Pope List

[GrzeszDeL]

missionstclare.com/english/people/jun29o.html

Right, I found the website already. There is nothing on the website (like a citation), however, that makes it clear to me that this is an authentic Augustinian sermon. I suspect that it is of spurious authorship, in light of the fact that I cannot find it in the Univ of Michigan library or the Augustine database. As I said, however, there is nothing there that sounds really un-Augustinian to my ear.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

Coming closer? Father, I have not moved an inch. This is the position I have held since I became Catholic. I am, likewise, at a bit of a loss to understand why you keep emphasizing my “pre-Vatican II views.” I will happily grant that my outlook is pre-Vatican II, but is likewise post-Vatican II, because the teaching of the Church before and after Vatican II is exactly the same. The most that I can understand you to mean is that as I continue to explain the constant teaching of the Catholic Church you are discovering more and more that it is like that of the Orthodox Church, and if that is what you mean to say, then I am glad to hear it. Maybe if I keep talking long enough we will discover that we hold the same faith.

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.

It may well be that Fr. Meyerdorff’s essay is too complicated to reproduce faithfully in such a limitting context, but if you could expand on your citation, Father, I would be most grateful. At the very least, I would be obliged to you if you could cite to me the Cyprian texts on which Fr. M. builds his case.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

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

A “frepition”?

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.

Oh my, Father, now you really are going beyond that which your data will support. First of all, that last sentence is a plain non-sequitur in the form of an ipse dicit; it is entirely possible to maintain simultaneously that Christ did not build His Church on a mere man and that He nonetheless did institute the Papal office. If you wish to maintain that the one excludes the other, you will have to flesh out the argument more fully.

Secondly, Augustine makes clear in that commentary on John that I cited earlier that just as Christ is the rock on which the Church is founded, Peter is the Church. On the other hand, elsewhere Augustine holds that Christ is the Church. As such, we must remember that Augustine is not one to limit himself to one type per character. He is often quite sloppy with his metaphors, ascribing the same significance to many different symbols and many significations to a given symbol, often in the space of a mere paragraph or two. It is a dangerous game to exclude papal supremacy from the Augustinian outlook simply on the basis of one metaphor in one homily.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Finally, before I sign off for the evening, I would like to share with you all a question which has crossed my mind. Our own Myhrr has, at various times, ascribed every last one of Augustine’s “errors” to his belief in Papal supremacy (I refer the reader to the old “Original Sin” thread for evidence of the claim). Fr. Ambrose, however, is currently undertaking to prove that St. Augustine never believed in Papal supremacy.

As such, one wonders what this will do to Myhrr’s favorite hobby-horse. Will she be convinced by Fr. Ambrose, and thus abandon her regular routine of blaming every crime ever committed by a Catholic to bad-old Augustine and his nasty, nasty views on the Pope? Alternatively, will she remain firm in her conviction that Augustine, deluded by Papal pretensions, is the source of all evil in the Western World (and, indeed, Christendom in general) and simply conclude that Fr. Ambrose is off his rocker in thinking that Augustine was not a Papist?

Faites vos jeux, mesdame et messieurs, faites vos jeux. Anyone care to lay odds?

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

Finally, before I sign off for the evening, I would like to share with you all a question which has crossed my mind. Our own Myhrr has, at various times, ascribed every last one of Augustine’s “errors” to his belief in Papal supremacy (I refer the reader to the old “Original Sin” thread for evidence of the claim). Fr. Ambrose, however, is currently undertaking to prove that St. Augustine never believed in Papal supremacy.

Umm, Greg dear, where have I said that?

I have on the other hand ascribed many errors of the RCPC to its sticky adherence to Augustine’s revelation of original sin…

…which is itself an error.

And to confirm that I do not say Augustine taught papal supremacy I’ll give his words on the subject which he takes from St Cyprian as definitive on the subject…

Augustine:

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-53.htm#P3163_1843900

For this same Cyprian, in urging his view of the question, was still anxious to remain in the unity of peace even with those who differed from him on this point, as is shown by his own opening address at the beginning of the very Council which is quoted by the Donatists. For it is as follows:Chap. 2.
3. “When, on the calends of September, very many bishops from the provinces of Africa,9 Numidia, and Mauritania, with their presbyters and deacons, had met together at Carthage, a great part of the laity also being present; and when the letter addressed by Jubaianus10 to Cyprian, as also the answer of Cyprian to Jubaianus, on the subject of baptizing heretics, had been read, Cyprian said: `Ye have heard, most beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus, our fellow-bishop, has written to me, consulting my moderate ability concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, and what answer I gave him,-giving a judgment which we have once and again and often given, that heretics coming to the Church ought to be baptized, and sanctified with the baptism of the Church. Another letter of Jubaianus has likewise been read to you, in which, agreeably to his sincere and religious devotion, in answer to our epistle, he not only expressed his assent, but returned thanks also, acknowledging that he had received instruction. It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us.** For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. **But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein.’”

%between%

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Myhrr:

Umm, Greg dear, where have I said that?

And to confirm that I do not say Augustine taught papal supremacy I’ll give his words on the subject which he takes from St Cyprian as definitive on the subject…

Oh Myrrh! I am so glad that you popped in and made a reply. I have been laughing so much at what Grz wrote that I just couldn’t think of a sensible reply. :whacky:

How are the fleshpots of Alexandria? With all those Irish Pounds and the exchange rate you must be living better than the Queen of Sheba!

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

Right, I found the website already. There is nothing on the website (like a citation), however, that makes it clear to me that this is an authentic Augustinian sermon. I suspect that it is of spurious authorship, in light of the fact that I cannot find it in the Univ of Michigan library or the Augustine database. As I said, however, there is nothing there that sounds really un-Augustinian to my ear.

Try ccel:

ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-06/ecf3-26.htm

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.XCVII.html

From the first:

**

AGAIN ON MATT. XIV. 25: OF THE LORD WALKING ON THE WAVES OF THE SEA, AND OF PETER TOTTERING.

1. THE Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea;(1) and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.”(2) Then He added, “and I say unto thee.” As if He had said, "Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’ " For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called(3) from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.**

Although in order of apostles Peter isn’t particularly known as first, the Church gives first in a title only to Andrew because Christ actually called him first, so, St Andrew the First Called; also of course, the Apostle to the Apostles is considered “a first”.

When are you lot going to come up with some logical proof that the see of Peter moved from Antioch to Rome since Antioch still claims it is the original successor of Peter?

 

[Myhrr]

Fr Ambrose:

Oh Myrrh! I am so glad that you popped in and made a reply. I have been laughing so much at what Grz wrote that I just couldn’t think of a sensible reply. :whacky:

maybe it’s my liberal use of split infinitives that confused him?

How do you change existence being infinite hell to existence being in finite hell?

How are the fleshpots of Alexandria? With all those Irish Pounds and the exchange rate you must be living better than the Queen of Sheba!

I wish! I’m home now…

…and it’s cold and wet and I’m counting my euros, alas the lovely old punts are no more, to see if I’ve got enough to pay for a boat to Middle Earth, have a rock to deliver…

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

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. **

So Father, is it a fact that the confession of Peter is the Rock unanimous among all the consent of the Fathers or is it that more writer’s wrote about it?

I think this belongs to an older thread “How does the Orthodox know which Councils are ecumenical and true and which are false?” Catholics have an easy answer - the Pope validates that council

I think the quote of Pope Pius IV must be seen in the context it was used and in the context of Catholic belief.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

So Father, is it a fact that the confession of Peter is the Rock unanimous among all the consent of the Fathers or is it that more writer’s wrote about it?
.

If you zoom back up to message #41, you will be able to read Archbishop Kenrick’s answer to this.

 

[Aris]

Rock -

1. Christ
2. Our faith
3. Peter’s confession
4. Peter

There is no biblical basis saying Peter was not the rock.

The literal meaning is clear in Mt 16:18. It is Peter who is the rock in this passage.
Also why call Peter or Simon the Rock if that does not mean anything.
Even the Early Church Fathers did not say that Peter was not the Rock. They did say that Peter’s confession was the rock which was also true.

Catholics do not deny the four meanings of Rock in the bible.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

which Councils are ecumenical and true and which are false?" Catholics have an easy answer - the Pope validates that council

Would you be so kind as to provide the supporting documentation of the Pope’s validation of Councils One to Seven?

Many thanks.

PS: If you cannot provide such, are we to understand that the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the doctrines they taught are of questionable validity?

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

If you zoom back up to message #41, you will be able to read Archbishop Kenrick’s answer to this.

It was a contradiction of your post in #48.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

Would you be so kind as to provide the supporting documentation of the Pope’s validation of Councils One to Seven?

Many thanks.

PS: If you cannot provide such, are we to understand that the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the doctrines they taught are of questionable validity?

I will leave you with a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia

“Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.”

I will see if I can find the documents from researching the web. Or I might try my old Jesuit school but that will take some time.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Myhrr:

Try ccel:

ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-06/ecf3-26.htm

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.XCVII.html

I am not quite sure what these are supposed to mean. Neither of them includes a citation or a homily number for the work which Fr. A quoted. If you mean merely to point out that Augustine believed that the keys were given to the whole Church, you can save your breath. I agree, and admitted as much when I cited the 124th homiy on John. The idea that the keys were given, not to Peter qua individual, but rather to Peter qua type of the Church is indeed very Augustinian (and very Catholic, for that matter).

No one here (least of all the Catholics) would wish to contend that the Lord gave the keys to Peter simply so that he might have some sort of private authority or private access to God. The keys were given so that he might share them with the Church and thus the whole people of God might benefit. I take it that we are all agreed on this, so it is superfluous to belabor this point. I remain skeptical about the authenticity of the particular sermon for the feast of SS. Peter & Paul, however, and will remain so until such time as someone can point me to a book or an index number which might make it clear that the homily in question really was authored by the Doctor of Grace.

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

I am not quite sure what these are supposed to mean. Neither of them includes a citation or a homily number for the work which Fr. A quoted. If you mean merely to point out that Augustine believed that the keys were given to the whole Church, you can save your breath. I agree, and admitted as much when I cited the 124th homiy on John. The idea that the keys were given, not to Peter qua individual, but rather to Peter qua type of the Church is indeed very Augustinian (and very Catholic, for that matter).

I posted it to give you ccel as a possible source for it, and as for agreeing with Augustine, you might, but your Church doesn’t:

**881 **The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400

No one here (least of all the Catholics) would wish to contend that the Lord gave the keys to Peter simply so that he might have some sort of private authority or private access to God.

This isn’t the first time I’ve found your explanations at odds with the magesterium, the claim to Infallibility comes from the supposed supremacy of Peter over the other apostles so what is this except an ‘exclusive private line to the Holy Spirit’?

The keys were given so that he might share them with the Church and thus the whole people of God might benefit. I take it that we are all agreed on this, so it is superfluous to belabor this point.

Big deal. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given equally to all. Infallibility of the pope denies that.

I remain skeptical about the authenticity of the particular sermon for the feast of SS. Peter & Paul, however, and will remain so until such time as someone can point me to a book or an index number which might make it clear that the homily in question really was authored by the Doctor of Grace.

Well, after looking through about a hundred of them I decided it was easier to suggest ccel and leave it for you to find…

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Myhrr:

This isn’t the first time I’ve found your explanations at odds with the magesterium…

I am not surprised, given your bizzare and exotic misreadings of magisterial texts. At the risk of sounding harsher than I mean to, I would say that the fact that you perceive a discrepancy says more about you than about the Catholic Church.

Well, after looking through about a hundred of them I decided it was easier to suggest ccel and leave it for you to find…

Right; my point is that it is not there to find. I have searched internet databases and library card catalogs. The only citations for this sermon that I can find come from Fr. A or the internet site he linked, neither of which strike me as sufficient to establish authenticity of authorship (no offense intended, but Fr. A. is not St. Augustine, or even Jame O’Donnell). In any case, it is a small point. We are all agreed that Augustine holds that the keys belong to the Church; even if this sermon is not a genuine work of Holy Augustine, there is ample evidence in the Augustinian corpus to support the point that Fr. A was trying to make.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Aris:

I will leave you with a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia

“Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils.”

There was not a single Roman legate present (let alone presiding) at Constantinople I, so clearly the Catholic encyclopedia’s editor is not to be trusted on this point.

I will see if I can find the documents from researching the web. Or I might try my old Jesuit school but that will take some time.

Perhaps I can save you some time. Bellarmine composed a list of all the Ecumenical councils and the bulls in which the Pope recognized them as Ecumenical. I cannot remember in which work Bellarmine included this list, but I can tell you who can. If you are willing to ask him, Wm. Tighe would know exactly where in Bellarmine to look for the list. I hope that helps.

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

I am not surprised, given your bizzare and exotic misreadings of magisterial texts. At the risk of sounding harsher than I mean to, I would say that the fact that you perceive a discrepancy says more about you than about the Catholic Church.

Don’t hold back…

But, I showed in the Original Sin thread your understanding of the CCC was inaccurate, so here also, the bottom line is that papal supremacy pretentions are all based on this still unproven claim to sole petrine succession and whether or not you agree with Augustine your Church says:

**881 **The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400

 

[Greg_McPherran]

I think Jesus chose Peter because Peter believed and was not afraid to acknowledge Jesus in front of others. He did deny Jesus later but still once Jesus had chosen Peter based on his initial profession, I think Jesus strengthened Peter.

Let’s not forget that Scripture contains thematic messages and types. We see in Peter in the Gospels and Acts that there is no question that God raises up leaders of the Church. In the books of Acts it is clear that Peter had a certain authority.

Acts 15:7 Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…”

At the same time the office of Peter is to be open to the gifts and thoughts of others (e.g. St. Paul).

So we see that this theme of having a leader was in the Church. I see no reason to believe that Jesus intended this not to continue.

Greg