"Primacy of Honor"/St. Peter & the Church in Antioch?

[Nicea325]

I know of many quotes that seem to indicate that Rome had a primacy over all the other sees, yet what ECF taught the 19th century dogma of papal infallibility or something akin to that?

What year a dogma or doctrine is ratified does not change or alter God’s Truth. When was the doctrine of the Trinity ratified? 325 A.D. What church father in the year 100 AD taught or explained the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? Does not mean they do not believe it or teach it. Moreover, they simply could not explain it as well as someone living 200 years later.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What year a dogma or doctrine is ratified does not change or alter God’s Truth. When was the doctrine of the Trinity ratified? 325 A.D. What church father in the year 100 AD taught or explained the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? Does not mean they do not believe it or teach it. Moreover, they simply could not explain it as well as someone living 200 years later.

It is clear even in the books and epistles that would become our Bible that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God.

As for the Pope’s divinely instituted primacy, it is not clear. There is one passage that is open to so many interpretations.

 

[Nicea325]

It is clear even in the books and epistles that would become our Bible that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God.

As for the Pope’s divinely instituted primacy, it is not clear. There is one passage that is open to so many interpretations.

I disagree my brother in Christ. Plenty of countless writings saying otherwise. Many passages are open to many interpretations,not just one.

God Bless

 

[ConstantineTG]

I disagree my brother in Christ. Plenty of countless writings saying otherwise. Many passages are open to many interpretations,not just one.

God Bless

Which is true. That is why we leave it to the wisdom of the Church Fathers to tell us what they understand about Scripture because they were closer to the actual events and lived in more-or-less a time when the context of the words would be more meaningful to them than us.

I’m curious though that St. John Chrysostom made a lot of homilies on Scripture but there is none about St. Peter’s authority being passed on anyone.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Which is true. That is why we leave it to the wisdom of the Church Fathers to tell us what they understand about Scripture because they were closer to the actual events and lived in more-or-less a time when the context of the words would be more meaningful to them than us.

I’m curious though that St. John Chrysostom made a lot of homilies on Scripture but there is none about St. Peter’s authority being passed on anyone.

Not exactly…St. John Chrysostom called Peter "the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ. His writings also emphasize the mortality of Peter, linking him more closely to the people of the Church.

However, many Early Church Father do elaborate on the passing of authority…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.staycatholic.com%2Fecf_apostolic_succession.htm&ei=b9MZUPDBMIrs0gGIyoCwAQ&usg=AFQjCNF_eT4yjZ0ciouXZGsZVs9m6RdMTQ&sig2=eTen22r21zvm-6_DHuRQfQ

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-religion%2F1775198%2Fposts&ei=b9MZUPDBMIrs0gGIyoCwAQ&usg=AFQjCNHeVAOZNxxAnGpwTyuoXOM0Ur77SA&sig2=sF7mB4hdk2TzJ2_dz-1vmQ

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not exactly…St. John Chrysostom called Peter "the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ. His writings also emphasize the mortality of Peter, linking him more closely to the people of the Church.

However, many Early Church Father do elaborate on the passing of authority…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.staycatholic.com%2Fecf_apostolic_succession.htm&ei=b9MZUPDBMIrs0gGIyoCwAQ&usg=AFQjCNF_eT4yjZ0ciouXZGsZVs9m6RdMTQ&sig2=eTen22r21zvm-6_DHuRQfQ

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-religion%2F1775198%2Fposts&ei=b9MZUPDBMIrs0gGIyoCwAQ&usg=AFQjCNHeVAOZNxxAnGpwTyuoXOM0Ur77SA&sig2=sF7mB4hdk2TzJ2_dz-1vmQ

But as with before, you are confusing Apostolic Succession with the true sense of the word, with the passing of Peter’s personal authority.

And you do know that the members of the choir are not subordinate to the leader of the choir, right? It is not like a conductor and an orchestra. The leader of the choir leads the singing, yet he sings with everyone.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

What year a dogma or doctrine is ratified does not change or alter God’s Truth. When was the doctrine of the Trinity ratified? 325 A.D. What church father in the year 100 AD taught or explained the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? Does not mean they do not believe it or teach it. Moreover, they simply could not explain it as well as someone living 200 years later.

St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr. Their vision was exactly the same as that of an St. Athanasius or a St. Basil. They might not have used words like homoousios or monarchia, yet the faith was there. In the faith once delivered to the saints one should be able to find witnesses for almost every dogma in the Fathers of the first few centuries.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But as with before, you are confusing Apostolic Succession with the true sense of the word, with the passing of Peter’s personal authority.

And you do know that the members of the choir are not subordinate to the leader of the choir, right? It is not like a conductor and an orchestra. The leader of the choir leads the singing, yet he sings with everyone.

He leads the Choir as you said so your two statements contradict each other. How does one lead with no authority, oh right he was empowered by God.

I’m not confusing anything, and I have already explained this at length, Sorry you missed it. CTG is the one obviously confused.

Here is what I have already explained…

"Let me save everyone a lot of wasted energy by pointing out the crucial fault in this author’s understanding of what Catholics believe and teach when it comes to “Apostolic succession.” Very simply, “Apostolic succession” DOES NOT mean that the Pope, or any other bishop, succeeds to the full office of an Apostle. That is not the Catholic claim at all. Rather, “Apostolic succession” maintains that a Pope, or a particular bishop, succeeds FROM an Apostle or Apostles. It, in no way, implies that this Pope or this bishop is now an Apostle himself.

Furthermore, it in no way implies that this Pope or this bishop is Divinely-inspired (as the Apostles were), or infallible (in the sense that the Apostles were), or that they are the originators of new, Christ-given revelation (as the Apostles were).

Rather, the Pope and his brother bishops are merely the authoritative, Spirit-protected guardians of revelation (i.e. the Apostolic Deposit of Faith) that has already been delivered to us, in full, by the Apostles. So, as this author correctly points out, and as Catholics clearly believe, only God can commission someone to be an Apostle.

Now, with all that said, let me draw an important distinction. While a Pope, or another bishop, may not succeed to the full office of an Apostle (e.g. the Apostle Peter), they do succeed to a dimension of the Apostolic office: and that is the episcopal dimension of the Apostolic office. In other words, all Apostles, as part of their Apostolic calling, were also bishops (e.g. “overseers” – pastors of the flock). Peter calls himself a “presbyter” among other (non-Apostle) presbyters in 1 Peter 5:1, as does the Apostle John in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1. Here, it is important to note that, at the time the New Testament was written, the terms “bishop” (“overseer”) and “presbyter” (“senior” / “elder” – which would eventually evolve into our English word “priest”) were still being used interchangeably (and this is more than understandable, given that all Catholic bishops are also priests).

And so, when the Bishop of Rome says that he is the successor of the Apostle Peter, or when the Bishop of Ephesus says that he is the successor of the Apostle John, they are referring to the episcopal offices held by Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and by John (2 John 1), and not to the full measure of their Apostolic ministries. And so, the author of our article simply misunderstands the Catholic teaching."

 

[mercytruth]

This is an interesting question. In Galatians 2: 11-12, immediately following the Council of Jerusalem, there’s this scene of Peter visiting the Christians in Antioch that makes Peter look pretty bad: “And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.”

This is an extremely important passage because it talks about the relationships between Peter, Paul, and James. This is a central passage about the celebration of the Eucharist between Gentile and Jew! James sent Jewish Christians from Jerusalem to Antioch (suggesting he was bishop or proto-bishop), and Peter was afraid of them.

This issue of the unity of the Eucharistic celebration was central to Paul’s message. In 1 Corinthians 11: 17-22, he excoriates the Corinthians for dividing the celebration of their Eucharist, including among rich and poor.

That Peter seemed intimidated by “people from James” suggests that he didn’t view his authority as controlling, or that he was afraid of being assertive with them. James was clearly a major figure in the Jerusalem Church, and his name bears the only biblical epistle from that community.

Your claim about St. Peter is consistent with available written evidence. Paul was in arrest in Rome at the last time we see him before his death.

It’s possible that the bodies of Peter (and possibly Paul) were buried in Rome after their executions.

However, Rome’s primacy is a process of historical development. Matthew 16:16-18 didn’t get used as a justification of Roman primacy until at least the third century.

There are many factors to consider regarding the authority of the apostle Peter. It is my perception that he had the pre-eminent authority governing doctrine and morals.

At the same time, he respected the authority that every ordained bishop had over their perspective Sees. St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem and the apostle Peter deferred to to the spiritual jurisdiction that was given to James as Bishop of Jerusalem, unless there was a controversy.

We have two important epistles, one from the apostle Paul, and one from the apostle Peter.

Peter’s epistle is addressed to the ‘diaspora’, namely to the Jewish Christian communities throughout the known world.

Paul’s epistle to the church in Rome is addressed to the non-Jewish Christians of Rome.

This affirms St. Paul’s statement, ‘my ministry is to Gentiles, and Peter’s ministry is to the Jews’.

According to the Apostolic Constitutions, the apostle Paul ordained Linus as the first bishop of Jerusalem. The apostle Peter ordained Clement as the second bishop of Rome.

Neither St. Peter, nor St. Paul were bishops, they were apostles with the ruling teaching authority over the newly formed churches, and also had the authority to ordain bishops over the newly formed communities.

There was a manner in which bishops were chosen once all the apostles had died. The manner in which bishops were chosen is outlined in the Apostolic Constitutions, in the Discourses of Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, and vaguely hinted within St.Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians.

This is my perspective from the reading of scriptures and the early church fathers.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[LionHeart777]

Continuing my examination and have a quick question.

If the Primacy of Honor held by the Church in Rome and recognized from the beginning of our Church was because of St. Peter, we believe this as Catholics Why wasn’t the Church in Antioch held as Second in Honor of the Church in Rome even though she was started by St. Peter?

In 325 at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea the Church in Antioch established personally by St. Peter was not afforded 2nd in the ranking honor next to the Church in Rome as would make sense for her to be *if *the primacy of honor was really due to St. Peter & “the keys” as opposed to being based on the “imperial city”. Rather the Church in Antioch was listed in 3rd place at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea and then in later Ecumencial Councils as 4th place.

Just so happens that the order of honor given at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea followed the secular influence those cities held.

This Ecumenical Council, at the very least, gives us insight into the mindset of those early Bishops. It disturbs me that the mindset seems to match that of the Orthodox Church, not my Catholic Church’s mindset today.

These quotes should make it clear why Rome retains it’s place as “the first see”:

Pope Damasus I

‘Likewise it is decreed . . . 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, 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]).

Source: (emphasis mine)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from of old until now, as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all? Having surely received this canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter, and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law. And so when without fear but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is, of the most great and Apostolic Church at Rome, had so replied to the clergy of the royal city, they were seen to have conciliated them and to have acted prudently, that the others might be humble and modest, while they made known the orthodoxy and purity of their own faith from the beginning. But those of Constantinople, admiring their piety, thought that such a deed ought to be recompensed; and ceasing from urging the document on them, they promised by their diligence to procure the issue of the emperor’s order with regard to the episcopal election . . Of the aforesaid document a copy has been sent to me also. They have explained in it the cause for being silent about the natural operations in Christ our God, that is, in His natures, of which and in which He is believed to be, and how in future neither one nor two are to be mentioned. It is only to be allowed to confess that the divine and human (works) proceeded from the same Word of God incarnate, and are to be attributed to one and the same (person)."

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm (emphasis mine)

The Roman primacy (and it is not just merely a primacy of honor) ultimately comes from Jesus Christ as Pope St. Damasus I says. St. Maximos tells us that the Roman primacy was “received…canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter” . So if it comes from “the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter” , then it ultimately comes from the Lord (cf. St. Matthew 16:18-19).

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’m curious though that St. John Chrysostom made a lot of homilies on Scripture but there is none about St. Peter’s authority being passed on anyone.

You know, I’ve been thinking about that too. However, the answer is probably quite simple. Chrysostom held his homilies to adhort his parishioners to do good work and have orthodoxy of faith. A homily about church government wouldn’t have edified his listeners at all.

 

[SteveVH]

You know, I’ve been thinking about that too. However, the answer is probably quite simple. Chrysostom held his homilies to adhort his parishioners to do good work and have orthodoxy of faith. A homily about church government wouldn’t have edified his listeners at all.

Not to mention that it was not an issue in dispute and therefore may not have been a timely subject for a homily.

 

[LionHeart777]

The Roman primacy (and it is not just merely a primacy of honor) ultimately comes from Jesus Christ as Pope St. Damasus I says. St. Maximos tells us that the Roman primacy was “received…canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter” . So if it comes from “the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter” , then it ultimately comes from the Lord (cf. St. Matthew 16:18-19).

I want to amend this to say that:

The Roman primacy (and it is not just merely a primacy of honor) comes from Jesus Christ as Pope St. Damasus I says. St. Maximos tells us that the Roman primacy was “received…canonically, as well from councils and the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter” . So if it comes from “the Apostles, as from the princes of the latter” , then it comes from the Lord (cf. St. Matthew 16:18-19) Hence, the Roman primacy (which is not just merely a primacy of honor) comes from the Lord.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
I’m curious though that St. John Chrysostom made a lot of homilies on Scripture but there is none about St. Peter’s authority being passed on anyone.

You know, I’ve been thinking about that too. However, the answer is probably quite simple. Chrysostom held his homilies to adhort his parishioners to do good work and have orthodoxy of faith. A homily about church government wouldn’t have edified his listeners at all.

First of all, why would any ECF be compelled to confirm Peter’s primacy & authority?

 

[ConstantineTG]

First of all, why would any ECF be compelled to confirm Peter’s primacy & authority?

If Rome’s claim is legit, why wouldn’t they?

Not to mention that it was not an issue in dispute and therefore may not have been a timely subject for a homily.

You can’t have a dispute about a non-existent issue, can you?

 

[ConstantineTG]

He leads the Choir as you said so your two statements contradict each other. How does one lead with no authority, oh right he was empowered by God.

There is no contradiction. I never said Peter did not have authority. I said the subjugation of the other members is not a given to a leader. I was a team lead for a development support team. But I had no authority to fire people, hire people, give people promotions and increases. I just receive the work and organize the team on who does what work and make sure we as a team deliver on time. I am the leader but I have no authority. How is that confusing? They are two different things.

I’m not confusing anything, and I have already explained this at length, Sorry you missed it. CTG is the one obviously confused.

Is this how this discussion will be settled? By ad hominens? C’mon, you’re the one confusing leadership with authority. If you and 10 friends go out for dinner and no one could agree where to eat and someone say, “okay, let’s settle this,” and that one person comes up with a solution, then that person is the leader of the group. Are everyone else subjected to that person’s authority? Of course not! There isn’t even an authority to begin with.

Here is what I have already explained…

"Let me save everyone a lot of wasted energy by pointing out the crucial fault in this author’s understanding of what Catholics believe and teach when it comes to “Apostolic succession.” Very simply, “Apostolic succession” DOES NOT mean that the Pope, or any other bishop, succeeds to the full office of an Apostle. That is not the Catholic claim at all. Rather, “Apostolic succession” maintains that a Pope, or a particular bishop, succeeds FROM an Apostle or Apostles. It, in no way, implies that this Pope or this bishop is now an Apostle himself.

Furthermore, it in no way implies that this Pope or this bishop is Divinely-inspired (as the Apostles were), or infallible (in the sense that the Apostles were), or that they are the originators of new, Christ-given revelation (as the Apostles were).

Rather, the Pope and his brother bishops are merely the authoritative, Spirit-protected guardians of revelation (i.e. the Apostolic Deposit of Faith) that has already been delivered to us, in full, by the Apostles. So, as this author correctly points out, and as Catholics clearly believe, only God can commission someone to be an Apostle.

Now, with all that said, let me draw an important distinction. While a Pope, or another bishop, may not succeed to the full office of an Apostle (e.g. the Apostle Peter), they do succeed to a dimension of the Apostolic office: and that is the episcopal dimension of the Apostolic office. In other words, all Apostles, as part of their Apostolic calling, were also bishops (e.g. “overseers” – pastors of the flock). Peter calls himself a “presbyter” among other (non-Apostle) presbyters in 1 Peter 5:1, as does the Apostle John in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1. Here, it is important to note that, at the time the New Testament was written, the terms “bishop” (“overseer”) and “presbyter” (“senior” / “elder” – which would eventually evolve into our English word “priest”) were still being used interchangeably (and this is more than understandable, given that all Catholic bishops are also priests).

And so, when the Bishop of Rome says that he is the successor of the Apostle Peter, or when the Bishop of Ephesus says that he is the successor of the Apostle John, they are referring to the episcopal offices held by Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and by John (2 John 1), and not to the full measure of their Apostolic ministries. And so, the author of our article simply misunderstands the Catholic teaching."

And this is assuming that the Apostles even held Episcopal offices. And what you have said here is fine and true, but you never addressed Rome’s claim to the authority of being above all other Churches, and above all other bishops.

 

[Nicea325]

If Rome’s claim is legit, why wouldn’t they?

You can’t have a dispute about a non-existent issue, can you?

Precisely why it is not a non-existent issue-right? And why? Because as I once said plenty of writings supporting Peter’s primacy. If it was taught,believed and held as a Tradition,the church fathers would not need to be defending all the time.

Usually teachings,doctrines,dogmas,traditions are defended and ratified when under constant attack.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Precisely why it is not a non-existent issue-right? And why? Because as I once said plenty of writings supporting Peter’s primacy. If it was taught,believed and held as a Tradition,the church fathers would not need to be defending all the time.

Usually teachings,doctrines,dogmas,traditions are defended and ratified when under constant attack.

Because the concept of Primacy we have today did not exist in the early Church. They didn’t fight about it because there was nothing to fight about.

 

[cmforte]

And this is assuming that the Apostles even held Episcopal offices. .

Orthodox christianity teaches they did, as I pointed out in another thread.

-Chris

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because the concept of Primacy we have today did not exist in the early Church. They didn’t fight about it because there was nothing to fight about.

It certainly did. You see this is where your missing the point. This wasn’t elaborated on early exactly because it was not an issue, nor did the defined Dogma need to be further contemplated to clarify. Nothing else indicates otherwise, very much on the contrary as we see through History. Again I’ll have to refer you back to Lambeth and the Anglican debates. There you can see this theology dissected by some brilliant minds. There is no reason to believe the Primacy and Magesterium didn’t exist very early in the established church.