P
Peter_J
Guest
Well I am shocked!!
- Status
J
joe371
Guest
From where did saint Peter (the rock on which Jesus’ church is built) eventually pass the baton, so to speak, to his successor? Rome. Antioch, Jerusalem etc?
P
Peter_J
Guest
My understanding is that that is true of all canon law.
W
wynd
Guest
At least for Roman canon law it’s a church writing laws for itself to follow internally.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Actually, he was bishop in Antioch first. So why don’t the Antiochian successors have supreme, universal, immediate jurisdiction?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Practically speaking, and despite a lot of collegiality talk, the Syriac Patriarch really does in the SOC. He may choose to restrain it, but if desired, it can be used.
S
spina1953
Guest
So far as I understand the early history of the Church Peter passed on his authority to Linus second after peter in Rome.
S
steido01
Guest
Unless I’m missing something here, the bolded would seem to be a limiting qualifier. Per Crucem was asking about supreme, universal, immediate jurisdiction. It can’t very well be universal if it’s limited to one patriarchate. I am open to correction; I’m not terribly familiar with the Eastern Churches.
Worth a perusal.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi SyroMalankara: I read the worth a perusal that Sterdo 01 of his post #346 and is this what you mean by the Patriarch having SOC? If I understood it it seems to me that is was talking about the jursitiction the Patriarch has? Is that correct? thanks.
W
Wandile
Guest
Because Peter never left his Cathedra there. Even the Antiochans didn’t dispute Rome’s primacy by virtue of peter. Read St. Ignatius of Antioch. Also read St.Optatus
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
It’s only a matter of degrees, really.
As the Patriarch of the SOC (Syriac Orthodox Church) is independent, although in the Oriental Orthodox Communion - his jurisdiction today is practically universal.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Exactly, it is a developed doctrine. What I have been saying from the get go.
To use Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers to support Absolute Supremacy is the same as trying to use them in support Sola Scriptura.
It does not work.
Sola Scriptura and Solo Petrus don’t work with Scriptures or ECF’s.
All the could haves, would haves, should haves questions are irrelevant and just another rabbit hole…
P
pablope
Guest
But a view that has roots only after Constantinople wanted supremacy for himself…correct?Sure he believed there were popes in Rome. He had a pretty nasty run-in with one.
Here’s the point, our complaint as Lutherans is not that he is the pope, or even that he has primacy.
Our complaint is that he claims for himself a supremacy not granted to him (in our view) in scripture or the early Church.
Jon
A good read…I just came across this and I will read the letters of St. Optatus, in combating donatism:
calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/
B. St. Peter and his Successors in Rome hold the Keys
Who then, in St. Optatus’ time, holds the Keys of the Kingdom? Repeatedly St. Optatus declares that the one holding the Keys must receive them from St. Peter. First, he points out that among all the Apostles, only St. Peter received the Keys. He writes:
When He * praises One, He condemns the others because, besides the one which is the true Catholc Church, the others amongst the heretics are thought to be churches, but are not such. Thus He declares in the Canticle of Canticles (as we have already pointed out) that His Dove is One, and that she is also the chosen Spouse, and again a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up. Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with which we read that the Fountain has been sealed.24
Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:
You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25
According to St. Optatus, anyone who sets up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra of St. Peter in Rome, is by that very fact “a schismatic and a sinner.” Of course in addition to the bishops ordained by the other Apostles, there were many lines of bishops extending down from St. Peter. And though all bishops receive equally the sacramental office of bishop, only one line of bishops succeeding from St. Peter receives, in addition, the charism Christ bestowed uniquely on St. Peter, namely, stewardship of the Keys of the Kingdom. Only that line of bishops occupying the unique Cathedra established in Rome by St. Peter possesses this charism. And hence to set up another Cathedra in opposition to this unique Cathedra, is ipso facto to become a schismatic, because such an act takes to oneself an authority that none except the rightful occupant of that unique Cathedra possesses.
Later in Against the Donatists St. Optatus continues to make theologically significant references to St. Peter. He refers again to having shown that the Catholics possess the first Endowment of the Church, namely, the unique and authoritative Cathedra upon which St. Peter first sat, and which continues in the succession of bishops in Rome. He writes:
So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL — unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other.30
A few pages later he states this again:
For it has been proved that we are in the Holy Catholic Church, who have too the Creed of the Trinity; and it has been shown that, through the Chair of Peter which is ours — through it — the other Endowments also belong to us.31
To be in communion with the bishop occupying the Chair of St. Peter is to be in the Catholic Church, and thus to possess in some sense all the gifts Christ bestowed on His Church. In both quotations he shows that the answer to the question “Where is the Holy Catholic Church?” is this: All those in communion with the Chair of St. Peter constitute the Holy Catholic Church. In this way St. Optatus provides the divinely established means by which to determine where is the Church, who is in schism from the Church, and what the Church does and does not teach.*
J
joe371
Guest
Peter left Antioch and went to Rome; he charged another to oversee there - yes?
From where did saint Peter (the rock on which Jesus’ church is built) eventually pass the baton, so to speak, to his successor? Was it Rome?
S
spina1953
Guest
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
How are we defining successor? If it is anyone who succeeds him in his diocese, wouldn’t that be his successor? I mean, where in Matthew 16 does Jesus lay out which apostolic throne is going to be the one that has all these papal powers?Peter left Antioch and went to Rome; he charged another to oversee there - yes?
From where did saint Peter (the rock on which Jesus’ church is built) eventually pass the baton, so to speak, to his successor? Was it Rome?
J
joe371
Guest
The man who succeeded peter as the bishop of Rome.
Nowhere in Matthew 16 does Jesus lay out which apostolic throne is going to be the one that has all these papal powers. Matthew 16 is clear one one thing: Jesus’ church is built on the visible Rock aka Peter, (with Jesus as the invisible Rock) - and the gates of hell will never prevail against Jesus’ church built on Peter. Moreover, Jesus gave Peter alone the keys and he passed those metaphorical keys onto his successor, unless of course Jesus’ church was to last only while Peter walked the earth. Nah… Some people refuse to believe that there is any significance to the Petrine office, and that’s cool; to each their own…
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Why Rome?
W
Wandile
Guest
Because he set up his cathedra ,in finality, in Rome and was subsequently martyred there
D
Denise1957
Guest
Well, I could be wrong, but since Our Lord told His Apostles to go out and baptize all nations and to teach all that He had taught them, and since Rome was the place where this could most effectively be carried out, that seemed like a logical place. St. Paul himself was quite keen to get to Rome, and insisted after he was arrested that since he was a Roman citizen, that he should be tried in Rome. Fascinating stuff, IMO. Rome was also away from what would later become Muslim territory in the middle east. In a way, it was a safer place to be (well, after the Edict of Milan, anyway).
- Status