Here it is again, from post #88. It is not my statement, however, but from St. Cyprian:
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133)
This was quoted in the context of refuting the use of quotes from the same saint (and others, as well) to advance modern Roman claims to universal jurisdiction of their
Pope.
It is inapposite. St. Cyprian’s context is the unity of the Church. The Catholic Church, and that is the substance of his statement. In that context, certainly all bishops share honor and power. The Pope does not act without the consultation of the bishops and they don’t act without his agreement to their conclusions. It’s been that way for a long time.
That doesn’t mean the Roman Pontiff doesn’t have supreme universal authority over the Lord’s household.
Such an understanding was advanced by certain Roman popes themselves even while in unity with the East (one might recall Pope Leo’s infamous letter to Pope St. Dioscoros of Alexandria, for instance, attempted to tell St. Dioscoros that Alexandria should follow Rome), but importantly they were roundly rejected/ignored. So merely finding a bunch of old quotes from saints of the East and presenting them within the context of the modern RC argument (as you’ve done in your replies) is insufficient to say the least.
If the allegiance of the Eastern Fathers to the See of Peter is of no import to you, there’s nothing more to say. Except maybe we should throw out their doctrinal writings as well.
=dzheremi;10028005QUOTE]You appear to have quoted a large chunk of text from some Roman Catholic source (everything under the heading “CONCLUSION ON “KEYS” OF ISAIAH 22 AS PARALLEL TO MATTHEW 16” in yesterday’s post #93 appears to be unsourced, despite containing a large number of quotes, including from an ex-CoE bishop who Yawsep has reminded you is no longer functioning in that role…this does not strike me as a terribly honest way of presenting an argument; if these are your original thoughts, you could at least ).
The Isaiah quote is unsourced in the file I took it from. Why is sourcing important? It’s from Chapter 22 of Isaiah and speaks for itself whether it’s a Catholic source or some other.
As to the ex-CoE bishop, that was his opinion when he was bishop and he referenced Abdisho of Soba, by all accounts a highly regarded theologian of the early Eastern Church.
"Futhermore, Abdisho asserts ***“…And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, *** like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8). I would like to ask here the following: who among us would dare to think that he or she is more learned than Abdisho of Soba, or that they are more sincere to the Church of our forefathers than Mar Abdisho himself?”
You apparently. It is customary, when disputes like this arise, to look at what the leaders of the early Church believed. Now that it has been done, you reject their teaching with no apparent reason except your objection. I am at a loss. What evidence would you accept?
There is, however, no accounting for your understanding of it, because subsequent posts have amounted to “I wrote what I wrote, it is clear, we’re done here”. Rather odd. Generally it is best to provide some sort of reason for your understanding, rather than counting on all of us who are not you to understand exactly what you mean by “it’s clear as a bell”…it’s really not.
I’m writing in plain English. I’m positive you understand English very well. I believe I’ve explained my position at length, including the reasons for my position. If there’s a particular point I have not made clear, please cite it, including the message number, and I’ll try to re-phrase it.
This is an interesting idea. If the keys are given from Roman Pope to Roman Pope, what happens during events like the Western Schism of 1378-1417? There were multiple Popes at that time, so which one gets the keys, if they are indeed given to “one man only”, as you’ve claimed in other posts? It is quite interesting indeed that this situation was eventually solved not by appeal to the Pope to be the final arbiter (there was no “the” Pope to appeal to), but by a council – the Council of Constance.
The keys, as you have noted, are metaphorical. They are useful only when the authority inherent in them is exercised. There have been heretical popes, vile popes, popes with their mistresses and bastard children running around the Vatican and multiple men claiming to be pope at the same time. The Church, as I have said, relies on the Holy Spirit for both guidance and protection. None of the unworthy popes ever issued a single document on faith and morals. IOW, never exercised the authority of the keys. In cases such as these, the bishops of the world, in council, guided by the Holy Spirit, are the ultimate arbiters.
