The Papacy and Greek Language

[Rohzek]

Yes it means something. The statement it that I claim a contradiction:

1. The keys of Peter are* only* in the Petrine sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.
2. Rome is superior to Antioch and Alexandria.

I did not make those statements.

If you didn’t make those statements, then don’t cite Gregory the Great as support for your own interpretation of Papal Supremacy, because he regards all three of those sees as holding the keys. The keys are essential in Catholic dogma in the establishment of the authority of the Pope of Rome over every single bishop in the world including Antioch and Alexandria. Therefore, Rome cannot be innately superior but only in the case of honor, if Gregory’s position is to be adopted.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Yes it means something. The statement it that I claim a contradiction:

1. The keys of Peter are* only* in the Petrine sees of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.
2. Rome is superior to Antioch and Alexandria.

I did not make those statements. What I posted from Catholic sources is that:

1. the patriarchal system developed from the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria and Rome.
2. The authority to govern the house of God is the “power of the keys” confirmed with: “Feed my sheep” which is entrusted to the Church through the ministries of the Apostles and particularly of Peter, continued with the college of bishops and particularly the Vicar of Christ in his Petrine role and that college "has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.

Still doesn’t address the consistency or lack thereof between the Catechism’s position and Saint Gregory the Great’s position. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banged: In my opinion, I think some Catholics try to impose consistency between the Fathers and the positions of the contemporary Church where none exists. They come to the table with the concept that doctrine develops (though not with the acumen of Cardinal John Henry Newman who’s book on the subject is engrossing). They must try to make sense of the data in light of that concept. Sufficed to say, Newman does a better job. When he sees inconsistencies between the Fathers and the doctrines of the contemporary Catholic Church, he recognizes it.

 

[Rohzek]

I have decided to discuss the historical reception and interpretation of John 21:15-17 and John 10:11 as is outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**553 **Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.”288 (John 21:15-17; 10:11). The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (881, 1445, 641, 881)

usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…pub/index.cfm#

My position is the following: That the current Catholic teaching regarding papal authority having been rooted in John 21:15-17 and John 10:11 is a more recent teaching. Looking back at the Church Fathers and Latin writers of the Middle Ages, these verses held an entirely different meaning than what they are construed to mean now for modern Catholics. That is to say, in the least bit, there is no allusion to Papal Supremacy in their interpretations of the scriptural verses concerned. These are bold claims on my part, and I will do well to support them.

The Latin passages are extremely long, so it will probably take me days to wind up posting all of them in translation. I will be citing the following authors:

Saint Augustine of Hippo
Saint Bede
Blessed Alcuin of York
Christian von Stalbo (Druthmar Christianus)
John Scotus Eriugena
Saint Bruno of Segni

My criteria for choosing these authors is that they wrote in Latin and that they had written exegetical commentaries on the Gospel of John. John Scotus will undoubtedly raise some eyebrows for some, but I have decided to include him for historical reasons. I do not know much about Christian von Stalbo. Alcuin of York should be well known, but sadly isn’t. At one time, he was considered a Church Father in the Frankish Church, but due to historical accident this distinction fell away. I look forward to the discussion.

 

[Vico]

Still doesn’t address the consistency or lack thereof between the Catechism’s position and Saint Gregory the Great’s position. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banged: In my opinion, I think some Catholics try to impose consistency between the Fathers and the positions of the contemporary Church where none exists. They come to the table with the concept that doctrine develops (though not with the acumen of Cardinal John Henry Newman who’s book on the subject is engrossing). They must try to make sense of the data in light of that concept. Sufficed to say, Newman does a better job. When he sees inconsistencies between the Fathers and the doctrines of the contemporary Catholic Church, he recognizes it.

Are you aware that at the *local *eastern synod in 381, called the Council of Constantinople, was declared that: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome” (cannon 3) yet Pope Damasus and Pope Gregory the Great, did not confirm it. So you see that the idea of the triple Petrine See “around which the patriarchal system developed”.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published what the understand of Petrine See is: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria:
The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God’s Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition. 30

30 Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, nn. 7 and 9.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I have decided to discuss the historical reception and interpretation of John 21:15-17 and John 10:11 as is outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

My position is the following: That the current Catholic teaching regarding papal authority having been rooted in John 21:15-17 and John 10:11 is a more recent teaching. Looking back at the Church Fathers and Latin writers of the Middle Ages, these verses held an entirely different meaning than what they are construed to mean now for modern Catholics. That is to say, in the least bit, there is no allusion to Papal Supremacy in their interpretations of the scriptural verses concerned. These are bold claims on my part, and I will do well to support them.

The Latin passages are extremely long, so it will probably take me days to wind up posting all of them in translation. I will be citing the following authors:

Saint Augustine of Hippo
Saint Bede
Blessed Alcuin of York
Christian von Stalbo (Druthmar Christianus)
John Scotus Eriugena
Saint Bruno of Segni

My criteria for choosing these authors is that they wrote in Latin and that they had written exegetical commentaries on the Gospel of John. John Scotus will undoubtedly raise some eyebrows for some, but I have decided to include him for historical reasons. I do not know much about Christian von Stalbo. Alcuin of York should be well known, but sadly isn’t. At one time, he was considered a Church Father in the Frankish Church, but due to historical accident this distinction fell away. I look forward to the discussion.

Man, I’ve only heard of one of those guys. Guess which one?

 

[prodromos]

Are you aware that at the *local *eastern synod in 381, called the Council of Constantinople

Oh, you mean the one your Church refers to as the 2nd Ecumenical Council?

was declared that: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome” (cannon 3) yet Pope Damasus and Pope Gregory the Great, did not confirm it.

Pope Innocent III did, at the 4th Lateran Council, or what your Church refers to as the 12th Ecumenical Council

 

[Vico]

Oh, you mean the one your Church refers to as the 2nd Ecumenical Council?

Pope Innocent III did, at the 4th Lateran Council, or what your Church refers to as the 12th Ecumenical Council

Yes, it was a local council in 381 from which even the Symbol of Faith was not recognized and received by Rome until Chalcedon. It has been called the un-ecumenical council because it was not ratified until Pope Vigilius after the Second Council of Constantinople which was in 555. That ratification did not include canon 3. The following from the Catechism relates some of the history of transmission. Lateran IV (1215) included Canon 5:
5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, 76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Peter_J]

Does quoting the Catechism mean anything to an Orthodox who does not accept it as authoritative?

Well it means something to me insofar that it is basically like a comprehensive guide on what Catholicism is.

Indeed, I was going to say something like that if you hadn’t already.

There are plenty of cases where someone wants to learn the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the CCC is a good source for that. Of course, that’s not to be confused with cases where a non-Catholic already knows the Catholic teaching and a Catholic tries to convince him or her by repeating it over and over again.

 

[Duane1966]

If you didn’t make those statements, then don’t cite Gregory the Great as support for your own interpretation of Papal Supremacy, because he regards all three of those sees as holding the keys. The keys are essential in Catholic dogma in the establishment of the authority of the Pope of Rome over every single bishop in the world including Antioch and Alexandria. Therefore, Rome cannot be innately superior but only in the case of honor, if Gregory’s position is to be adopted.

Can you post a link to Gregory saying those sees still hold equal authority? I can post some passages by him where he says flat out that they are subject to him.

 

[Rohzek]

Can you post a link to Gregory saying those sees still hold equal authority? I can post some passages by him where he says flat out that they are subject to him.

I linked the letter in an earlier post (#81). And I also ask that you reread what I said, that is that he claims that all three sees have the keys. According to Catholic understanding of keys, that would make all three equal. Now whether Gregory had the Catholic understanding of keys or not, insofar that he regarded them as equal, that’s another issue entirely. It’s quite possible that he felt them to be subject to him, but not by virtue of holding the keys.

 

[Vico]

I linked the letter in an earlier post (#81). And I also ask that you reread what I said, that is that he claims that all three sees have the keys. According to Catholic understanding of keys, that would make all three equal. Now whether Gregory had the Catholic understanding of keys or not, insofar that he regarded them as equal, that’s another issue entirely. It’s quite possible that he felt them to be subject to him, but not by virtue of holding the keys.

Her is what you posted in #81:

For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great to Bishop Eulogius, Epistola 40, PL 77: 0898C - 0900C

English translation from Catholic Encyclopedia

And this is the issue: you claim that it means the authority is on three equally, however that is not what is stated above. What is stated is that it is*** one*** See, not thre, in the three cities of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

This is consistent with what I posted before that the triple Petrine See was favored over the Justinian idea of Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). The entire Church did not accept canon 3 from the local council of 381 and Rome never accepted it as honor of dignity, so the entire Church never accepted the idea ever.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

This thread is still alive

 

[Rohzek]

Her is what you posted in #81:

And this is the issue: you claim that it means the authority is on three equally, however that is not what is stated above. What is stated is that it is*** one*** See, not thre, in the three cities of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

This is consistent with what I posted before that the triple Petrine See was favored over the Justinian idea of Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). The entire Church did not accept canon 3 from the local council of 381 and Rome never accepted it as honor of dignity, so the entire Church never accepted the idea ever.

Check my post again. You’re not reading them close enough. That quote block is from a different letter. I’m referring to Epistula 20, which I had specifically included a link in that post.

 

[Rohzek]

Her is what you posted in #81:

And this is the issue: you claim that it means the authority is on three equally, however that is not what is stated above. What is stated is that it is*** one*** See, not thre, in the three cities of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

This is consistent with what I posted before that the triple Petrine See was favored over the Justinian idea of Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). The entire Church did not accept canon 3 from the local council of 381 and Rome never accepted it as honor of dignity, so the entire Church never accepted the idea ever.

If papal authority rests with the keys, and all three of those sees hold the keys as Gregory argues, then why would Rome be first? It’s a simple question that you have yet to answer.

 

[Vico]

If papal authority rests with the keys, and all three of those sees hold the keys as Gregory argues, then why would Rome be first? It’s a simple question that you have yet to answer.

It is well known that Pope Gregory’s texts are filled with his claims to papal authority and universal jurisdiction. Epistle 20 does not contradict that. In his 21st epistle he writes: In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, “As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See?”

In fact Pope Gregory excommunicated John the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople, because he intended to make himself the universal or only real bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents. Catholic teaching is that there are really multiple bishops rather than multiple agents.

 

[Rohzek]

It is well known that Pope Gregory’s texts are filled with his claims to papal authority and universal jurisdiction. Epistle 20 does not contradict that. In his 21st epistle he writes: In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, "As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See?

In fact Pope Gregory excommunicated John the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople, because he intended to make himself the universal or only real bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents.

Perhaps, but on what grounds did he claim this universal jurisdiction? It wasn’t on the basis of the keys, as the catechism claims. That’s what I am getting at. And I have no idea why you can’t answer a simple question. You’re avoiding the question…

According to Gregory’s viewpoint, whereby three sees hold the keys, what makes Rome first? Answer the question or quit wasting everyone’s time.

 

[Vico]

Perhaps, but on what grounds did he claim this universal jurisdiction? It wasn’t on the basis of the keys, as the catechism claims. That’s what I am getting at. And I have no idea why you can’t answer a simple question. You’re avoiding the question…

According to Gregory’s viewpoint, whereby three sees hold the keys, what makes Rome first? Answer the question or quit wasting everyone’s time.

You asked: “If papal authority rests with the keys, and all three of those sees hold the keys as Gregory argues, then why would Rome be first?”

You do specify what quality or characteristic the first refers to, so I can’t answer it until you do. And also, what statement from Pope Gregory are you referring to that states “first”, so I can understand what you mean if there is such a quote you want to include.

 

[Duane1966]

If papal authority rests with the keys, and all three of those sees hold the keys as Gregory argues, then why would Rome be first? It’s a simple question that you have yet to answer.

Except as Vico stated, Gregory does not view them as three sees, he quite clearly says that they are one see, with three bishops. Nor does Gregory say that there are three sets of keys.

His view is best summed up here:

, “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.”(Lib. ix., Ep. 59)

 

[prodromos]

It is well known that Pope Gregory’s texts are filled with his claims to papal authority and universal jurisdiction. Epistle 20 does not contradict that. In his 21st epistle he writes: In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, “As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See?”

But according to Gregory, the Apostolic See is Antioch, Alexandria and Rome.
Are you arguing that all three have universal jurisdiction over the Church?

 

[Vico]

But according to Gregory, the Apostolic See is Antioch, Alexandria and Rome.
Are you arguing that all three have universal jurisdiction over the Church?

The reference from Pope Gregory is to the See of one:

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.