P
pocohombre
Guest
I think so. I like you agree the Chair in this sense is real symbolism(a type of primacy in honor for Peter) for that which really derives from all apostles.
- Status
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Did I say that? I thought I said there is only one Chair of Peter. The apostles had the authority but the Chair of Peter is singularly attributed to Peter which the apostles shared in, they being one in Christ. Nowhere it was symbolism because nowhere symbolism was mentioned.
K
Kliska
Guest
When and where is the first appearance of the phrase “chair of Peter?” Not as a concept, but as an actual phrase? Anyone have a link or info?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Oh, you don’t find that in the Bible. It is actually about explanation of papal infallibility. The Pope has the charism of papal infallibility because he can speak ex-cathedra, literally from the chair. The Biblical concept of infallibility can be seen when Jesus told the disciples that they should follow what the Pharisees said but not what they (the Pharisees) did for they spoke from the Chair of Moses (paraphrase). Thus when a Pope speaks ex-cathedra he is infallible despite his impeccability.
The Chair of Peter thus is the authority conferred on Peter by Jesus when he gave Peter the Key to Heaven. It is a singular commission to Peter alone. The apostles had authority in sharing that commission as they are one in Christ but there is no doubt that this is on the basis of Peter’s supremacy.
K
Kliska
Guest
I do know that, that’s what I meant. As a protestant I don’t know when and where that exact phrase was first used. I’m guessing there is a person that it is first attributed to, as far as coining that phrase “chair of Peter.”Anyone know?
P
PJM
Guest
The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome
The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
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 [inter A.D. 180-190]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Continued Blessings my friend!
P
pocohombre
Guest
Sorry.didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. Am only repeating what Cyprian wrote. Symbolism might be wrong word but Cyprian would apply the term to any bishop, so singular to Peter but applicable to others.
P
pocohombre
Guest
I think post # 168 has Cyprian quote using term “chair of Peter” . Maybe he was first to coin it.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Thank you. That is the definition today. Cyprian, who may have been first to use the term would disagree with today’s application.
J
jmcrae
Guest
St. Cyprian also did not have any concept of modern democracy - any notion of equality would have seemed absurd to him. If anything, he would have been more authoritarian than today’s Popes; not less.
P
pocohombre
Guest
this site deals with Cyril vintage.aomin.org/Whitewash1.html
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Interesting quote from St Cyprian there. It seemed there were bishops being appointed not from the Chair of Peter and those were blasphermers to it.
The saint mentioned that the ‘church at Rome’ was the** ‘principal church**’ and the source of sacerdotal unity. Wriitten nearly two thousand years ago in the third century perhaps this in some way explains the ‘church at Rome’ today.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Well could not verify the epistles .might be numbered wrong .The way you get to be a bishop is to be gifted from God, voted in by the church and co -bishops -by suffrage ,from the community church. Had nothing to do with Rome or Chair of Peter. per say ,except that one of the three ingredients could be a co-bishop, if one existed .This is found in epistles 54 vs 5,6. The Chair of Peter, at Rome, is who is receiving "letters’ and that blasphemous.
Disagree about what is “principal”. The context of the letter is that blasphemous letters and people were headed to the principal church at Rome. It is not saying the Rome church was the principal church over others .There is a principal (main) church at Antioch, at Jerusalem, at Alexandria ,and at Rome. As far as source of unity ,it is more historical and honorary due to St.Peter whom we recognizes as at least first amongst equals,a leader. Another post I believe says the other apostles had equal power and office… This is all based on the simple sentence we have before us, and other writings of His. But I understand your CC viewing of the same sentence, just disagree and let Cyprian speak for himself.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I don’t know about this but from the extract of the quote, the church at Rome is the principal church, but you are entitled to your interpretation on this.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Ever heard of the term* suffrage *?
He uses it twice in just one epistle (54) ,where a church votes in a bishop.They are not appointed by Rome or by another bishop from outside the local community. So Greece did not exist ? Equality waas absurd to Him ? So Jesus too was ignorant of equality, and Cyprian was ignorant of the Lord’s heart ?
P
pocohombre
Guest
Epistle LIV.2522
To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus and Felicissimus, or Against the Heretics.“no one would stir up anything against the college of priests; no one, after the divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after the consent of the co-bishops,… when a bishop is appointed into the place of one deceased, when he is chosen in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people,”
www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.liv.html from post #248 “after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the
Apostles”…" Surely the rest of the
Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership
of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity," post #248
P
pocohombre
Guest
Cyril 6: 15, 4:35 “As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church”,…" Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church". newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm Again a primacy that is personal to Peter, not necessarily jurisdictional over others. I have no problem calling Peter chief, for he was but as an equal and he definitely used the keys first (so did the others afterwards). Hopefully you have no problem in calling Paul an equal jurisdictional* chief *as Peter or even the other apostles, per Cyril’s complete writings.books. books.google.com/books?id=TbcCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=cyril+catechetical+lectures+and+and+primacy&source=bl&ots=mptqJnXlSY&sig=_yGkIKUU_U6Gr8rTB-osv2IuOcc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PAecUpi0G9LhsASkl4GIAg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=cyril%20catechetical%20lectures%20and%20and%20primacy&f=false
D
daler
Guest
My thoughts are that they were most definitely moved and guided by the Holy Spirit at the time. My question would then be, in a multi-generational sense, for how long? That is, how long before schism or other self-interest crept in, diminishing the initial purity of the Faith of the Apostles?
There was a certain point where, following the departure of Moses and His Divine Presence, something happened such that by the time Jesus Christ appeared on the scene, little was left of the original Spirit, according to my understanding.
As this appears to be a recurring phenomena of human behavior, speaking as objectively as is scientifically possible, psychologically and spiritually, the process of degradation and petrification affects all forms throughout nature, including group behavior and the dynamics of human experience in general.
Anybody else see anything different happening?
.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I would agree with you, if indeed the Church was a human institution. The difference is that it is not. It is a divine institution. The evidence of this claim lies in the fact that the Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the world. It has witnessed the rise and fall of every kingdom, nation, and governmental system known to man since its inception 2000 years ago. Yet it remains, and not only remains, but flourishes.
I would also take issue with your statement concerning the words “Moses and His Divine Presence”. Moses was a man, pure and simple. He was not divine. Only Jesus was and is divine.
God is not subject to the whims and weaknesses of human beings. He started a Church and promised that this Church would continue until the end of time. So this is God’s doing, in spite of the weak and sinful humans that make up the body of the Church. The truth revealed by Jesus Christ remains unchanged since the time of the Apostles.
Blessings.
Steve
- Status