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

[Cavaradossi]

One more thing inconsistent here is that on the list of the Catholic Church of Popes, St. Clement is third after Peter, not second…

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

The text there says Clement was ordained second by Peter.

Eusebius writes that Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate in Rome, Anencletus the second and Clement the third in book three of His Church history.

 

[mercytruth]

One more thing inconsistent here is that on the list of the Catholic Church of Popes, St. Clement is third after Peter, not second…

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

The text there says Clement was ordained second by Peter.

Yes, it is strange. If one would do a research of the listing from the Constitutions of the Apostles, one would see that there seems to be a great measure of validity to the names of the bishops, and the sees to which they were assigned.

In the extra Clementine literature, Clement first heard of the gospel from the apostle Paul, but was later under the tutelage of the apostle Peter.

In addition, book VII has an authenticity of Jewish Christian origins. Such as the prayers that are written, the two ways that are remindful of the Didache, the fast days that are listed, and the fact that both the Sabbath **and **the Lord’s day were kept.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, it is strange. If one would do a research of the listing from the Constitutions of the Apostles, one would see that there seems to be a great measure of validity to the names of the bishops, and the sees to which they were assigned.

In addition, book VII has an authenticity of Jewish Christian origins. Such as the prayers that are written, the two ways that are remindful of the Didache, the fast days that are listed, and the fact that both the Sabbath **and **the Lord’s day were kept.

God’s peace

Micah

The Orthodox still keep the Sabbath as a special day for the commemoration of the dead, although this is seldom practiced in the United States.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Orthodox still keep the Sabbath as a special day for the commemoration of the dead, although this is seldom practiced in the United States.

Does your Church observe the five All Souls’ Saturdays, a vestige of sorts of this custom?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Does your Church observe the five All Souls’ Saturdays, a vestige of sorts of this custom?

I would think so. The Greek Orthodox are notoriously lazy when it comes to holding services (we don’t even have weekly vespers), but they still should observe those Saturdays. The other vestige of a sort of keeping the Sabbath in the East, if I remember correctly, is that only one Saturday of the whole year is a fasting day, Great and Holy Saturday. All other Saturdays should be oil and wine days, though I suppose some traditions may have exceptions.

 

[mercytruth]

I would think so. The Greek Orthodox are notoriously lazy when it comes to holding services (we don’t even have weekly vespers), but they still should observe those Saturdays. The other vestige of a sort of keeping the Sabbath in the East, if I remember correctly, is that only one Saturday of the whole year is a fasting day, Great and Holy Saturday. All other Saturdays should be oil and wine days, though I suppose some traditions may have exceptions.

This is beautiful. Here is a quotation from Book VII of the Constitutions:

But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord’s burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for Him is more forcible than the joy for the creation; for the Creator is more honourable by nature and dignity than His own creatures.

newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm

God’s peace

Michael

 

[LionHeart777]

Eusebius writes that Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate in Rome, Anencletus the second and Clement the third in book three of His Church history.

I believe St. Irenaeus has the same order (Book III “Against Heresies”)

 

[Marybeloved]

If that’s true, then how any Pope truly a successor of St. Peter?

Maybe like the Ecumenical Councils canons say thke preeminence of the Church in Rome is based on it having been the imperial city and not because it was the chair of St. Peter?

I dont think so. Peter may have chosen Rome as opposed to Antioch or Alexandria due to its secular/imperial or central status, but the papacy remains there because of him- Peter, not the imperial city. It doesnt matter who ordained Linus, he was a Roman Bishop and the seat there is Peters until Linus (or whoever) ascends it after Peter dies.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I dont think so. Peter may have chosen Rome as opposed to Antioch or Alexandria due to its secular/imperial or central status, but the papacy remains there because of him- Peter, not the imperial city. It doesnt matter who ordained Linus, he was a Roman Bishop and the seat there is Peters until Linus (or whoever) ascends it after Peter dies.

Two questions.

1. Why do we have canons in 3 different Ecumenical Councils that spell out the primacy of the Church in Rome is because it was in the imperial city not because of St. Peter?
2. How can Linus be the 1st successor of St. Peter if St. Paul was the one who instituted him?

 

[GaryTaylor]

We don’t know for sure if Paul indeed ordained Linus. The accounts of St Irenaeus and Tertullian date earlier. What we do know is the first two possibly three who succeeded St Peter were chosen by St Peter. Heirs of the Fisherman by Peter Pham is the latest accurate compilation on this from the Vatican. Again all this has been historically debated, Lambeth, nothing new.

Also the difference of this in order is not of consequence, nor who ordained who. When a Pope or Bishop pass-on, they do not ordain “anyone” so what is the “point” of contention?

Primacy of the Imperial City? Post the links when you make claims we would all like to see exactly what you are referring to as to the Councils.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtforum.org%2Flt%2Flt29.html&ei=nhgdUM2CL4aU6QGzoIDABA&usg=AFQjCNF57Z0GOcKtifFCOu3gi3yHwW2Pkw&sig2=R2RA0yPhPL4RRre1LcrAoQ

The idea of St Paul connected to Rome isn’t new, in fact St Peter and St Paul have “always” been honored there. And I posted this on this thread.

Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).”

There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice”

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

"It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself.

NOTE; Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations." (Schmemann, page 163-164)

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2Fnum12.htm&ei=3R4dUPLLA4ar0AGS_oD4DQ&usg=AFQjCNGuCTQVzFR8PS-ksD2Y_mrGwus_Qg&sig2=wkwPBzIPhchZodeuEYqnSA

 

[mercytruth]

We don’t know for sure if Paul indeed ordained Linus. The accounts of St Irenaeus and Tertullian date earlier. What we do know is the first two possibly three who succeeded St Peter were chosen by St Peter. Heirs of the Fisherman by Peter Pham is the latest accurate compilation on this from the Vatican. Again all this has been historically debated, Lambeth, nothing new.

 

[mercytruth]

Actually, we do not know if Irenaeus and Tertullian predate Book VII of the Constitutions of the Apostles. The tenor and tone of this book is similar to the Didache (120 AD), and the Jewish Christian aspects of Book VII would seem to indicate the same time period. Especially, since only two generations of bishops are listed.

The fact that many of the bishops and sees listed in Book VII can not be found anywhere else in early church writings, and the one’s that are found are confirmed by other early church fathers seem to indicate their validity. The fact that St. Mark and St. Luke are listed as evangelists, and not as apostles seems also to indicate an apostolic origin of this Book VII.

Regardless, an open and fair mind for the truth is always needed when discussing issues that are still dividing the church.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[GaryTaylor]

Actually, we do not know if Irenaeus and Tertullian predate Book VII of the Constitutions of the Apostles. The tenor and tone of this book is similar to the Didache (120 AD), and the Jewish Christian aspects of Book VII would seem to indicate the same time period. Especially, since only two generations of bishops are listed.

The fact that many of the bishops and sees listed in Book VII can not be found anywhere else in early church writings, and the one’s that are found are confirmed by other early church fathers seem to indicate their validity. The fact that St. Mark and St. Luke are listed as evangelists, and not as apostles seems also to indicate an apostolic origin of this Book VII.

Regardless, an open and fair mind for the truth is always needed when discussing issues that are still dividing the church.

God’s peace

Micah

Right, its all significant. Whats the oldest dated original text the Church has in existence to Succession?

 

[mercytruth]

Right, its all significant. Whats the oldest dated original text the Church has in existence to Succession?

You know Gary, I could not answer that question. I’m sure someone else may have the answer to your question.

Let us humbly trust God, knowing that His saints from both the East, and the West have shown forth the glory of God by the lives they have lived in our Lord Jesus Christ.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[LionHeart777]

Responding to the OP, in post # 69 I wrote:

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).

Then I wrote in post 72:

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.

If anything I did, wrote, implied was not according to the Catholic Church’s teaching, I retract it and reject it. As a Catholic, I believe everything the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy and about Roman Primacy.

Sorry to tie up the thread…

 

[mercytruth]

As a Catholic, it is important for us to look at the earliest historical evidence in reaching any sort of determination as to the apostolic origins for the see of Rome.

I have quoted from Book VII of the Constitutions of the Apostles, which states that the apostle Paul ordained Linus as the first bishop of Rome. (Post #95)

Besides the other indicators that I related as to an early date of Book VII, we have no mention of the see of Corinth as having an ordained bishop among the other sees that were listed. (Post #95)

The earliest record of a bishop of Corinth is 170 AD. (Bishop Dionysius).
newadvent.org/cathen/05010a.htm

St. Clement’s epistle to the church of Corinth (circa 90 AD) confirms that there was not a bishop of Corinth at the time of the writing of his epistle to the church of Corinth. However, St.Clement does mention several times that there was a (council of sorts) of presbyters who had the ‘oversight’.

One can only conjecture why there was not a bishop of Corinth during the apostolic age.
Perhaps the factions within the church of Corinth between Peter, Paul and Apollos was a determining factor.

I personally believe that the search for truth with open-minded humility is the most important virtue to pursue when there is controversy between Christ’s church of the West and Christ’s church of the East.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ConstantineTG]

As a Catholic, it is important for us to look at the earliest historical evidence in reaching any sort of determination as to the apostolic origins for the see of Rome.

I have quoted from Book VII of the Constitutions of the Apostles, which states that the apostle Paul ordained Linus as the first bishop of Rome. (Post #95)

Besides the other indicators that I related as to an early date of Book VII, we have no mention of the see of Corinth as having an ordained bishop among the other sees that were listed. (Post #95)

The earliest record of a bishop of Corinth is 170 AD. (Bishop Dionysius).
newadvent.org/cathen/05010a.htm

St. Clement’s epistle to the church of Corinth (circa 90 AD) confirms that there was not a bishop of Corinth at the time of the writing of his epistle to the church of Corinth. However, St.Clement does mention several times that there was a (council of sorts) of presbyters who had the ‘oversight’.

One can only conjecture why there was not a bishop of Corinth during the apostolic age.
Perhaps the factions within the church of Corinth between Peter, Paul and Apollos was a determining factor.

I personally believe that the search for truth with open-minded humility is the most important virtue to pursue when there is controversy between Christ’s church of the West and Christ’s church of the East.

God’s peace

Micah

It would be impossible to have a Church in the First Century without a bishop. Back then, all functions and faculties were the bishop’s alone. Presbyters were purely administrative and have no priestly faculties. Even at the time of St. John Chrysostom the priestly ministry is performed by the bishop, not the priest/presbyter. Back then, the power to consecrate has not been delegated to the presbyters.

 

[josie_L]

But why did Rome protest in the first place if she herself believed her primacy is not rooted in the importance of the city where she is in?

And why do you say that she herself (I’m not sure who in Rome you are referring to, the legates, the pope . . . ) believed her primacy was rooted (solely/primarily) in the importance of the city (facts please)? Moreover, how do you explain the fact that many fathers of the Church, including popes, delineated Rome’s primacy due to other factors, i.e., Christ’s words to Peter, Peter’s death in Rome, it being a Petrine See (the Chair of Peter). . . , Notwithstanding, I’m sure that when God chose Peter (the Head of the Church) to go to Rome he knew of it’s strategic value in the empire.

". . . 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 Saviour, who says: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of . . . 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. " Written by Pope Damasus (382 A.D. )

“Although the tradition of the Fathers has assigned so great an Authority to the Apostolic See, that no one should dare to dispute about a Judgment given by it, and that See, by laws and regulations, has kept to this; and the discipline of the Church, in the laws which it yet follows, still pays to the name of Peter, from whom that See (or discipline) descends, the reverence due, - for canonical antiquity, by universal consent, willed that so great a Power should belong to that Apostle, a Power also derived from the actual promise of Christ our God, that it should be his to loose what was bound, and to bind what was loosed, an equal state of Power being bestowed upon those who, by His will, should be found to inherit his See, for he has charge both of all the Churches, and especially of this One wherein he sat;” Written by Pope Zozimus during the Pelagian heresy (417 A.D.)

"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 Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today 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.” Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.)

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme see, in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouths of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the consummation, according to the promise of Him who cannot lie. Let the most blessed and apostolic Paschal [the pope] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.” Theodore the Studite writing to Pope Paschal during the Iconoclastic heresy

There is, of course, many more quotes, as per what the fathers of the Church said concerning Rome, but I think we can safely say that there is no father of which I can recall who ever said that the primacy of Rome was solely and/or primarily due to her being an imperial city.

 

[mercytruth]

It would be impossible to have a Church in the First Century without a bishop. Back then, all functions and faculties were the bishop’s alone. Presbyters were purely administrative and have no priestly faculties. Even at the time of St. John Chrysostom the priestly ministry is performed by the bishop, not the priest/presbyter. Back then, the power to consecrate has not been delegated to the presbyters.

Apollos and Silas have been suggested as the bishops, but we have no written record for a bishop of Corinth. Eusebius who is pretty thorough, does not mention a bishop of Corinth in the first century. St. Clement does not mention in his epistle that Corinth had a bishop when writing to them, so what are we to presume? Perhaps bishop Lucius of Cenchrea presided over the church of Corinth.

Cenchrea was the port for Corinth on the eastern side of the isthmus, and remains of the ancient harbor are visible in the water today. Paul had his hair cut here because of a vow, and then set sail from the harbor, concluding his 18-month stay in Corinth (on his second journey; Acts 18:18).

bibleplaces.com/corintharea.htm

God’s peace

Micah

 

[gus]

Darn it, I was hoping to get to say that first.

Constantanople was not. an Apostolic See.
Its usurpation of the number 2 spot was purely political.
The amazing thing is How the Roman Church maintained its prestige even after Rome was destroyed. Maybe it has something to do with Peter and Paul dying there.