of the pope’s supreme and infallible authority in matters of faith. Forty-six Council members from Austria-Hungary and Germany immediately sent a counter-petition, asking not to submit this subject for discussion; they were joined by 38 French, 27 American, 17 Eastern and 7 Italian bishops.
(The Vatican dogma)


The collection of written protests against the dogma of papal infallibility shows how strong was the opposition to it. Sixty-one members wrote that the proposed dogma should be withdrawn and some gave decisive dogmatic and canonic reasons for this; fourteen said that the subject required further investigation; others regarded the proposed dogma as a self-contradictory innovation likely to lead to schism; only 56 were more or less in favour of it.
(The Vatican dogma)
 
… and if the Church , which has the authority to bind and loose whatsoever, declares the Bishop of Rome as its chief authority, and concerning matters of Faith and Morals to be infallible in his teaching…
The Church never knew the odd ultramontanist definition until Pius IX championed it—and had it defined in 1870. 🤷
 
the Church knew and has always known that the final authority rested with the Bishop of Rome, the See of Peter, more commonly known as the Pope.

the Church was built on Peter and his confession that Jesus was the Christ , the Son of God. which was revealed to him by God the Father. Matt 16:16

Peter was the Chief of the Apostles as has already been made evident in prior post. wheather by Scripture or the early Church Fathers.

and it is evident in Early Church history that the successor of Peter ( the Bishop of Rome) was the supreme head of the entire Catholic Church.

you stated yourself (mickey) that you and the Orthodox church recognizes the first 7 ecumenical councils. and why was it that these councils were held in the first place? because of matters concerning the Faith that were not explained in Scripture.

1.Council of Nicea, concerning the divinity of Jesus.

2.Council of Constantinople, concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

3.Council of Ephesus, concerning the two natures of Christ in one person, and thus declaring Mary the Mother of God.

lets not leave out what happend between the third and fourth councils, a so-called council known as the “robber Council” .At a synod eutyches made statements that were contrary to orthodox christian teaching. and he was deposed and excumminicated. but he appealed to the Pope and some other Bishops as well as the Emperor. but he only won the sympathy of the Emperor, through the patriarch of alexandria, so the Emperor invoked a new Council at Ephesus. the Pope was unable to go but sent 3 delegates as his representative as beares of three letters known as the Epistola Dogmatica , the Pope explains the mystery of the incarnation and condemns the teaching of eutyches. the Papal delegates were ignored and the letters were not allowed to be read. the patriarch of alexandria declared eutyches’ teachings to be orthodox (even though they were not), however when the Pope heard of this he condemned the so-called council. and ordered a new council to be held. now its interesting to note that we as Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope concerning Faith and Morals to the point that the Holy Spirit would not allow the Pope to teach anything that would contradict the Faith of Christ and the Apostles even to the point of death if necessary.the Emperor declined to meet the Popes wishes to hold a new council and right the wrongs. And the Emperors life was suddenly demanded of him and he died. then eventually we have the fourth Council.

the Council of Chalcedon, When the pope’s famous epistle was read the members of the council exclaimed that the faith contained therein was the faith of the Fathers and of the Apostles; that through Leo, Peter had spoken.

one should also consider the facts concerning canon 28 which states that the Bishop of Constantinople should be second in rank to the Bishop of Rome.but the canon was protested agianst, declaring it to be contrary to the canons of Nicea. but the council persisted in retaining this canon agianst the Popes wishes.

yet it still declares the Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Mickey, you have stated that i am wrong , but have given no evidence for your reasoning. you have given nothing contrary to the supreme authority of the Pope. except your own opinion. It is very clear from Scripture and the Early Church as well as the present Church, that the supreme authority rest on the chair of Peter. which is a symbol of authority held by the Bishop of Rome.You are right about one thing , i do believe what i have been taught , and i have good reason too.
 
yet it still declares the Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome.
The undivided Church of the first milennium never declared such a thing as papal supreme authority and papal infallibility.
Mickey, you have stated that i am wrong , but have given no evidence for your reasoning.
I have given multitudes of evidence from Tradition and Scripture–but you do not have ears to hear. 🤷

St Augustine
And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
 
The undivided Church of the first milennium never declared such a thing as papal supreme authority and papal infallibility.

I have given multitudes of evidence from Tradition and Scripture–but you do not have ears to hear. 🤷
you do not have eyes to see. the very reference you gave me by Augustine states Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized.

what do you think in Peter means? it is the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome that is where the Church is to be recognized.
its what they meant when they said Peter spoke through Pope Leo.

Augustine,

“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Ambrose of Milan,

“[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]” (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

Cyprian of Carthage,

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

**
Peter Chrysologus**

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
 
there were to many characters to post everything, so here is a couple more.

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

the undivided Church most assuredly did declare such a thing.
 
Is there a Church document that shows that Peter is the rock and so ALSO is his confession upon which the faith is built???
Pope Leo I

“Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]” (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).
 
Pope Leo I
LOL!

I have seen all your quotes before. And I can posts dozens in response–but I have already done so on other threads. 😃

What is important to keep in mind—is that your quotes are always talking about the glorious Apostle St Peter and the respect and honour due to the bishop of Rome being the bishop of the pre-eminent Church of early Christianity.

But none of the quotes supports the ultramontane idea of the post schism modern day understanding of the Latin Catholic supreme infallible pontiff of the universal Church. 👍


St. Cyril of Alexandria**, Letter to Nestorius:
“Peter and John were equal in dignity and honour. Christ is the foundation of all -the unshakeable Rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice.”**
 
LOL!

But none of the quotes supports the ultramontane idea of the post schism modern day understanding of the Latin Catholic supreme infallible pontiff of the universal Church. 👍
i dont suppose so,( that they supports the ultramontane idea of the post schism modern day understanding ) but they indeed support the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome. and as we see the patriarchs in error or bishops , or priest. we do not however see the Pope in error concerning the Faith. The Bishop of Rome was the final authority, if no decision could be made or if that decision was not orthodox christian teaching.if the decision did not meet his aproval it was comdemned or anulled. which in no way contradicts the Catholic understanding of infallibility, but upholds it all the more. thats what Augustine meant when he said where there is Peter there is the Church.
 
i guess ill try this agian Mickey,

Council of Ephesus

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Peter , prince and head of the apostles

to him (Peter) was given the power of loosing and binding sins

who down to this day (431A.D.) and forever (which includes now) lives and judges in his (Peters) successor’s ( the Bishops of Rome) or ( the Pope’s) all 266 of them.

this is one of the few Councils which has your approval is it not?
 
Council of Ephesus
“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Silly wabbit. Again, this talks about St Peter–that glorious Apostles. Rome does not have the monopoly on St Peter. 😃

All bishops succeed this great Apostle. 👍

Once again, your pasted quote proves nothing for the odd 1870 doctrine. 🤷

Try not to retroactively interpret the strange post schism Latin ultramontane dogma into the early Church. 😉
 
Silly wabbit. Again, this talks about St Peter–that glorious Apostles. Rome does not have the monopoly on St Peter. 😃

All bishops succeed this great Apostle. 👍

Once again, your pasted quote proves nothing for the odd 1870 doctrine. 🤷

Try not to retroactively interpret the strange post schism Latin ultramontane dogma into the early Church. 😉
I don’t understand this. Did Peter and only Peter lay his hands on all of the first tier of new Bishops? It is my understanding that the other Apostles also commissioned successors. If this is so, how can all bishops claim succession from Peter?
:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top