St. John Chrysostom and communion with Rome

[LionHeart777]

I can agree with you and Pope Benedict XVI that St. Peter could certainly have been a recipient of the keys to the kingdom “in a special way”.

Nonetheless, patristic testimony is an element essential to the Catholic faith, which eschews sola scriptura. It’s helpful to find out what the Early Church Fathers believed, on the whole, about an issue. To this effect we can take into account this informative post here which I stumbled upon yesterday:

"Church Fathers and the Rock

"Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings. He published his speech in Naples the following year.

"It is important because he lists the five different patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

"Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

"1…‘That St. Peter is the Rock’ is taught by seventeen (17) Fathers

"2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, is taught by eight (8.) Church Fathers

"3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock, is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

"4…That Christ is the Rock, is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

"5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful. Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

"Archbishop Kendrick summarises

"‘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.’

"This is an important point by Kendrick since one of the RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the principle that a preponderance of patristic consensus is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.

"You can look this up and check that I have it accurately in Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

"As to who Archbishop Kenrick was. Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia [article http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm”]here

.]"

This is definitely an interesting parallel passage to Matthew 16:19. However, the linkage is rarely made in patristic writings: I have seen only one such example (quoted here by Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore), found in a work by St. John Cassian. (This state of affairs is certainly lamentable, for we might otherwise have at our disposal a number of clear and concise patristic citations regarding the role of the bishop of Rome throughout the first several centuries of the Church.)

Continued in next post.

My thoughts on the tally you brought up (at least the 44#) can be found in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9448422#post9448422

someone brought it up there. (Sorry to send you searching )

re: Isaiah 22:22, I don’t think the Fathers speak much of this passage (at least not in the “New Advent” library of them from a search I did) except one citation by (I forget–Origen?) who uses it to prove a different point. But this is no deal breaker for me and I will let the Church decide on that passage (which I obviously believe to be the Catholic Church.) Thanks for that link to the citation to St. John Cassian, I’ll have to check it out.

 

[LionHeart777]

You may be right, but it remains difficult to draw that conclusion for certain. St. John Chrysostom proclaimed that Jesus “[made St. Peter] Shepherd” and “cause[d] a fisherman to be stronger than any rock”, “set him as a column of brass and as a wall… to the whole world” and “to a mortal man… entrusted the power over all that is in heaven, in giving the keys to him who extended the Church throughout the world, and showed it stronger than the world”. Considering all of the flowery language St. John Chrysostom heaped upon his namesake apostle, is it not unlikely that the renowned preacher would be eager, indeed honoured, to dish out the same praises for St. Paul?

I would agree with you here.

I made an error here, intending to point to the material cited in post #41.

This is all true, as far as it goes. But if we apply the same principles here–interpreting what St. John Chrysostom said about certain apostles, then deriving conclusions about how their successors governed in his time and should do likewise in our day–we are faced with a theological product that looks nothing like either classical Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology.

Likewise. What we have to do is conduct a survey of what each Father said as an individual and draw conclusions based on their testimony as a group in order to discern what was believed “always, everywhere, and by all” during the early centuries of the Christian faith.

I hold to an interpretation of that passage according to which St. Paul is speaking of a process of purification undergone by the soul after death. As a Latin Catholic, would you also subscribe to this view?

Cheers,
Trebor135

On St. John Chrysostom and the Papacy I suppose I will defer to the Catholic authors who write on the matter (I’m no expert.)

Regarding Corinthians 3:15, yes I do hold “hold to an interpretation of that passage according to which St. Paul is speaking of a process of purification undergone by the soul after death…” as you say.

 

[LionHeart777]

All,

I suppose I will wrap up my thoughts on this topic briefly and in this way:

First, I don’t agree that Sts. Meletius and John Chrysostom were ever out of communion with Rome.

Second, even if they were, this doesn’t disprove the Papacy.

Though I don’t agree with the conclusion, even if St. John Chrysostom didn’t hold to communion with Rome as tantamount to being in [full] communion with the Catholic Church, than I disagree and so does the Catholic Church. Also, even if he did, there is nothing to say that his mind didn’t change.

Regards,

Nick

 

[Hesychios]

All,

I suppose I will wrap up my thoughts on this topic briefly and in this way:

First, I don’t agree that Sts. Meletius and John Chrysostom were ever out of communion with Rome. …

I don’t have to believe the world is round, and you don’t have to believe the See at Rome and Saint John were ever in schism with one another.

What we wish to think will not change the true facts.

 

[LionHeart777]

I don’t have to believe the world is round, and you don’t have to believe the See at Rome and Saint John were ever in schism with one another.

What we wish to think will not change the true facts.

And that may be how you see it, but I am not convinced.

I suppose there is a place for people like me over here.

 

[SPH1]

“John was ordained as a deacon in 381 by Saint Meletius of Antioch who was not then in communion with Alexandria and Rome. After the death of Meletius, John separated himself from the followers of Meletius, without joining Paulinus, the rival of Meletius for the bishopric of Antioch, but after the death of Paulinus he was ordained a presbyter (that is, a priest) in 386 by Evagrius, the successor of Paulinus.[16] He was destined later to bring about reconciliation between Flavian I of Antioch, the successor of Alexandria and Rome, thus bringing those three sees into communion for the first time in nearly seventy years.[17]”

–Wikipedia article on St. John Chrysostom

It appears from this limited information that for several years St. John Chrysostom saw no problem being separated from Rome.

Your conclusion is incorrect, and the proof is in your own quotation. St. John helped bring reconciliation between Flavian of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Okay. But when did St. John reconcile HIMSELF and the See of Constantinople with Rome? It doesn’t say and that’s because St. John and Constantiople were not in schism and did not see themselves as such.

If communion with the successor of St. Peter in that see were regarded in the Early Church as equivalent to communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, why wouldn’t such a great saint as this have done all he could to end his part in the Meletian schism right away?

He did, when he had some power holding the See of Constantinople. As Trebor posted below yours, “The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome.” (emphasis mine.) His first act. Apparently St. John was not as flippant about communion with Rome as some here appear to be; St. John considered that very serious and important.

I agree with LionHeart and others: I don’t see that St. John (or even Meletius) were out of communion with Rome.

Now, to you and the Eastern Orthodox here:

1. How can you be so…casual…about whether or not one holds communion with the “first among equals”? Now mind you, we’re speaking of the earlier Church here.
2. What do you think of the consecration of Meletius, apparently at least in part by Arians? Did not the Pope rightly raise an eyebrow at that? In this regard, I note that some/many Orthodox don’t even accept Catholic orders. So you must question Meletius’ consecration…right?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Your conclusion is incorrect, and the proof is in your own quotation. St. John helped bring reconciliation between Flavian of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Okay. But when did St. John reconcile HIMSELF and the See of Constantinople with Rome? It doesn’t say and that’s because St. John and Constantiople were not in schism and did not see themselves as such.

St. John would have been out of communion with Rome, as long as he was a presbyter under Meletius. Presbyters have never had the power to enter into communion with other bishops separate of their own bishop. Upon his consecration as the bishop of Constantinople, he would have likely announced his consecration to the other major metropolitan sees, including Rome, and have been admitted to communion with them (this is in fact still how it is done in Orthodoxy, when a new bishop of a metropolitan or patriarchal see is enthroned, although it is largely a formality, since communion is almost guaranteed, while in the time of St. John Chrysostom, it might not have been).

He did, when he had some power holding the See of Constantinople. As Trebor posted below yours, "The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome." (emphasis mine.) His first act. Apparently St. John was not as flippant about communion with Rome as some here appear to be; St. John considered that very serious and important.

Well, it goes a bit deeper than that. By the time he was consecrated as the Archbishop of Constantinople, the competing Eustathian line of bishops (which was supported by Rome and Alexandria) had died out, leaving Flavian (the successor of the Meletian line of bishops) as the only remaining bishop of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom’s role was to get Rome and Alexandria to recognize Flavian as the legitimate bishop of Antioch, so that they would cease to recognize any other rival bishops that might pop up in Antioch. It was not so much for the purpose of getting Flavian back into communion with Rome, but for the purpose of preventing further schisms within Antioch (schisms which were in fact threatening to divide the common union of the Church).

I agree with LionHeart and others: I don’t see that St. John (or even Meletius) were out of communion with Rome.

Meletius certainly was out of communion with Rome. The bishops of Rome and Alexandria recognized Paulinus as being the true bishop of Antioch. By definition, one who holds a rival episcopacy within a diocese against the legitimate bishop is in fact a schismatic (this is in fact the truest sense of the word schismatic). So for Rome and Alexandria, Meletius certainly was in schism.

Now, to you and the Eastern Orthodox here:

1. How can you be so…casual…about whether or not one holds communion with the “first among equals”? Now mind you, we’re speaking of the earlier Church here.

Communion is not a top-down structure, it is built from the bottom up. From the very beginning, it seems, the people and clergy of a see chose a candidate to be elevated to the episcopacy, who would then be ordained by bishops from neighboring sees. It also seems that the ancient custom was almost universally that the minimum amount of bishops needed was usually three, although this could be dispensed in times of persecution. This system, however, was not democratic, as the need for three bishops to perform an ordination gave a certain power to the neighboring bishops to reject certain candidates if they found them to be unsuitable.

From this early structure, there seems to have emerged a certain system of primacy, in which a local bishop would hold a position of higher prominence than the others (some would hold that this system was intended by the Apostles themselves, although I am not sure that this can be demonstrated with research). Every local grouping of bishops (usually arranged by province), gathered together to operate as a synod, and amongst themselves, they recognized one to be their head (although in terms of episcopacy, his office would still have been equal to theirs). Nothing should be done without the consent of the head, and the head should never do anything without the consent of all. This principle is crystallized in Apostolic canon XXXIV, and also referenced in canons IV and VI of Nicaea, although only in the context of the election of new bishops.

Now, with these individual synods, there seemed to be a much looser system of union between them. For example, in the first millennium, it was common practice for the bishop of a major metropolitan see upon his consecration, to send out synodica, letters containing a statement of faith and a request to enter into communion with the receiver. If the receiver accepted, the two metropolitan bishops would enter into communion. The other metropolitan bishops, however, had no say in the actual ordination of said bishop (unlike the system within a metropolis), but only whether they would enter into communion with this bishop. Within this super-metropolitan ordering, there seems to have been a loose sense of having a first among them, although this first was at the same time shown great respect but also a great deal of disobedience and defiance. In other words, it seems like this ‘first’ had less direct authority than the metropolitans did. Accordingly, being out of communion with this first bishop was never a huge issue because being in communion with him was not a guarantee that one was the Catholic bishop of a certain city, it was only a good but imperfect indicator of such.

1. What do you think of the consecration of Meletius, apparently at least in part by Arians? Did not the Pope rightly raise an eyebrow at that? In this regard, I note that some/many Orthodox don’t even accept Catholic orders. So you must question Meletius’ consecration…right?

Not really, his Nicene faith and communion with other Nicene bishops would have made up for whatever was defective with his ordination.

 

[SPH1]

Cavaradossi,

By “first among equals” (Rome) we’re speaking of the whole Church, not just the first in some regional area. It would seem to me that the whole point of having a first is to show communion and universality, and breaking that communion would be a serious matter. It would affect communion with the whole Church.

Apparently not so, however, from what I see from the Eastern Orthodox here. I don’t see that they even see this as a bad thing, let alone serious. Frankly, on the one hand I’m surprised to see how casually they accept this breaking of communion. But on the other hand, perhaps not suprised, as it supports their anti-Papal position…which I think the main thing.

And no, St. John and Constantianople were not in schism from Rome and there was never a “reconciliation.” That is wishful interpreation and spin from the current Eastern Orthodox.

But since “first among equals” (Rome) has no real meaning - and “second among equals” (Constantianople) has even less meaning - let’s just do away with both. You want to do away with Vatican I; let’s also do away with this. The Western and Eastern Empires have not existed for centuries, so giving these Sees any prominence no longer applies. It was silly to begin with, as being in an imperial city should have nothing to do with the Church.

You on board?

 

[LionHeart777]

I suppose we will agree to disagree that it is fact Dollinger. I see a repudiation by the Rev. S. Herbert Scott of the claim that St. Meletius was not in communion with Rome (see pg. 120 at the following link):

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BasilChrysostomShort.pdf

He also repudiates the idea the St. Meletius died not in communion with Rome:

(see pg. 124 here):

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BasilChrysostomShort.pdf

(This is the link that deals more w/ St. John Chrysostom)

…

Just an edit, to whom it may concern:

This was from my post #74 and the second link should be:

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/ScottOnChrysostom.pdf

(the first was a duplicate), I decided to fix this as I realized while re-using these links.

 

[LionHeart777]

I can agree with you and Pope Benedict XVI that St. Peter could certainly have been a recipient of the keys to the kingdom “in a special way”.

Nonetheless, patristic testimony is an element essential to the Catholic faith, which eschews sola scriptura. It’s helpful to find out what the Early Church Fathers believed, on the whole, about an issue. To this effect we can take into account this informative post here which I stumbled upon yesterday:

"Church Fathers and the Rock

"Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings. He published his speech in Naples the following year.

"It is important because he lists the five different patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

"Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

"1…‘That St. Peter is the Rock’ is taught by seventeen (17) Fathers

"2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, is taught by eight (8.) Church Fathers

"3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock, is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

"4…That Christ is the Rock, is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

"5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful. Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

"Archbishop Kendrick summarises

"‘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.’

"This is an important point by Kendrick since one of the RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the principle that a preponderance of patristic consensus is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.

"You can look this up and check that I have it accurately in Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

"As to who Archbishop Kenrick was. Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia [article http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm”]here

.]"

This is definitely an interesting parallel passage to Matthew 16:19. However, the linkage is rarely made in patristic writings: I have seen only one such example (quoted here by Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore), found in a work by St. John Cassian. (This state of affairs is certainly lamentable, for we might otherwise have at our disposal a number of clear and concise patristic citations regarding the role of the bishop of Rome throughout the first several centuries of the Church.)

Continued in next post.

(Blue mine)

I believe I already responded to this post, but I want to say something:

I said in post #46:

As far as St. Chrysostom’s words about St. John the Apostle (in the first citation), I don’t see the taking away from what Catholics believe about St. Peter. Pope Benedict XVI wrote in an address while in Turkey that: “Simon, notwithstanding his human weakness, was called ‘Peter’, the ‘rock’ on which the Church was to be built; to him in a particular way were entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Mt 16:18).” (source: vatican.va/holy_father/be…iturgy_en.html) (accessed 6/22/2012) (emphasis mine.)

So, is it possible to speak of other Apostles as having received the keys in some sort of secondary way, by way of allusion, regarding St. Matthew 16:18-19? Perhaps, I’m not sure. I’ll let the Church and Her Theologians answer that question. But if so, then this would not take away from the fact that St. Peter, and him alone, was given the keys “in a particular way”, to borrow the Holy Father’s words (cf. Isaiah 22:22)

I think that his own statements about the keys and St. Peter show that he saw that the keys were given to St. Peter “in a particular way” as well (see Phil Vaz’s article again and scroll down to St. Matthew 16:18)

St. John’s words make me think of Origen’s commentary on St. Matthew 18 about “binding and loosing”:

Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, Matthew 16:19 has been specially set before the words, And what things soever you shall bind on earth, etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. Matthew 16:19

The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished.
Source: newadvent.org/fathers/101613.htm (emphasis mine)

Here, if I am not mistaken, Origen allows the possibility of others having keys but, as he states, “Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more”, showing that although he implies that others have keys to bind and loose “in one heaven”, nevertheless this doesn’t not discount that St. Peter received the keys in a unique way.

I possibly misconstrued and/or misused the Holy Father’s words, interpreting them and/or using them in a way in which he would not agree with or in a way in which he didn’t intend for them to be used and/or understood. If that is the case I retract and reject my words, and I apologize to the Holy Father and to anyone else I offended. I’ll reiterate my words that: “…is it possible to speak of other Apostles as having received the keys in some sort of secondary way, by way of allusion, regarding St. Matthew 16:18-19? Perhaps, I’m not sure. I’ll let the Church and Her Theologians answer that question.” I may have jumped the gun and erroneously presupposed that my question above the Church would answer in the affirmative. If that is the case, or 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 keys and St. Matthew 16:18-19.

 

[LionHeart777]

I’ll just throw this out as a general statement as well for my comments in this thread (and anywhere else for that matter):

If anything I did, wrote, implied was not according to the Catholic Church’s teaching, I retract it and reject it.

Regarding Origen and St. Matthew 16:18-19, I came across this in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Some few of the Fathers, however, are careful to note that the bestowal of this power upon St. Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles, denoted his primacy among the twelve (Optatus, “De Schism. Don.”, vii, 3, in P.L., XI, 1087). Origen dilates at length on this point, but teaches erroneously that the power conferred upon the Twelve in Matthew 18:18, could only be exercised within certain restrictions of place, while that conferred upon St. Peter in Matthew 16:18, was of universal extent (Comm. in Matt., P.G., XIII, 1179).

Source: Joyce, George. “Power of the Keys.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 8 Aug. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm.

I acquiesce to the Catholic Church’s teaching on the keys and St. Matthew 16:18-19 (and on everything for that matter.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

I see he was mentioned briefly earlier, but there does exist a Catholic case that St. John Chrysostom was never “out of communion” with the Roman bishop. Dom John Chapman writes:*[T]there is no evidence that St. Chrysostom himself was ever out of communion with Rome.*And he goes on to make his case. This article at PhilVaz.com is not the whole work of Dom Chapman’s, but does quote from it extensively specific to this subject.