What is the "Chair of Peter"?

[Trebor135]

Hierarches and theologians whose writings have come down to us indicate differences of opinion in the Early Church over the significance of a term, the “Chair of Peter”, now employed exclusively (if I am not mistaken) to designate the bishopric of Rome.

On the one hand, we have:

“[T]hough 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 [Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria], this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.”

–St. Gregory the Great, Book VII, Letter 40

“Charity, the mother and guardian of all that is good, which binds together in union the hearts of many, regards not as absent him whom it has present in the mind’s eye. Since then, dearest brother, we are held together by the root of charity, neither will bodily absence nor distance of places have power to assert any claim over us, inasmuch as we who are one are surely not far from each other. Now we wish to have always this common charity with the rest of our brethren. Yet there is something that binds us in a certain peculiar way to the Church of Alexandria, and compels us, as it were by a special law, to be the more prone to love it. For, as it is known to all that the blessed evangelist Mark was sent by Saint Peter the apostle, his master, to Alexandria, so we are bound together in the unity of this master and his disciple, so that I seem to preside over the see of the disciple because of the master, and you over the see of the master because of the disciple.”

–Gregory the Great, Book VI, Letter 60

"Today’s solemn feast received from our forefathers the name of Saint Peter’s Chair at Antioch, because of a tradition that on this day Peter, first of the Apostles, took possession of his episcopal Chair. Fitly, therefore, do the churches observe the day of his enthronement, the right to which the Apostle received for the sake of salvation (which cometh to us in the churches,) when the Lord said : Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

"It was the Lord himself who called Peter the foundation of the Church, and therefore it is right that the Church should reverence this foundation whereon her mighty structure riseth. Justly it is written in the Psalm which we so often chant : Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the seat of the elders. Blessed be God, who hath commanded that the holy Apostle Peter be exalted in the congregation!

“Worthy to be honoured by the Church is that foundation from which her goodly towers rise, pointing to heaven! In the honour which is this day paid to the inauguration of the first bishop’s throne, an honour is paid to the office of the priesthood. Various churches pay to one another this tribute of mutual respect, for the more the priestly office is honoured, the more the dignity of the Church is enhanced.”

–St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 15 de Sanctis, cited in Eastern Orthodox opening statement of Papacy Debate: Why Rome Has Primacy

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

But on the other hand, we also have:

“17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine layer. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice.”

–Firmilian of Caesarea, Epistle 74

“2. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Genesis 7:23 But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.”

–St. Jerome, Letter 15

“[1.] In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . .”

–Pope Innocent I, Letter 29, cited in The Authority of the Pope: Part II

If the office of the papacy was considered in the Early Church, as it is today in the Catholic faith, to be the centre of unity, why was the “Chair of Peter” described–even by an esteemed and canonized pope–as consisting of three Petrine sees: not just Rome but also Antioch and Alexandria? If they sit in Peter’s cathedra, why do the bishops of all three of these cities not, according to Catholic doctrine, enjoy universal jurisdiction and infallibility? If Antioch and Alexandria could go into schism or heresy*, how does this reality not bode well for the Catholic doctrine of the bishop of Rome as a solid and unmovable rock?

*At the present time, the Latin Catholic Church views the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as in schism by refusing communion with the successor of St. Peter. Until the nineteenth or twentieth century, the Chalcedonian Latin Catholic Church regarded the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox Church as in heresy by subscribing to monophysitism.

 

[Trebor135]

If Antioch and Alexandria could go into schism or heresy*, how does this reality not bode well for the Catholic doctrine of the bishop of Rome as a solid and unmovable rock?

The bolded phrase above should read “not bode ill”.

 

[Dollinger]

Hierarches and theologians whose writings have come down to us indicate differences of opinion in the Early Church over the significance of a term, the “Chair of Peter”, now employed exclusively (if I am not mistaken) to designate the bishopric of Rome.

The actual position of Rome and Vatican I are wrong, because the praxis of the Church proved it:

From the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): “But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate.”

The position of the bishop of Rome depends on the orthodoxy of this bishop. And we know a bishop of Rome can be a heretic:

Pope Honorius, Patriarch Sergius and others were anathematized as heretics by the 6th ecumenical council. “We altogether reject them and execrate them as soul destroying and we have judged that the very names of those whose impious doctrines we execrate should be cast out of the Holy Church of God… With them also we have judged that Honorius who was Pope of old Rome should be together with them cast out of the Holy Church of God and be anathematized together with them because we have found from the letter written by him to Sergius that in all things he followed his own mind and confirmed his impious dogmas”. The Council then exclaimed “Anathema to the heretic Sergius! Anathema to the heretic Honorius”. The Council concluded by listing “Honorius who was Pope of old Rome” among the instruments of the Devil. Emperor Constantine confirmed the Council’s decrees stating “We anathematize and reject those also who are the heretical promoters and patrons of the superfluous and new dogmas” Among these “Honorius, who was Pope of old Rome, who in all things promoted and cooperated with and confirmed their heresy”.

“The Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians.”
~ From the Martyrology, A.D. VIII Kal. March

**"Today’s solemn feast received from our forefathers the name of Saint Peter’s Chair at Antioch, because of a tradition that on this day Peter, first of the Apostles, took possession of his episcopal Chair. Fitly, therefore, do the churches observe the day of his enthronement, the right to which the Apostle received for the sake of salvation (which cometh to us in the churches,) when the Lord said : Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

It was the Lord himself who called Peter the foundation of the Church, and therefore it is right that the Church should reverence this foundation whereon her mighty structure riseth. Justly it is written in the Psalm which we so often chant : Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the seat of the elders. Blessed be God, who hath commanded that the holy Apostle Peter be exalted in the congregation!

Worthy to be honoured by the Church is that foundation from which her goodly towers rise, pointing to heaven! In the honour which is this day paid to the inauguration of the first bishop’s throne, an honour is paid to the office of the priesthood. Various churches pay to one another this tribute of mutual respect, for the more the priestly office is honoured, the more the dignity of the Church is enhanced."**
~Saint Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 15 de Sanctis

So this issue is settled.

 

[inkaneer]

The chair of Peter existed in four places. By chair, it is meant a position of authority. The four places were those where Peter presided as bishop or consecrated a bishop. The first is Jerusalem when Peter presided on Pentecost. The second was Antioch until Peter consecrated Elvodius to succeed him there. The third is Rome where Peter ruled the church and from where He consecrated Mark to be bishop of Alexandria. Thus the original patriarchs of the church were Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria as these were the places where Peter established the episcopacy. Constantinople did not exist at the time and claims apostolic succession from Andrew not Peter. It was later added as a
patriarchy because it was the capital of the empire after 325-337 AD.

But as long as Peter lived he heldonto his authority [chair] finally relinguishing it [by death] in Rome to his successor there.

 

[Trebor135]

The chair of Peter existed in four places. By chair, it is meant a position of authority. The four places were those where Peter presided as bishop or consecrated a bishop. The first is Jerusalem when Peter presided on Pentecost. The second was Antioch until Peter consecrated Elvodius to succeed him there. The third is Rome where Peter ruled the church and from where He consecrated Mark to be bishop of Alexandria. Thus the original patriarchs of the church were Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria as these were the places where Peter established the episcopacy. Constantinople did not exist at the time and claims apostolic succession from Andrew not Peter. It was later added as a
patriarchy because it was the capital of the empire after 325-337 AD.

But as long as Peter lived he heldonto his authority [chair] finally relinguishing it [by death] in Rome to his successor there.

Would you be able to address the questions in post #2 (and clarified in post #3)?

 

[inkaneer]

Would you be able to address the questions in post #2 (and clarified in post #3)?

The question as clarified in post #3 is as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trebor135
If Antioch and Alexandria could go into schism or heresy*, how does this reality not bode well for the Catholic doctrine of the bishop of Rome as a solid and unmovable rock?

The bolded phrase above should read “not bode ill”.

Okay, here goes…

Acts 1 tells us that the Apostles occupied offices and that the death of Judas created a vacancy in the office that Judas held [See Acts 1:15 onward]. The Greek word that is used and translated as ‘office’ is episkope. That word is translated elsewhere in scripture as ‘overseer’ or ‘bishop’. The KJV even uses the word ‘bishoprick’ instead of ‘office’. We know that the Apostles ordained priests resbuterops] and deacons diakoni] and they also consecrated bishops starting with Matthias and including Titus, Timothy, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, etc. These are the men of whom Paul speaks to Timothy about in 2Ti 2:2.

Peter also consecrated bishops in Antioch and Alexandria. As a bishop himself and like all the bishops, he was empowered to do this. However, the authority to individually bind and loose was not part of the authority of a bishop. That authority was given to Peter alone in Mt 16. Peter also received it with the other Apostles as a group [Mt 18:18]. The bishops consecrated by the Apostles also received the power to bind and loose but not individually. They received it as a group. So bishops can bind and loose only when they act in concert with each other and also in concert with the successor of Peter who also has that authority individually. The counsel of Jerusalem in Acts is a good example of where the bishops acted collectively and in concert with Peter.

That being said, no bishop, other than the pope, has the authority to bind or loose individually. So when Peter established the episcopal line in Antioch and Alexandria he did not create popes there, only bishops. Peter did not relinquish his office of pope until his death just as Judas did not relinquish his episcopacy until his death.

So bishops, acting individually, can and have erred. Recall that the famous heretic Nestorius was the bishop of Constantinople. At the time Constantinople was not considered a patriarchy. That came later. So, yes, bishops can teach error and thus it is necessary for them to be in union with the papacy.

Hopefully I have answered your question.

 

[Trebor135]

The question as clarified in post #3 is as follows:

Actually, I was referring to all three of these questions in post #2, the last of which was slightly revised in post #3: “If the office of the papacy was considered in the Early Church, as it is today in the Catholic faith, to be the centre of unity, why was the “Chair of Peter” described–even by an esteemed and canonized pope–as consisting of three Petrine sees: not just Rome but also Antioch and Alexandria? If they sit in Peter’s cathedra, why do the bishops of all three of these cities not, according to Catholic doctrine, enjoy universal jurisdiction and infallibility? If Antioch and Alexandria could go into schism or heresy*, how does this reality not bode [ill] for the Catholic doctrine of the bishop of Rome as a solid and unmovable rock?”

Okay, here goes…

Acts 1 tells us that the Apostles occupied offices and that the death of Judas created a vacancy in the office that Judas held [See Acts 1:15 onward]. The Greek word that is used and translated as ‘office’ is episkope. That word is translated elsewhere in scripture as ‘overseer’ or ‘bishop’. The KJV even uses the word ‘bishoprick’ instead of ‘office’. We know that the Apostles ordained priests resbuterops] and deacons diakoni] and they also consecrated bishops starting with Matthias and including Titus, Timothy, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, etc. These are the men of whom Paul speaks to Timothy about in 2Ti 2:2.

Peter also consecrated bishops in Antioch and Alexandria. As a bishop himself and like all the bishops, he was empowered to do this. However, the authority to individually bind and loose was not part of the authority of a bishop. That authority was given to Peter alone in Mt 16. Peter also received it with the other Apostles as a group [Mt 18:18]. The bishops consecrated by the Apostles also received the power to bind and loose but not individually. They received it as a group. So bishops can bind and loose only when they act in concert with each other and also in concert with the successor of Peter who also has that authority individually. The counsel of Jerusalem in Acts is a good example of where the bishops acted collectively and in concert with Peter.

That being said, no bishop, other than the pope, has the authority to bind or loose individually. So when Peter established the episcopal line in Antioch and Alexandria he did not create popes there, only bishops. Peter did not relinquish his office of pope until his death just as Judas did not relinquish his episcopacy until his death.

So bishops, acting individually, can and have erred. Recall that the famous heretic Nestorius was the bishop of Constantinople. At the time Constantinople was not considered a patriarchy. That came later. So, yes, bishops can teach error and thus it is necessary for them to be in union with the papacy.

Hopefully I have answered your question.

Well, this is good biblical exegesis. But, since Catholicism holds to the equal authority of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, where can we find all of the above in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the patristic views on the power of the keys thusly (emphasis added):

(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. … We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., “De Doctrina Christi”, xvii, xviii: … (How could He [Christ] have shown greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven)
(P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, “In Matt.”, xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). …

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).

(2) Occasionally, though infrequently, Christ’s promise is not restricted to signify the power to forgive sins, but is taken in the fuller meaning of the gift of authority over the Church. Thus St. Gregory in his letter to the Emperor Maurice, after quoting Christ’s words in Matthew 16:18-19, writes: "Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him … (Epist., lib. V, ep. xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)]. St. Maximus in a sermon on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (P.L., LVII, 403) says that to St. Peter was given the key of power (clavis potentioe), to St. Paul the key of knowledge (clavis scientioe). The idea of a key of knowledge is clearly derived from Christ’s words to the Pharisees, Luke 11:52: “You have taken away the key of knowledge.” This distinction of the clavis potentioe and clavis scientioe recurs frequently in the medieval writers, though without reference to St. Paul.

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

The article then summarizes the scholastic views on the issue as follows (emphasis added):

(1) The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees. Thus understood, the potestas clavium includes

the power of order, namely power exercised in regard to sacrifice and sacrament,
the power of jurisdiction, and
the power to define in questions of faith and morals.

The various powers thus conferred upon the Church were held to belong either to the clavis potentioe or to the clavis scientioe, the latter of these two being understood to signify the power to teach, while the other departments of authority pertained to the clavis potentioe. The distinction is, however, a theological refinement, and is not involved in the expression itself. As Francisco Suárez urges, Christ, when using the plural form, did not intend to indicate that the gift was twofold.

(2) The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, … (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Pet. Lomb., “Sent.”, IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit.; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum. But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentioe and the clavis scientioe was employed here. By the clavis scientioe was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentioe, the authority to grant or refuse absolution.

…

(3) Hence there were not wanting theologians who narrowly restricted the scope of the gift, and asserted that it denoted the special prerogatives appertaining to St. Peter and his successors, and these alone. Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws. A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed.

(4) Macedo in his treatise “De Clavibus Petri” (Rome, 1660), attributes to certain theologians and canonists the opinion that the keys denote the supreme authority in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and that Christ conferred upon the pope a direct supremacy over both orders. We have, however, been unable to verify this statement. Indeed the writers who attributed to the pope an indirect authority only, in regard to civil governments, found an argument for their views in this very passage. They pointed out that it was the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and not of the kingdoms of this earth, which Christ bestowed upon His vicar.

So, we learn that the scholastics developed or innovated (take your pick) the understanding of the power of the keys bestowed upon the Church. It appears that the Fathers did not regard the successors of St. Peter in the bishopric of Rome as holding authority in the same way as did the Scholastics.

 

[JaKael02]

The article then summarizes the scholastic views on the issue as follows (emphasis added):

So, we learn that the scholastics developed or innovated (take your pick) the understanding of the power of the keys bestowed upon the Church. It appears that the Fathers did not regard the successors of St. Peter in the bishopric of Rome as holding authority in the same way as did the Scholastics.

Trebor - I’m not pro, but this is my shot in the dark at this.

The interpretation of “Keys” developing overtime is not problematic because its interpretation is within the context of the Apostles teaching authority. Therefore, we must interpret “Keys” in light of the Church.

If later, the interpretation of “Keys” developed to mean ecclesiastical authority in wide scope (including jurisdiction, and defining questions of faith/morals); this too is not a problematic interpretation of “Keys”, given that the Church has universally accepted it. This is because the interpretation continues to remain within the context of Apostolic teaching authority. The Church appears to have universally accepted this meaning over time.

Although Peter himself didn’t appear to practice strict jurisdiction & supremacy does not mean the “Keys” did not have the power to do so. Modern scholars know little of the Church in the first century which makes it difficult to know whether or not Peter ever practiced or needed to initiate the wider scope of the “Keys” interpretation. For example, it may not have been necessary for the early church to develop jurisdiction or supremacy when most of the Church leaders knew Christ personally. Later, the universal Church interpreted “Keys” in a wider scope to preserve Church order/unity in an increasingly schismatic Church.

Is this creation of dogma? No, it’s a development of interpretation which eventually was dogmatically defined due to it’s essnetial nature.

What do you think? I’d like to learn more about this myself.

 

[inkaneer]

Actually, I was referring to all three of these questions in post #2, the last of which was slightly revised in post #3: “If the office of the papacy was considered in the Early Church, as it is today in the Catholic faith, to be the centre of unity, why was the “Chair of Peter” described–even by an esteemed and canonized pope–as consisting of three Petrine sees: not just Rome but also Antioch and Alexandria? If they sit in Peter’s cathedra, why do the bishops of all three of these cities not, according to Catholic doctrine, enjoy universal jurisdiction and infallibility? If Antioch and Alexandria could go into schism or heresy*, how does this reality not bode [ill] for the Catholic doctrine of the bishop of Rome as a solid and unmovable rock?”

Well, this is good biblical exegesis. But, since Catholicism holds to the equal authority of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, where can we find all of the above in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?

Well first of all do not confuse Sacred Tradition with the ECF’s. We look to the ECF’s for their testimony. That is they tell us what the early church believed. The ECF’s are notinfallible and if they teach anything it is to be weighed against scripture and Tradition. Thus some of the ECF’s actually taught error. Tertullian is a prime example. He came from a pagan background, converted and wrote brilliantly as a christian but then later slipped into the Montanist heresy. Origin is another example. But the ECF’s do write about the authority of the Pope even if they do not use the term “Chair”.

For instance as early as 110 AD Ignatius of Antioch would write to the Romans:

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

He speaks of the church in Rome as holding the presidency, that is presiding over the churches in other locales and teaching them.

Irenaeus puts it thusly:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage uses the term “chair” in this writing:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian also wrote:

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Optatus of Milevus would write:

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

And the Great Augustine would write:

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).*

 

[inkaneer]

In reply to your ealier post in which you stated:

“If the office of the papacy was considered in the Early Church, as it is today in the Catholic faith, to be the centre of unity, why was the “Chair of Peter” described–even by an esteemed and canonized pope–as consisting of three Petrine sees: not just Rome but also Antioch and Alexandria? If they sit in Peter’s cathedra, why do the bishops of all three of these cities not, according to Catholic doctrine, enjoy universal jurisdiction and infallibility? If Antioch and Alexandria could go into schism or heresy*, how does this reality not bode well for the Catholic doctrine of the bishop of Rome as a solid and unmovable rock?”

You make a critical mistake which I alluded to in my first post. Yes Peter was the first bishopof Antioch and while he was at Antioch he possessed the “chair” [the authority of Mt 16]. But as I stated before this authority as given to him individually so that when he left Antioch the authority went with him. Bishop Elvodius was the second bishop of Antioch but did not possess the authority of Mt 16. Alexandria’s first bishop was Mark who was consecrated a bishop by Peter. But he did not possess the authority of Mt 16 either. Both Elvodius and Mark trace their Apostolic Succession from Peter just as Timothy and Titus trace theirs from Paul. The bishops of Antioch and Alexandria were bishops nothing more and nothing less. Neither of them occupied the chair of Peter because neither of them replaced Peter when Peter relinquished his chair and he did that at his martyrdom…

 

[pneuma07]

The bolded phrase above should read “not bode ill”.

Originally Posted by Trebor135
If Antioch and Alexandria could go into schism or heresy*, how does this reality not bode well for the Catholic doctrine of the bishop of Rome as a solid and unmovable rock?

Hi Trebor !

Here is a possible :twocents: on your specific question.

So, before Constatinople was elevated to the second place, there used to be in the first three places the great petrine seats, in the order Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, if I am not mistaken.
BTW Costantinople itself would claim in its own way petrine connections, if we think of that, through Peter’s brother Andrew.

Later, both Antioch and Alexandria “lost one notch”. Yet, Rome was not affected. Its first place did remain. And this in spite of the fact that the first Ecumenical Councils were overwhelmingly eastern in representation, let us not forget that.

Doesn’t this somehow tell us, to come directly on your present difficulty, that the ancient Church would perceive the roman seat just in a category of its own, and even in comparison with the other major petrine churches you mention ?

And the Church’s perception was not based on Rome being the political capital, since it had not been that, de facto, since the end of the III century ( the main imperial seat in the West being in the IV century Milan ), and Costantinople was the new political star.

I hope this can help.

In Christ
P7

 

[Trebor135]

Trebor - I’m not pro, but this is my shot in the dark at this.

Few of us are

The interpretation of “Keys” developing overtime is not problematic because its interpretation is within the context of the Apostles teaching authority. Therefore, we must interpret “Keys” in light of the Church.

If later, the interpretation of “Keys” developed to mean ecclesiastical authority in wide scope (including jurisdiction, and defining questions of faith/morals); this too is not a problematic interpretation of “Keys”, given that the Church has universally accepted it. This is because the interpretation continues to remain within the context of Apostolic teaching authority. The Church appears to have universally accepted this meaning over time.

For Catholics to demonstrate to Eastern Orthodox that their Church is descended directly from the visible communion of Sts. Irenaeus, Augustine, and Maximus, they must appeal for support to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If the pope’s claims to being and remaining the legitimate visible head of the body of Christ on earth gifted with universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility are backed up during the second and third millennia by passages from Sacred Scripture that were usually interpreted in very different ways during the first millennium and other biblical citations were not proffered in support of those prerogatives during the same period, it would seem that an historical approach to defending the modern-day papacy is very difficult to implement.

If Evangelical Protestants parse John 3:5 and 20:22-23 as referring to things other than water baptism and sacramental confession respectively, Catholics are fully within their rights to argue–and I seem to recall seeing it done–that their interlocutors should not invent new, Western, twentieth- and twenty-first-century explanations for these passages. Such interpretations are only necessary because Evangelical Protestants prefer to spare their anti-sacramental theology the devastation that would result if they granted the Catholic-friendly understandings of those passages, given by such saints as Justin Martyr (The First Apology: Chapter 61–Christian baptism) and John Chrysostom (Homily 86 on the Gospel of John: John 20:22-23).

Although Peter himself didn’t appear to practice strict jurisdiction & supremacy does not mean the “Keys” did not have the power to do so. Modern scholars know little of the Church in the first century which makes it difficult to know whether or not Peter ever practiced or needed to initiate the wider scope of the “Keys” interpretation. For example, it may not have been necessary for the early church to develop jurisdiction or supremacy when most of the Church leaders knew Christ personally.

True.

Later, the universal Church interpreted “Keys” in a wider scope to preserve Church order/unity in an increasingly schismatic Church.

But schism and heresy were widespread–at various points ubiquitous–during the first millennium as well as the second. So, why did the Early Church Fathers rarely, if ever, ascribe the same interpretations as the Scholastics to a select group of Scripture passages pertaining to the Church?

Is this creation of dogma? No, it’s a development of interpretation which eventually was dogmatically defined due to it’s essnetial nature.

As a general rule, though, is it not wise and reasonable to give earlier understandings of Scripture and teachings of the faith precedence over later ones? Development can only go so far before it becomes innovation.

 

[Trebor135]

Well first of all do not confuse Sacred Tradition with the ECF’s. We look to the ECF’s for their testimony. That is they tell us what the early church believed. The ECF’s are notinfallible and if they teach anything it is to be weighed against scripture and Tradition. Thus some of the ECF’s actually taught error. Tertullian is a prime example. He came from a pagan background, converted and wrote brilliantly as a christian but then later slipped into the Montanist heresy. Origin is another example.

All true.

But the ECF’s do write about the authority of the Pope even if they do not use the term “Chair”.

But none of them–as far as I can tell–write about the papacy in terms that would be remotely recognizable to the Council Fathers of Vatican I.

For instance as early as 110 AD Ignatius of Antioch would write to the Romans:

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

He speaks of the church in Rome as holding the presidency, that is presiding over the churches in other locales and teaching them.

In a homily given by the pope an excerpt of which was cited in this recent thread, Benedict XVI acknowledged that the first passage is not very clear in its intended meaning.

It’s worth noting as well that the second passage doesn’t say that the bishop of Rome will remain divinely protected from teaching error in his official capacity alone.

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

Irenaeus puts it thusly:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

This ubiquitously quoted passage is difficult to translate, at least in the Latin, and is parsed in conflicting ways depending on the biases of the interpreter.

Here is some more context that we ought take into account:

"3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. … Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

“4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.”

–St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3

“1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”

–St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.4

St. Irenaeus gives Rome a nod as being set apart from other sees, but repeatedly cites the Tradition of the Apostles handed down from one generation to the next–rather than communion with the successor to St. Peter in Rome–as the glue binding the faithful together.

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

Cyprian of Carthage uses the term “chair” in this writing:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian also wrote:

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14). *

Please check out this thread regarding St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology.

Optatus of Milevus would write:

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

And the Great Augustine would write:

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).

These seem to be fairly strong quotes for the Catholic position. It bears pointing out, however, that neither St. Optatus nor St. Augustine (1) link Matthew 16:19 to the pope as the centre of ecclesiastical unity, separation from whom means schism from the body of Christ; (2) distinguish Rome’s position from that of Antioch and Alexandria; or (3) designate one of St. Peter’s three successors in the onetime imperial capital as the source of infallibly proclaimed doctrine for the whole Church.

 

[Trebor135]

In reply to your ealier post in which you stated:

“If the office of the papacy was considered in the Early Church, as it is today in the Catholic faith, to be the centre of unity, why was the “Chair of Peter” described–even by an esteemed and canonized pope–as consisting of three Petrine sees: not just Rome but also Antioch and Alexandria? If they sit in Peter’s cathedra, why do the bishops of all three of these cities not, according to Catholic doctrine, enjoy universal jurisdiction and infallibility? If Antioch and Alexandria could go into schism or heresy*, how does this reality not bode well for the Catholic doctrine of the bishop of Rome as a solid and unmovable rock?”

You make a critical mistake which I alluded to in my first post. Yes Peter was the first bishopof Antioch and while he was at Antioch he possessed the “chair” [the authority of Mt 16]. But as I stated before this authority as given to him individually so that when he left Antioch the authority went with him. Bishop Elvodius was the second bishop of Antioch but did not possess the authority of Mt 16. Alexandria’s first bishop was Mark who was consecrated a bishop by Peter. But he did not possess the authority of Mt 16 either. Both Elvodius and Mark trace their Apostolic Succession from Peter just as Timothy and Titus trace theirs from Paul. The bishops of Antioch and Alexandria were bishops nothing more and nothing less. Neither of them occupied the chair of Peter because neither of them replaced Peter when Peter relinquished his chair and he did that at his martyrdom…

But where in Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition are we informed that St. Peter’s death in one particular city caused his chair to be transferred to the bishop who succeeded him there in a special way, such that the occupant of the see of Rome would forever outrank, by divine right, the holder of the bishoprics of Antioch and Alexandria?

If St. Peter had been executed in Bethlehem, Corinth, or Damascus, would it be necessary for the head of the Catholic Church to reside in one of those cities instead?

Finally, if the basis of legitimacy for the authority claimed by the bishop of Rome is inextricably linked to the death in a specific locale of Christ’s chief apostle (who set up chains of succession there and in Antioch directly and in Alexandria indirectly), did the Petrine ministry disappear from the face of the earth during the Avignon Papacy?

 

[Trebor135]

Hi Trebor !

Hi Pneuma!

Here is a possible :twocents: on your specific question.

So, before Constatinople was elevated to the second place, there used to be in the first three places the great petrine seats, in the order Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, if I am not mistaken.

It’s noteworthy, however, that the see of Alexandria preceded that of Antioch in the ranking schema. the former was founded by St. Mark, a disciple of St. Peter, whereas the latter was founded by the chief apostle himself. During the early centuries of the Christian faith, Alexandria surpassed Antioch in political, economic, and/or cultural significance.

BTW Costantinople itself would claim in its own way petrine connections, if we think of that, through Peter’s brother Andrew.

I’ve seen the see of Constantinople argued to have apostolic origins on the basis that the Church was established there by St. Andrew, without that apostle’s fraternal relationship to St. Peter being also cited.

Later, both Antioch and Alexandria “lost one notch”. Yet, Rome was not affected. Its first place did remain. And this in spite of the fact that the first Ecumenical Councils were overwhelmingly eastern in representation, let us not forget that.

Doesn’t this somehow tell us, to come directly on your present difficulty, that the ancient Church would perceive the roman seat just in a category of its own, and even in comparison with the other major petrine churches you mention ?

And the Church’s perception was not based on Rome being the political capital, since it had not been that, de facto, since the end of the III century ( the main imperial seat in the West being in the IV century Milan ), and Costantinople was the new political star.

I read in this Amazon.com review that at least a handful of the “Father accord[ed] privileges to Rome based on its position as an imperial city, as does, say, St Theodore of Cyprus”. According to quick Google searches, the writing of that Father is not available at NewAdvent or CCEL; as a result, we’re not able to look at what St. Theodore of Cyprus had to say about Rome’s importance.

It might be best to take a both/and approach here, a commonplace in Catholic theology (inspired Scripture and authoritative Tradition, salvation through faith and works)–Rome’s ecclesiastical position was based upon its political status and commercial role, the establishment of its Christian community by Sts. Peter and Paul and the martyrdom of those two specially chosen apostles there.

I hope this can help.

Thanks.

One of the vital questions that we have to consider, on top of those raised in post #19 above, is the following: if the pope of Rome as the chief successor to St. Peter enjoys the prerogatives of universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility, why then do the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria as vice-successors to the leader of the apostolic choir not have a share in these gifts at all?

In Christ
P7

God bless,
T.