Pope List

[Fr_Ambrose]

Greg_McPherran:

Then why did Jesus call Peter rock and not say that just his belief was rock?

Jesus said “You are rock, and on this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Jesus said on ***this ***rock, it was clear that He was referring to Peter not only Peter’s belief. This is because just before He said “on ***this ***rock”, He said “You are rock” referring to Peter, not only Peter’s belief.

"Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, in his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the [1st] Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

And he adds that there are five different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18:

(1) That St. Peter is the Rock, taught by seventeen Fathers;

(2) that the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, taught by eight;

(3) that St. Peter’s faith is the Rock, taught by forty-four;

(4) that Christ is the Rock, taught by sixteen;

(5) that the Rock is the whole body of the faithful.

Several who teach (1) and (2) also teach (3) and (4), and so the Archbishop sums up thus: “If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word Petra means not Peter professing the faith, but the faith professed by Peter”.

From Friedrich, Docum. ad illust. Conc. Vat. I. pp. 185-246."

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose,

I think you have to look at your whole quote and not just concentrate on your highlighted one.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve Apostles for preaching the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for his fiery ardour was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt 10:2 ) and to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19 ). "

The rest of the quote from Augustine does take away the fact that Christ did chose Peter from among the rest.

The Church does have the power of binding and loosening. This much we agree.

But I think you are just afraid to admit that this does not mean that Peter did not have Primacy over the rest of the Apostles/bishop.

Because that would mean that we are not really debating but agreeing.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

Several who teach (1) and (2) also teach (3) and (4), and so the Archbishop sums up thus: “If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word Petra means not Peter professing the faith, but the faith professed by Peter”.

From Friedrich, Docum. ad illust. Conc. Vat. I. pp. 185-246."

This is not a popularity contest. If it were we should have been Arians because at one point there were more Arian bishops than Catholic bishops.

Regards,

Aris

 

[prodromos]

Aris:

But I think you are just afraid to admit that this does not mean that Peter did not have Primacy over the rest of the Apostles/bishop

Orthodox have no problem with Petrine “primacy”. It is the Catholic misunderstanding of this word to mean “supremacy” that we, along with the church fathers, do not accept.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Aris:

This is not a popularity contest.

 

[Exporter]

Father Ambrose, I have read many of your posts. Mainly you were answering questions, and I valued you answers. I was proud to see that a Priest was taking time to answer our sometimes childish questions. I hope you will contenue to use this forum, I value your knowledge. Thank you for taking the time to answer my two questions.

From your answer, it seems that you were surprised that I said you were using Protestant Theology. Now I understand why you wrote that. You are using St. Augustine not the Roman Magisterium for doctrine. Am I correct?

I am a simple Roman Catholic who has not read more than 400 words of St. Augustine. As you’d suspect, my knowledge comes from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and it’s Catechism. In all my 49 years as a Roman Catholic I was taught, told and I also read that Jesus told Peter(Cephas) that He would build His Church upon him(Peter). Jesus didn’t say that Peter would build the Church! One year ago I was talking to a Fundamentalist Christian. For the first time in my life I heard that Jesus said that He would BUILD THE CHURCH ON A CONFESSION! The Fundamentalist told me that concept was a Protestant understanding. That doesn’t make sence to me. A reading of the Douay-Rheims NT passage is explici in that Jesus would build His Church on Peter…

If I said to Sam. “Sam your are now Joe”. Then later I say to the one I named Joe," Joe you are the Rock : and on this Rock I will start a business". Does that tell any reader that I will build a business upon Sam? This is the same progression as in Matt16:18.

Sorry Father, I am not wanting to dispute with you, I did want you to totally understand my position. What I understand from you is that you are a Russian Orthodox Catholic Priest. I know you are a valid Priest. What I learned is that Russian Orthodox place more importance on what St. Augustine wrote than on what the Roman Catholic Magesterium wrote. In my mind that is because the Russian Orthodox have separated from the Church of Rome and do not wish to recognise that Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter himself. A plain reading of Matt16:18 agrees with the RC Magesterium. You say Jesus built His Church on a confession of St. Peter(Augustine’s words) You will say those are not your words but those of St. Augustine. Again, thank you.I look forward to future posts from you. Remember that St. Augustine is separated from Christ by over 300 years.
JMJ
B.G.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Note: My laughter at the “popularity contest” was meant only in friendly humor.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

This is not a popularity contest. If it were we should have been Arians because at one point there were more Arian bishops than Catholic bishops.

There is a significant difference between a popularity contest and the consensus of the Fathers -consensus patrum. This consensus extends across the whole Church in all places and times.

As Pope Pius IV promulagated in his Creed, the Catholic Church MUST be bound to interpret Scripture **only ** **according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. **

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Greg_McPherran:

Note: My laughter at the “popularity contest” was meant only in friendly humor.

It is hereby decreed that all laughter on this Forum shall be considered to be friendly fire :yup: unless otherwise noted.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Exporter:

You are using St. Augustine not the Roman Magisterium for doctrine. Am I correct?

Hello Exporter,

In the Orthodox Church we do not have a Magisterium. The evidence is that it can lead the Church astray and so we lean on the Tradition which we have received from the Apostles. This is our reference point for what we believe and not a Magisterium or any individual bishop or Pope.

I took Saint Augustine as an example of the common teaching of the Church and its Tradition from the early days. The reason I chose him was that he is considered the most important theologian in the West and one of the first to write in Latin.

I am a simple Roman Catholic

Hmmm… I see that you have close to 600 posts under your belt so you I do not think you can be so simple

I was talking to a Fundamentalist Christian. For the first time in my life I heard that Jesus said that He would BUILD THE CHURCH ON A CONFESSION! The Fundamentalist told me that concept was a Protestant understanding.

Have a look at #37. Prodomos sums this up quite nicely. I wish I had his gift of conciseness - must be an Aussie thing!!

Sorry Father, I am not wanting to dispute with you

Not a problem. My understanding is that we can battle away in this Non-Catholic section of the Forum if we like.

In my mind that is because the Russian Orthodox have separated from the Church of Rome

And in our minds we see it as the Church of Rome, driven by the need for supremacy, leaving the communion of the Church and striking out on her own.

and do not wish to recognise that Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter himself. A plain reading of Matt16:18 agrees with the RC Magesterium.

Scripture denies that the Church is built on Peter, and even less is it built on the bishop of Rome or any other bishop. Only Christ is the head of His Church, the one and only cornerstone.

"… And he [Jesus Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.’ Colossians 1:18,19

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; aAnd are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.” Ephesians 2

 

[WBB]

Fr Ambrose:

In the Orthodox Church we do not have a Magisterium. The evidence is that it can lead the Church astray and so we lean on the Tradition which we have received from the Apostles. This is our reference point for what we believe and not a Magisterium or any individual bishop or Pope.

Hmm. I think the Magisterium of the church expounds the Tradition as handed down from the Apostles, at least that is the Roman understanding of it…or should I say, I think that is the Roman understanding of it. The last time I tried to define something, Fr. Ambrose mentioned that I fell under an anathema!

By the way, Fr. Ambrose, your charity is really showing now. :clapping:

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

WBB:

The last time I tried to define something, Fr. Ambrose mentioned that I fell under an anathema!

I hope you have recovered.

By the way, Fr. Ambrose, your charity is really showing now. :clapping:

:yup: :dancing:
:tiphat:

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose:

As Pope Pius IV promulagated in his Creed, the Catholic Church MUST be bound to interpret Scripture **only ** **according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. **

Btw, the Catholic Encyclopaedia has this to say:

"His name is immortally connected with the “Profession of Faith”, which must be sworn to by everyone holding an ecclesiastical office."

Is this still the case and is the same oath still required?

newadvent.org/cathen/12129a.htm

 

[GrzeszDeL]

fulloftruth:

Check out this list of Popes from Peter to John Paul II. Pretty convincing huh. I think that since no other church even claims to have Peter as thier earthly Rock, and Christ said he would use Peter as the Rock which he would start his eternal Church, then I think all of the Protestants should rethink there objections based on the reality of their options. There is only one.

No offense, FullofTruth, but this argument is weak. Do not get me wrong; I believe that the Christ founded His Church with Peter at Her helm, and the true Church is the one with the successor of Peter at Her helm today. The mere fact, however, that some random jerk on the internet can list a bunch of names that begin with “Peter” and end with “John Paul II” means less than nothing. This and $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. There are good arguments for the truth of the Catholic claim, but this is not one.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

I refer to the greatest Doctor of the Western Church, Saint Augustine. His teaching is not that our Lord gave the keys to Peter alone.

From Saint Augustine’s sermon on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul…

“And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: ‘And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens’ (Mt 16; 19 ). Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these ‘keys’ and the right ‘to bind and loosen.’ And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit’ – and further after this: ‘Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained’ (Jn 20:22-23 ); or: ‘with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens’ (Mt 18:18 ). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone – Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20 ) doth bind and loosen.”

I am not entirely convinced that St. Augustine ever wrote this sermon (I cannot find mention of a Sermon for Peter & Paul in any of the indices that I have checked and a search for “keys” on the Augustine database does not turn up any passage like the one above. That said, it certainly does seem like the sort of thing that St. Augustine would write. The Doctor of Grace loved types and partes pro totibus, and rightly so.

In his 124th homily on the Gospel of John, Augustine writes that
St. Augustine:

Considered in his person, Peter was, by nature, only a man; by grace he was a Christian, by a special grace an apostle and even the chief among them. But when the Lord said “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and that which you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven” (Mt 16:19) he represented the universal Church… As such, the Church, founded on Christ, has received - in the person of Peter - the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, that is the power to bind and loose sins. That which the Church is to Christ in the strict sense Peter is to the rock in the figurative sense; for which, in the figurative sense, Christ is the rock and Peter is the Church.

In other words, it is not that it is the Church and not Peter who receives the keys. Rather, in this instance, Peter is the Church. The Church receives the keys because Peter has received the keys. In this Augustine very much echos his mentor, Ambrose, when he writes that “ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.” Peter can stand for the Church because the Church is, by definition, that body which is united to Peter (or his successor). As such, while I am sure that Augustine would agree that Peter did not receive the keys simply for his own use (I feel fairly confident in saying that no one would agree with such a claim), he would nonetheless insist that these keys are possessed only by those who keep communion with Peter (aka John Paul II these days).

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis, in his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the [1st] Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…“If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word Petra means not Peter professing the faith, but the faith professed by Peter”.

Boy, being a native St. Louisan, I really love Archbishop Kenrick so I am glad that he did not embarass himself by delivering such a speech. It would serve to no end save to demonstrate the ignorance that the American hierarchs had cultivated. Considering that the creed in question affirms the authority of the “the Bishop of Rome” based on his status as “successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ,” it seems unlikely that Pope Pius might have meant to exclude Roman supremacy from the Catholic Faith (or the Scriptures) because of a lack of unanimity among the Fathers. Clearly Pius IV must mean something else by “unanimous” than Archbishop Kenrick thought to make it mean.

Meanwhile, much as I might wish that all office holders must recite this creed in order to take office, such is not the case any longer. Indeed, it also used to be required for Protestant converts to Catholicism to recite this creed, and that tradition has also fallen by the wayside. I think that it would do us good to revive both customs. I think that it would be a salutory reminder for the whole parish to hear the neophytes proclaim “this true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved, I do freely confess and sincerely hold.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GrzeszDeL:

I am not entirely convinced that St. Augustine ever wrote this sermon

missionstclare.com/english/people/jun29o.html

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GrzeszDeL:

In other words, it is not that it is the Church and not Peter who receives the keys. Rather, in this instance, Peter is the Church. The Church receives the keys because Peter has received the keys. In this Augustine very much echos his mentor, Ambrose, when he writes that “ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.” Peter can stand for the Church because the Church is, by definition, that body which is united to Peter (or his successor). As such, while I am sure that Augustine would agree that Peter did not receive the keys simply for his own use (I feel fairly confident in saying that no one would agree with such a claim), he would nonetheless insist that these keys are possessed only by those who keep communion with Peter (aka John Paul II these days).

Grz, I do believe you are, for all your staunch pre-Vatican II views, coming closer to an Orthodox understanding. But there is still a too narrow insistence on the bishop of Rome…

John Meyendorff explains the meaning of Cyprian’s use of the phrase ‘chair of Peter’ and sums up the Cyprianic ecclesiology which was *normative * for the East as a whole:

"The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the ‘see of Peter’ belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines.

"Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus ‘through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.’

"Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the ‘hierarchs’—i.e., the bishops of the early Church—refers immediately to the image of Peter…Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual.
(John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98).

Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as ‘successor of Peter’ in Carthage…

For Cyprian, the ‘chair of Peter’, was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses ‘the power of the keys’ to remit sins.

And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops.
(John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152).

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I am not entirely convinced that St. Augustine ever wrote this sermon

Saint Augustine is consistent on this point. Here is a frepition of it which is in “The Works of Saint Augustine” (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P

**" 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.”**

Augustine could not be clearer in his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16. In his view, Peter is representative of the whole Church. The rock is not the person of Peter but Christ himself. In fact, in the above statements, in exegeting Matthew 16, he explicitly says that Christ did not build his Church on a man, referring specifically to Peter. If Christ did not build his Church on a man then he did not establish a papal office with successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome.

 

[WBB]

Fr Ambrose:

Saint Augustine is consistent on this point. Here is a frepition of it which is in “The Works of Saint Augustine” (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P

**" 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."

Augustine could not be clearer in his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16. In his view, Peter is representative of the whole Church. The rock is not the person of Peter but Christ himself. In fact, in the above statements, in exegeting Matthew 16, he explicitly says that Christ did not build his Church on a man, referring specifically to Peter. If Christ did not build his Church on a man then he did not establish a papal office with successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome.

Is Augustine saying that Peter draws his new identity from Christ, the Rock? In other words, he becomes an alter Christus?