The Council of Chalcedon and the papacy

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine-Two,

It doesn’t seem likely. Nicaea based the position of Bishop as first on his city, not on who he succeeded,

Nicea explicitly stated that what it was affirming was “ancient custom.” Nicea did not make the social status of the city the basis for the patriarchal honor. The honor already existed for reasons apart from that, and it existed from “ancient custom” loooooong before Nicea made its Canon. Therefore, we need to look at sources beyond Nicea to understand why these Sees were given greater honor than others. St. Irenaeus, for one, asserts that Rome’s unique authority was based on its succession from St Peter (watered by the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul, the two greatest Apostles).

and the title of Pope was used for several hundred years in Alexandria before it began to be used in Rome. Did Rome not have these special powers before the title existed or was it an office without a title that the bishop held? What about those who have legitimate claim to the title of Pope from an earlier time, do they not then wield this special power?

I keep hearing Catholics say the two titles are distinct, but it doesn’t add up. Pope is a title, not an office because no such office was instituted by the early church, and even once it was instituted it was not unique.

I feel you are getting hung up on the title of “Pope.” It’s just a title. The Petrine office represented by and in the bishop of Rome was instituted by Christ, not the Church. On the other hand, the Patriarchal Sees were established by the Church. This did not deprive the bishop of Rome of his unique Petrine office (indeed, how could the Church take away something established by Christ Himself?).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[smad0142]

Actually Linus DID succed Peter, not Clement. I don’t know what documents you are refering to from the early Church, but if it is the one from Iraneus then that document only says that Peter oradained Clement, but in the same document it lists Clement as third from the Apostles, making him fourth in line.

 

[Nine_Two]

I feel you are getting hung up on the title of “Pope.” It’s just a title. The Petrine office represented by and in the bishop of Rome was instituted by Christ, not the Church. On the other hand, the Patriarchal Sees were established by the Church. This did not deprive the bishop of Rome of his unique Petrine office (indeed, how could the Church take away something established by Christ Himself?).

Nope, I was questioning Catholics dividing the Office. I think it’s just a title.

However John admitted there is no evidence that such an office existed in the early church in any special way.

 

[joe370]

He was seated at the council despite the objections of the papal legates and was then deposed by the council after hearing the evidence against him.

Joe, do eastern orthodox Christians believe that Jesus built His church on Simon, renamed Kepha, and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against Jesus’ church, built on Cephas? If not, then why not, in view of the following passage?

"That thou art Peter (kepha) - and upon this rock (kepha) - I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

As you know, Simon, was his Jewish name in Aramaic; Jesus gave him the name “rock” in John 1:42 and again in Matthew 16:18. The word for “rock” is Kephas or Cephas in Hebrew, and Petros (feminine) or Petras (masculine), in Greek. Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic nickname of “Kepha,” which is transliterated into Greek as “Kephas” or “Cephas.” The reader of the Gospel may not have understood the transliteration, so the author gave the Greek translation, “Petros.”

John 1:42 2Andrew brought his brother to Jesus. And when Jesus saw him, he said, “Simon son of John, you will be called Cephas.” This name can be translated as “Peter.”

According to the rules of grammar, the phrase “this rock” must relate to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”) - is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause. As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: “I have a car and a truck, and it is blue.” Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun “it”. This identification would be even clearer if the reference to the car were two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

 

[joe370]

Hey Josephdaniel… a typo in my preceding post: Hebrew word for rock is Tsur, not kepha; Aramaic word for rock is Kepha…

 

[dcointin]

In patristic literature there is not a consensus about the meaning of the passage you referred to. Some fathers believe that the rock is Peter, others that it is his confession, and others that it is both. In Orthodox exegesis there is also a variety of opinions reflecting this. The consensus seems to be that it may refer to Peter because of his confession, making it a both/and, not either/or. The first question that I ask is even if Peter is the rock, and the head of the Church, does that mean that he exercised authority over the other apostles? I believe that the Biblical evidence is that he did not. He was their head, the first among them, and spoke for them, but did not exercise authority over them. The second question that I would ask is even if he did, what does that have to do with the Bishop of Rome? Apostles are not bishops, they held a difference office, and it is not given that a bishop inherited the prerogatives of the apostle who founded his see. If that were the case then Antioch, for example, would also be the See of Peter. Orthodoxy sees all bishops as heirs of Peter, not the bishop of a single see alone. The third question I would ask is even if the Bishop of Rome were the unique heir of Peter, and there were an analogy between Peter and the other apostles and the Bishop of Rome and the other bishops, does that mean that he should exercise unlimited authority over them? I would say not, anymore than Peter exercised unlimited authority over the other apostles.

 

[joe370]

Hi Dcointin…you said:

In patristic literature there is not a consensus about the meaning of the passage you referred to.

Matthew 16? Sure there is; I could provide ECF quotes if you like? Based on scripture and the ECF’s, it seems reasonable that Simon, renamed Rock, was made the visible foundation of Jesus’ Church in Matthew 16, and was entrusted with the keys of the kingdom, which he would pass on to his successor, just as the rest of the apostles form the foundation of Jesus’ church, Jesus of course being the Godly cornerstone and foundation of His church, holding the whole thing together:

*Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
*

Some fathers believe that the rock is Peter, others that it is his confession, and others that it is both.

I do agree with you regarding Peter’s confession: because of the faith Peter confessed, Peter will remain the unshakable rock of Jesus’ Church, which is what the ECF’s contend, and how they convey it, regarding Peter’s confession/profession. Those few ECF’s that lean toward Peter’s confession also adamantly proclaim, Peter himself, as the unshakable Rock, on which the church is built; no one ever denies that Jesus’ church is built on Simon, renamed Rock.

According to scripture, Jesus entrusted the keys of the Church to Peter alone. He gave Peter the keys of His Church and instituted him as shepherd of the whole flock. Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17 - I thought that the power of the keys designated authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church? Do the ECF’s ever claim that the keys were also given to the other apostles? I too will look into it.

Jesus, the Good Shepherd, seems to confirm this mandate after his Resurrection:* “Feed my sheep.”* Peter’s mission was to to keep the faith from lapsing and to strengthen his brothers, in it. Lk 22:32, and those metaphorical keys, given to Peter alone, logically speaking, would be entrusted to Peter’s successor, as opposed to one of the apostles, so that the office of Peter could continue after death of Peter and the other apostles- maybe? Of course the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter, was also assigned to the college of apostles, united to the one who was given the keys of the kingdom.

The first question that I ask is even if Peter is the rock, and the head of the Church, does that mean that he exercised authority over the other apostles? I believe that the Biblical evidence is that he did not. He was their head, the first among them, and spoke for them, but did not exercise authority over them.

So you do embrace the primacy of Peter?

The second question that I would ask is even if he did, what does that have to do with the Bishop of Rome? Apostles are not bishops, they held a difference office, and it is not given that a bishop inherited the prerogatives of the apostle who founded his see.

So, it’s your contention that the apostolic office faded away, after the last apostle died, or that certain bishops succeeded the apostles and thereby continued the apostolic office? By the way: James is called an Apostle by Paul in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 15:7 and the fact that James was the bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture. Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:12)

 

[joe370]

If that were the case then Antioch, for example, would also be the See of Peter.

That’s a good point. Evodius succeeded Peter as bishop of Antioch when Peter left Antioch for Rome, so why don’t the patriarchs of Antioch claim to be Peter’s successor, and, why don’t the ECF’s, or their successors make the same claim regarding Antioch, as they do in the case of Rome?

Orthodoxy sees all bishops as heirs of Peter, not the bishop of a single see alone.

That certainly seems like something they should do, considering the fact that they don’t believe in the chair of Peter (the Petrine office). The CC sees all bishops as the heirs of the apostles.

The third question I would ask is even if the Bishop of Rome were the unique heir of Peter, and there were an analogy between Peter and the other apostles and the Bishop of Rome and the other bishops, does that mean that he should exercise unlimited authority over them? I would say not, anymore than Peter exercised unlimited authority over the other apostles.

Just as Peter did in Acts 15, the present day bishop of Rome always convokes as a council to make a determination.

Each bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church, has a territory (see) over which he governs with unlimited authority - correct? His main authoritative duty is to make sure the traditions and practices of the Church (his particular see) - are preserved. Bishops of each respective see are equal in unlimited authority, over their respective see, and cannot interfere in the jurisdiction of another bishop - correct?

What would happen if there was a difference of opinion, doctrinally speaking, between two Bishops, exercising their rightful authority over their respective see?

Just as, (by the institution of Christ) - Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so, in like manner, the bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor, (via the keys) - and the bishops, (the successors of the apostles) - are related with and united to one another.

Even when the bishop of Rome spoke from the chair, he first consulted, via council, not unlike Acts 15:

“The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.”

Irenaeus, who was pupil of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John, said the following:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Why would he say that it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, (a Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles) - on account of its pre- eminent authority?

 

[Azurestone]

If that were the case then Antioch, for example, would also be the See of Peter.

Antioch is a Petrine See, along with Alexandria. It wasn’t until the 381 that Constantinople’s status was inserted, due to it’s political center. Prior to this, the three Petrine Sees were the seat of power within Christendom, of whom Rome was the chief.

Letter CXIX.
To Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, by the hand of Marian the Presbyter, and Olympius the Deacon.
Leo to Maximus of Antioch.

II. Maximus is to keep the churches of the East free from these two opposite heresies.

And therefore, beloved brother, you must with all your heart consider over which church the Lord has set you to preside, and remember that system of doctrine of which the chief of all the Apostles, the blessed Peter, laid the foundation, not only by his uniform preaching throughout the world, but especially by his teaching in the cities of Antioch and Rome: so that you may understand that he demands of him who is set over the home of his own renown those institutions which he handed down, as he received them from the Truth Itself, which he confessed. And in the churches of the East, and especially in those which the canons of the most holy Fathers at Nicæa assigned to the See of Antioch, you must not by any means allow unscrupulous heretics to make assaults on the Gospel, and 86the dogmas of either Nestorius or Eutyches to be maintained by any one. Since, as I have said, the rock (petra) of the catholic Faith, from which the blessed Apostle Peter took his name at the Lord’s hands, rejects every trace of either heresy; for it openly and clearly anathematizes Nestorius for separating the nature of the Word and of the flesh in the blessed Virgin’s conception, for dividing the one Christ into two, and for wishing to distinguish between the person of the Godhead and the person of the Manhood: …

…

III. Antioch as the third See in Christendom is to retain her privileges.

And so it behoves you to use the utmost vigilance, lest these depraved heretics dare to assert themselves; for you must resist them with all the authority of priests, and frequently inform us by your reports what is being done for the progress of the churches. For it is right that you should share this responsibility with the Apostolic See, and realize that the privileges of the third See in Christendom give you every confidence in action, privileges which no intrigues shall in any way impair: because my respect for the Nicene canons is such that I never have allowed nor ever will the institutions of the holy Fathers to be violated by any innovation.…

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.cxiv.html?highlight=apostolic,sees,antioch,leo#highlight

Letter CVI.
To Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, in rebuke of his self-seeking.
Leo, the bishop, to Anatolius, the bishop.

V. The sanction alleged to have been accorded 60 years ago to the supremacy of Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch is worthless.

“Be not highminded,” brother, “but fear,” and cease to disquiet with unwarrantable demands the pious ears of Christian princes, who I am sure will be better pleased by your modesty than by your pride. For your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops given, as you allege, 60 years ago, and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; and this transaction, which from its outset was doomed to fall through and has now long done so, you now wish to bolster up by means that are too late and useless, viz., by extracting from the brethren an appearance of consent which their modesty from very weariness yielded to their own injury. Remember what the Lord threatens him with, who shall have caused one of the little ones to stumble, and get wisdom to understand what a judgment of God he will have to endure who has not feared to give occasion of stumbling to so many churches and so many priests. For I confess I am so fast bound by love of the whole brotherhood that I will not agree with any one in demands which are against his own interests, and thus you may clearly perceive that my opposition to you, beloved, proceeds from the kindly intention to restrain you from disturbing the universal Church by sounder counsel. The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity. The See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through S. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendour of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds, Dioscorus having fallen through his persistence in impiety. The church of Antioch too, in which first at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter the Christian name arose, must continue in the position assigned it by the Fathers, and being set in the third place must never be lowered therefrom. For the See is on a different footing to the holders of it; and each individual’s chief honour is his own integrity. And since that does not lose its proper worth in any place, how much more glorious must it be when placed in the magnificence of the city of Constantinople, where many priests may find both a defence of the Fathers’ canons and an example of uprightness in observing you?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.ci.html

 

[mardukm]

So you do embrace the primacy of Peter?

I suspect he does, but not according to the excesses of the Absolutist Petrine advocates. On that note, I completely agree with him. EO will sometimes say they will accept the primacy, but not absolute supremacy, with which I agree. Of course, there is a difference between primacy according to the High Petrine view (primacy entails a real authority) vs. primacy according to the Low Petrine view (primacy is a mere honor); again, there is a difference between primacy according to the Absolutist Petrine view (absolute supremacy) vs. primacy according to the High Petrine view (supremacy within collegiality).

So, it’s your contention that the apostolic office faded away, after the last apostle died, or that certain bishops succeeded the apostles and thereby continued the apostolic office? By the way: James is called an Apostle by Paul in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 15:7 and the fact that James was the bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture. Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:12)

That is the best point of your response to brother Dcointin. According to Catholic and patristic teaching, the bishops inherited from the Apostles everything the Apostles possessed for the upbuilding of the body of Christ, except for inspiration (the unique charism to write Scripture as direct witnesses of Christ).

That’s a good point. Evodius succeeded Peter as bishop of Antioch when Peter left Antioch for Rome, so why don’t the patriarchs of Antioch claim to be Peter’s successor, and, why don’t the ECF’s, or their successors make the same claim regarding Antioch, as they do in the case of Rome?

Actually, the bishops of Antioch do claim to be Peter’s successor. What they don’t claim is the primacy of the Petrine succession. A particularly powerful witness to the Antiochene Tradition on the matter is St. John Chrysostom. He believed that the words of Christ in Matthew 24:45ff referred to the St. Peter and the bishops of Rome.

Just as Peter did in Acts 15, the present day bishop of Rome always convokes as a council to make a determination.

So you believe that St. Peter had unlimited authority over the other Apostles? That was the point of brother Dcointin’s statement, and you seem to have neglected that by responding this way. I agree with brother Dcointin’s point. St. Peter did not have unlimited authority over the other Apostles. St. Peter was a lot of things as coryphaeus of the Apostles, but he did not wield absolute authority, and neither does or can the Pope wield absolute authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

Orthodoxy sees all bishops as heirs of Peter, not the bishop of a single see alone.

I need a clarification. Are you saying that all bishops are successors of St. Peter, or are you simply saying they are heirs to the “rockiness” of St. Peter. I would agree with the latter, but not the former. I am not aware of any patristic support for the former position. If the former is indeed your position, can you give 2 or 3 patristic sources to support that position?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Nope, I was questioning Catholics dividing the Office. I think it’s just a title.

However John admitted there is no evidence that such an office existed in the early church in any special way.

I don’t think I said that “there is no evidence that such an office existed in the early church”. The authority that St Peter received did not come from nor through the Church, but directly from Christ. This I compared to St Paul’s authority as an Apostle. If you read through the Book of Galatians you will see that Paul acted as an Apostle for 12 years before he came to Jerusalem and then received and acknowledgment that he was in fact an Apostle. There were those who believed in the authority of St Peter in the early Church, just as there were those who believed that St Paul was an Apostle prior to the time St Peter and the other apostles acknowledged him as such. I think there might not have been a majority of the Church acknowledging the authority of the petrine office until the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[JohnVIII]

…Apostles are not bishops, they held a difference office, and it is not given that a bishop inherited the prerogatives of the apostle who founded his see. If that were the case then Antioch, for example, would also be the See of Peter. Orthodoxy sees all bishops as heirs of Peter, not the bishop of a single see alone. The third question I would ask is even if the Bishop of Rome were the unique heir of Peter, and there were an analogy between Peter and the other apostles and the Bishop of Rome and the other bishops, does that mean that he should exercise unlimited authority over them? I would say not, anymore than Peter exercised unlimited authority over the other apostles.

Peter had the unique authority to speak for all the apostles. No other could speak for all of them. It’s not really so much that he ruled over them, it’s more like he the authority of all the apostles, but ONLY when he spoke for all of them. If he spoke of himself only then he was not exercising his unique authority in that case.

It seems clear that Jesus only intended that one apostle should continue in succession. There was one apostle for the gentiles, and that was Paul. There were 12 for Israel only because Jesus gave a special witness to Israel, but made only one of them, Peter, the sole speaker for them all. The when Rome was founded as a Church by both Peter and Paul they showed that that their authority was one as they did not establish two bishops by their authority but only one in Rome. This was the first reason that made Rome a little different than other See’s as it was the only See established by two apostles.

The second thing that made Rome different from other See’s is that St Peter’s direct successor (the only apostle that had a personal successor) became the bishop of Rome. So when you say that “it is not given that a bishop inherited the prerogatives of the apostle who founded his see” you are correct, but with only one exception to this rule. Only the Bishop of Rome inherited the prerogatives (that is the Keys) of the apostle.

Up to this point most RC will more or less agree with this, but I add a little twist to it, in that I don’t think Peter died until after the second bishop of Rome, Cletus, was about one year into his office. So it was Clement that directly succeeded Peter as holder of the Keys. There is no record that either Linus and Cletus did much of anything. But when Clement became bishop of Rome we then see the The Petrine office start to make an impact! So my little twist is that Linus and Cletus were not successors to St Peter.

But in any case, The Petrine office only has authority when it speaks to the whole Church. At all other times it is only a bishop that is speaking, just like any other bishop in the Church.

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother Dcointin,

I need a clarification. Are you saying that all bishops are successors of St. Peter, or are you simply saying they are heirs to the “rockiness” of St. Peter. I would agree with the latter, but not the former. I am not aware of any patristic support for the former position. If the former is indeed your position, can you give 2 or 3 patristic sources to support that position?

Blessings,
Marduk

I honestly don’t know of any offhand, and I’ll have to ask about that and get back to you. I was thinking of something I read in “The Primacy of Peter” where the author quotes post-schism Byzantine theologians who make that claim. One example is Barlaam, who writes:

“Bishops established by Peter are sucessors not only of Peter, but also of the other apostles; just as bishops established by other apostles are successors of Peter.”

 

[dcointin]

Joe370: Thank you for your response! I’m not sure what “ECF” stands for, but in case there’s any confusion, I wanted to be clear that I’m Eastern Orthodox, not Eastern Catholic, so my arguments come from that perspective.

I accept that Peter had primacy among the apostles, so on that argument I don’t disagree with you. The scriptural arguments regarding Peter therefore aren’t of particular concern to me. I would argue however that his primacy is a poor argument for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (from here on I’ll just refer to him as the Pope) within the Church, since the latter exercises far more authority over the Church than Peter did over the apostles. I realize however that there is disagreement among Catholics about exactly what authority the Pope possesses and how he may exercise it.

I would say that the apostles ordained bishops to govern the Church, but did not impart to them the office of apostle or their own personal prerogatives. The word “apostle”, which is used in the strict sense for the twelve apostles of Christ, has a broader meaning of “delegate” or “messenger”, and in that sense was applied to others such as Timothy as well. I don’t find the use of that word with James as evidence of a continuing “apostleship” among all bishops in the strict sense. “Apostolic succession” is not the inheritance of the prerogatives of the apostles, but the succession of Episcopal ordination. I therefore don’t consider it significant that Peter had primacy among the apostles since I don’t see how that relates specifically to the Pope.

When there are differences of theological opinion among bishops, the Church gathers together in council to discuss the matter and be led to the proper answer by the Holy Spirit. If the differences are administrative, then it is handled by the head of each jurisdiction, in the case of my church the Patriarch of Antioch and Holy Synod. I think the example of Acts 15 is poor because the final answer was given by James, not Peter, and is an example of conciliarity, not Petrine promulgation. The writing of St. Irenaeus which you referred to is certainly a very significant patristic witness, but I think it says less than Catholic apologists argue. First, he says that the See of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, and does not argue that its authority derives from a special succession from Peter alone. Second, he does not say that everyone should agree with the See of Rome because it possesses a unique guarantee of infallibility, but because of “the faithful everywhere”, a term that is not altogether clear but may refer to Rome as the cosmopolitan center of the empire where people from all the world have gathered. I don’t disagree that it has “pre-eminent authority”, which is to say primacy, only that it is the foundation of the Church.

 

[joe370]

Hey mardukm…

So you believe that St. Peter had unlimited authority over the other Apostles? That was the point of brother Dcointin’s statement, and you seem to have neglected that by responding this way. I agree with brother Dcointin’s point. St. Peter did not have unlimited authority over the other Apostles. St. Peter was a lot of things as coryphaeus of the Apostles, but he did not wield absolute authority, and neither does or can the Pope wield absolute authority.

I can’t help wondering why Peter alone was given the “keys” to the kingdom of heaven! Later, the authority to “bind” and “loose” was given to the other apostles as well, but only Peter was given the “keys” which seem to signifying a singular authoritative role in Jesus’ church. The keys seem to in Rev. 1:18. People rightfully point out that the other Apostles also were given the authority to bind and loose, but this, I think, is precisely because they were in union with Peter who alone was given the keys in Matt 16:19, where the pronoun “you” is in the singular. I believe, in ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority.

The words spoken to Peter, “Feed my sheep” do not apply to the other apostles, in your opinion?

I can’t help wondering why, in John’s Gospel, only Peter is given the special commission to feed and tend the flock of Christ, which would include all Christians, for surely all Christians belong to Jesus Christ. Jesus also said to Peter, *“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
*

Surely the other apostles were also his brothers, he was to strengthen?

Would it be fair to say that the giving of the keys to Peter indicated the office, or governing position, that Peter was to have, and do these keys and office also denote succession, considering the fact that when the holder of that office ends his term in office, another person should be properly appointed to that position?

We know that, If the President of the United States, for example, dies in office, that position does not end, and so logically speaking, the office of the holder of the Petrine keys does not end either upon the demise of the current key holder, since said position (office) - also needs a successor, just as we can see succession for the office of the holder of the keys in Isaiah 22, and I think the early Church saw that this position, or office, that Christ gave to Peter, also had successors, long before they even worked out which books belonged in the New Testament - maybe?

Jesus’ own words seem to imply a succession for the Petrine office, He was bestowing on Simon, who was now to be called Rock, or Peter:

“ … and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

In other words, even when Peter dies the netherworld, or death, would not prevail, because another person would be appointed to that position of the holder of the keys - maybe?

Would it be wrong to say that it is through the following earthly leaders, that our heavenly leader Jesus Christ carries out His mission to teach, to rule, and to sanctify?

Peter (32-67) Linus (67-76), Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88), Clement I (88-97), Evaristus (97-105), Alexander I (105-115), Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I, and Telesphorus (125-136) - leading all the way up to the present leader of the CC.

 

[joe370]

Hey dcointin…

J

oe370: Thank you for your response! I’m not sure what “ECF” stands for,

Sorry about that. Stands for early church fathers.

but in case there’s any confusion, I wanted to be clear that I’m Eastern Orthodox, not Eastern Catholic, so my arguments come from that perspective.

I understand. That’s what I thought.

I accept that Peter had primacy among the apostles, so on that argument I don’t disagree with you. The scriptural arguments regarding Peter therefore aren’t of particular concern to me.

Such as the fact that Peter alone was given the “keys?” You do not believe that there is any significance there?

I would argue however that his primacy is a poor argument for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (from here on I’ll just refer to him as the Pope) within the Church, since the latter exercises far more authority over the Church than Peter did over the apostles.

So the primacy of Peter, in your opinion, ended, upon Peter’s demise, and the metaphorical keys were not passed on? Could you provide some scripture passages or ECF quotes, that support that claim, if in fact that is what you mean?

I realize however that there is disagreement among Catholics about exactly what authority the Pope possesses and how he may exercise it.

Sure, but one can always turn to the Magisterium or the catechism of the CC for clarification.

I would say that the apostles ordained bishops to govern the Church, but did not impart to them the office of apostle or their own personal prerogatives.

I agree to a degree. For example, the apostles were empowered by God to do many things that their successors could not do, but I do believe that the Holy spirit remained with their successors guiding their successors, (through every generation) - into all truth.

The word “apostle”, which is used in the strict sense for the twelve apostles of Christ, has a broader meaning of “delegate” or “messenger”, and in that sense was applied to others such as Timothy as well. I don’t find the use of that word with James as evidence of a continuing “apostleship” among all bishops in the strict sense.

I agree that the office of apostleship was unique in many ways, and that they ordained bishops to propagate the good news and shepherd the flock, and that said bishops did not continue the apostleship per se.

“Apostolic succession” is not the inheritance of the prerogatives of the apostles, but the succession of Episcopal ordination.

Agreed.

I therefore don’t consider it significant that Peter had primacy among the apostles since I don’t see how that relates specifically to the Pope.

The Petrine succession of Episcopal ordination, via the keys, is irrelevant to you? I understand, and certainly respect your decision, as a brother in Christ! I personally see more things in common between the CC and EOC then things divergent, and I pray for the reunification of the 2 churches.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Do you believe that the bishops, (via the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit) - inherited from the Apostles, everything the apostles possessed for the upbuilding of the body of Christ, with the exception of the unique charism to write infallible Scripture and perform miracles via the power of God?

When there are differences of theological opinion among bishops, the Church gathers together in council to discuss the matter and be led to the proper answer by the Holy Spirit. If the differences are administrative, then it is handled by the head of each jurisdiction, in the case of my church the Patriarch of Antioch and Holy Synod.

I was just wondering, what happens if the head of one respective jurisdiction disagrees with the head of another respective jurisdiction; to whom do they defer?

I think the example of Acts 15 is poor because the final answer was given by James, not Peter, and is an example of conciliarity, not Petrine promulgation.

James, as the bishop of Jerusalem, seems to be simply confirming what Peter said, when he said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” However, I do agree with you, that it isn’t a great example of Petrine promulgation, but, Petrine promulgation seemed important to the EF’s, from what I have gathered.

The writing of St. Irenaeus which you referred to is certainly a very significant patristic witness, but I think it says less than Catholic apologists argue. First, he says that the See of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, and does not argue that its authority derives from a special succession from Peter alone.

I try not to read into a quote, something that is not there, but it is suggested by Irenaeus that “the faith preached to men, comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops” and it seems clear that he has in mind the succession of bishops in Rome, but I could be wrong. Irenaeus follows it up with, “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Second, he does not say that everyone should agree with the See of Rome because it possesses a unique guarantee of infallibility…

I agree, but, infallibility (inerrant truth) - is implied, if in fact “apostolical” tradition was preserved (inerrantly or infallibly) - continuously by those faithful men - maybe?

…but because of “the faithful everywhere”, a term that is not altogether clear but may refer to Rome as the cosmopolitan center of the empire where people from all the world have gathered. I don’t disagree that it has “pre-eminent authority”, which is to say primacy, only that it is the foundation of the Church.

Why do you think that Rome, (according to Irenaeus) - possesses pre- eminent authority, and what should go along with that primacy/pre-eminent authority, and where should the lines of demarcation be drawn regarding that primacy and authoritative pre-eminence?

 

[joe370]

Dcointin, I was just hoping to get your take on the following 2 quotes regarding the Petrine office, as the “head of all the churches,” and Peter speaking through his successors; perhaps I am missing something but they do seem to be important to these councils:

Council of Ephesus:

“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 Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever 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, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! **Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” **(ibid., session 2).

 

[joe370]

John, the following certainly seems reasonable and absolutely verifiable. The current bishop of Rome, as Jesus’ earthly head of His church via the keys, (just as Peter was the earthly head of Jesus’ church in the 1st century, via the keys) - is the church’s authoritative spokesman, just as Peter was for the apostles, as can be clearly revealed and fleshed out in holy scripture.

I thought the following was well stated and an important fact; each respective bishop, regardless of geographical location, is basically in charge, and deference to the holy see is only a last resort when issues cannot be ironed out, in a particular diocese, which just makes good hierarchical sense to me:

*“The Petrine office only has authority when it speaks to the whole Church. At all other times it is only a bishop that is speaking, just like any other bishop in the Church.” *

Peter had the unique authority to speak for all the apostles. No other could speak for all of them. It’s not really so much that he ruled over them, it’s more like he the authority of all the apostles, but ONLY when he spoke for all of them. If he spoke of himself only then he was not exercising his unique authority in that case.

It seems clear that Jesus only intended that one apostle should continue in succession. There was one apostle for the gentiles, and that was Paul. There were 12 for Israel only because Jesus gave a special witness to Israel, but made only one of them, Peter, the sole speaker for them all. The when Rome was founded as a Church by both Peter and Paul they showed that that their authority was one as they did not establish two bishops by their authority but only one in Rome. This was the first reason that made Rome a little different than other See’s as it was the only See established by two apostles.

The second thing that made Rome different from other See’s is that St Peter’s direct successor (the only apostle that had a personal successor) became the bishop of Rome. So when you say that “it is not given that a bishop inherited the prerogatives of the apostle who founded his see” you are correct, but with only one exception to this rule. Only the Bishop of Rome inherited the prerogatives (that is the Keys) of the apostle.

Up to this point most RC will more or less agree with this, but I add a little twist to it, in that I don’t think Peter died until after the second bishop of Rome, Cletus, was about one year into his office. So it was Clement that directly succeeded Peter as holder of the Keys. There is no record that either Linus and Cletus did much of anything. But when Clement became bishop of Rome we then see the The Petrine office start to make an impact! So my little twist is that Linus and Cletus were not successors to St Peter.

But in any case, The Petrine office only has authority when it speaks to the whole Church. At all other times it is only a bishop that is speaking, just like any other bishop in the Church.