What is the "Chair of Peter"?

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Peter was the first leader of the church in Jerusalem as evidence by His preaching to the crowd on Pentecost. James followed Peter when Peter went on to Antioch and then Rome.

The Tradition is quite clear that the bishop of Jerusalem traces his episcopal lineage to James, the brother of the Lord, not to Peter. The Tradition trumps all private interpretation of the Scriptures.

James was an apostle. Therefore he was already a bishop and would not follow in normal successon to Peter. So while the later bishops can trace their Apostolic Succession to James, it remains, none the less, that the first leader of the church in Jerusalem was Peter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The Apostles or the Twelve or The Twelve Apostles. When the term Apostle is used it refers to those men who were called by and sent by Jesus Christ. Judas was called but never sent. Matthias was neither called nor sent by Christ. Paul was both called and sent by Christ. While the word, ‘apostle’, can have a generic sense, as you point out, still when people refer to the ‘apostles’ they are referring a more specific meaning of the twelve men called by and sent by Christ.

Again, from Tradition we can obtain no such idea. Paul was not one of the Twelve Apostles, and he is never listed as such, although he is still called an Apostle.

Christ called twelve men to be apostles. One [Judas] failed to make the grade. Jesus replaced that one with Paul. Scripture calls Paul an Apostle no less than ten times. Now who is correct here Tradition or Scripture? By the way, Jesus only called twelve not thirteen or furteen or any other number someone wants to throuw out. The Catechism refers to the Apostles as being twelve in number not thirteen, not fourteen, just twelve.

 

[jam070406]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Peter was the first leader of the church in Jerusalem as evidence by His preaching to the crowd on Pentecost. James followed Peter when Peter went on to Antioch and then Rome.

James was an apostle. Therefore he was already a bishop and would not follow in normal successon to Peter. So while the later bishops can trace their Apostolic Succession to James, it remains, none the less, that the first leader of the church in Jerusalem was Peter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The Apostles or the Twelve or The Twelve Apostles. When the term Apostle is used it refers to those men who were called by and sent by Jesus Christ. Judas was called but never sent. Matthias was neither called nor sent by Christ. Paul was both called and sent by Christ. While the word, ‘apostle’, can have a generic sense, as you point out, still when people refer to the ‘apostles’ they are referring a more specific meaning of the twelve men called by and sent by Christ.

Christ called twelve men to be apostles. One [Judas] failed to make the grade. Jesus replaced that one with Paul. Scripture calls Paul an Apostle no less than ten times. Now who is correct here Tradition or Scripture? By the way, Jesus only called twelve not thirteen or furteen or any other number someone wants to throuw out. The Catechism refers to the Apostles as being twelve in number not thirteen, not fourteen, just twelve.

The Apostles threw lots to determine a replacement for Judas. It was Matthias.

 

[inkaneer]

The Apostles threw lots to determine a replacement for Judas. It was Matthias.

First of all, Judas was not an apostle because he was never sent which is the meaning of the word ‘apostle’; one who is sent. Second of all Judas left the LastSupper before the institution of the Eucharist and died before the granting of authority to the eleven to forgive sin. So what kind of Apostle is he that cannot celebrate the liturgical celebration of the Mass and cannot forgive sin??? He wpould be on the same level as any protestant clergy.

But moreover, if you look carefully at Peter’s words in Acts 1:20 it is clear that Peter is not calling for someone to be a replacement Apostle. Peter quotes two different psalms in
Acts 1:20 when he said:

"20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’ [RSV]

The Douay Rheims version has it thusly:

“For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.”

Now joining two verses out of context as Peter seemingly does is a no-no in biblical exegesis. But what Peter seems to do is not what he is actually doing. Peter is talking about two different things and using a verse from the psalms to support each one.

Look at the first Psalm verse he paraphrases. It is Psalm 69 verse 25. What does he mean that his habitation would be desolate and no one would live in it? The psalm uses the word “tents” rather than habitation but one gets the idea that it means a place of domicile, a tent if you are nomadic, a house if not. Now recall what was said of Jesus, that He was of the house of David. Jesus was of David’s linneage. That was what ‘house’ meant. Here Peter is saying that Judas’ linneage would be desolate and no one would be descended from him. And for sure, no bishop in the Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic churches has ever claimed linneage from Judas and that includes Matthias. Now look at the second psalm verse Peter quotes. It is Psalm 109 verse 8, “And his bishopric let another take.” The word in the RSV is “office” but in the DR [and KJV] it is “bishopric”. Any guesses what the word is in the original Greek? It is episkope the very same word that is used in other parts of the NT and translated as ‘bishop’. So Peter was calling for someone to be consecrated as bishop to fill the office that Judas vacated. He was not calling for someone to replace an Apostle. Matthais is probably the only bishop who could claim to have been consecrated a bishop by not just one but 11 Apostles.

 

[pneuma07]

Hi Pneuma

Everyone back then seems to have liked using flowery language to get or stay on their audience’s good side. Nonetheless, I agree that the praise for the church of Rome found in this letter of St. Ignatius has some value for us today, indicating that Rome outranked Antioch.

True.

You’re welcome.

Excellent.

I wonder if Cavaradossi can jump in here…?

Sure. But did the Early Church Fathers consistently (1) regard the bishop of Rome as playing that role in a unique way, and (2) cite the passage at John 21:15ff as primary biblical evidence?

Sure.

ll.

Dear Trebor,

on Ignatius we fully agree.

I guess you are asking about luke 22.32 here, as primary biblical evidence.

One example is by a pope. Just in the first letter by Gregory the Great you quote in your OP, the paragraph preceding your citation, has both John 21 and Luke 22 quoted as foundation of the authority of Peter’s see.

-Next we have an estern bishop, Stephen of Dora, who represented at the Lateran Council of 649 the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Adressing the pope:

…to the Chair which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest … . For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning …because the truly great Peter, the head of the apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest…but because he was also commisioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church… And again becuase he had …a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethen…, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power. All three main petrine pericopes are mentioned together. I understand this statement can be read in the Collectio Sacrorum Conciliorum by Gian Domenico Mansi, which has been digitalized. Volume 8.

Bear with me that I cannot be more precise. (also because I am far from home now ). Everybody here is kindly invited to check the validity of this quotation.

-Then we have a Patriarch of Constatinople, writing to Pope Constantine in AD 715.

See please the historical context of the letter in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, looking for Pope Constantine. Patriarch John VI writes.

Not only the letter is quoted there as containing expressions like “the apostolical pre-eminence of the Pope is to the whole Church what the head is to the body”, but elsewhere catholic apologists quote this snippet, which leads us again right to your present question;
" The Pope fo Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, ]whom in Peter the Lord commanded to confirm his brethen". I again pray to…confirm ( pun intended )the above quotation through researches. I suppose this is a very significant statement…if confirmed.

-Then we have an Ecumenical Council.

Speaking about the Roman Church, Pope Agatho writes ( and the VI Ecumenical Council accepts ) :

from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour Himself which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of His disciples.(…Luke22:32 is then quoted )

 

[pneuma07]

Hi Pneuma

I concede that Rome did. But an explanation I’ve read for this happy state of affairs is that this see was not well connected with the rest of Christendom, where most of the philosophy and theology were happening and where all the heresies were popping up.

Haha, that particular issue wasn’t on my mind, actually.

All right. I’m reminded of a quote from St. Ambrose–“Where Peter is, there is the Church.” I wonder what that meant to the Christians of his time…?

Those are good points. The Avignon papacy doesn’t seem to be a strong objection after all.

That reminds me that
so many religious events can receive reasonable secular alternative explanations.
We could also note that a number of popes where from eastern regions then, and that the conquest of Rome would have been the highest prize for any heresy, worth any effort. Yet they would not succeed.
Anyway, does in your view Rome somehow deserve the title of bulwark of orthodoxy against the major waves of heresy in those centuries ?

The quote from Ambrose is very significant, being directly on Matthew 16, quoted in his explanations on Psalms ( psalm 40, if I remember ).
Yet, I am afraid that many non-catholic brothers would remind us that Peter does not mean Pope. It is the strength of the acknowledgment of the Petrine succession which gives strength to the quotation. ( In the line of my previous post the unique sort of petrine succession of the Roman Bishops was solidly affirmed during the first millennium, IMHO.)

 

[pneuma07]

That’s indeed noteworthy. We can attribute Rome being kept in first place to the various points the see had in its favour (which we’ve previously discussed), unless the Fathers of fourth- to eighth-century councils had other reasons to support Rome’s continued primary ecclesiastical status.

• *

There’s a fairly small set of cases in which some kind of papal universal jurisdiction was or could be said to have been invoked–from circa 100 to 800, I would reckon less than twenty. Since the bishop of Rome wasn’t asserting such authority every few years in the sees of the East during that time, the data we have only pertains to the relatively few incidents on the list.
But, as I understand its canons, Sardica didn’t discuss or enact the universal ordinary jurisdiction now claimed by the pope, but rather a universal appellate jurisdiction for the bishop of Rome.
It would be useful to settle the meaning of “ordinary”. However my simple point is that the principle* of a ( kind of ) universal papal jurisdiction was officially accepted in the first millennium.

If we can build on a consensus on that, then everything is easier IMHO.

What concrete examples do you have in mind?
(A significant majority of North American self-identifying Catholics disregard the teachings of their Church on premarital sex, cohabitation, and homosexual conduct, but this isn’t the case for a notable minority of the group. By contrast, it seems that every time the pope invoked universal jurisdiction during the Early Church era, no one went along with his wishes.)

You probably do not mean that no one went along with papal appellate universal jurisdiction. Your examples are spot on about refusals to confirm to papal magisterium. The real world has people rejecting de facto the authority they accept de jure. We could probably say that not only about what happens outside the Vatican.

Excellent question. Would any Orthodox posters reading be able to comment?

I’ll suggest the following, however: some Christian notions are considered legitimate theologoumena (e.g., limbo: Catholicism taught it for a long time, and Orthodoxy has never condemned it), others are deemed execrable heresies (e.g., Arianism: Catholicism and Orthodoxy both reject it). For one Christian communion to regard its own theologoumena as essential doctrine by virtue of ostensible apostolic origin and patristic witness, other Christian communions would be right to break off or refuse to maintain ecclesiastical connections if doing otherwise would mean accepting that they were obliged to hold to those unusual or idiosyncratic teachings as dogma.

We would also have to investigate the extant writings of the popes of Rome in order to discern how precisely they viewed their own authority of universal jurisdiction in the Church (ordinary, appellate, or something else).

We should research which papal prerogatives, being affirmed, were considered by at least some eastern Christians as theologumena, and which ones where shared. Are we then sure that they could get along by theologumena at all in the specific field of ecclesial structure ? ( If you tell me you are the head of my organization with such and such tasks, does it work that I answer that it is possibly so ?)

Sometimes I guess that the best solution on this formidable task could be humbly waiting for the outcomes of the joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission, which has been working on that for some years . Besides common prayer, of course.

You’re welcome.

Indeed.

Thanks.

God bless,
T.

In Christ
P7

 

[jam070406]

First of all, Judas was not an apostle because he was never sent which is the meaning of the word ‘apostle’; one who is sent. Second of all Judas left the LastSupper before the institution of the Eucharist and died before the granting of authority to the eleven to forgive sin. So what kind of Apostle is he that cannot celebrate the liturgical celebration of the Mass and cannot forgive sin??? He wpould be on the same level as any protestant clergy.

But moreover, if you look carefully at Peter’s words in Acts 1:20 it is clear that Peter is not calling for someone to be a replacement Apostle. Peter quotes two different psalms in
Acts 1:20 when he said:

"20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’ [RSV]

The Douay Rheims version has it thusly:

“For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.”

Now joining two verses out of context as Peter seemingly does is a no-no in biblical exegesis. But what Peter seems to do is not what he is actually doing. Peter is talking about two different things and using a verse from the psalms to support each one.

Look at the first Psalm verse he paraphrases. It is Psalm 69 verse 25. What does he mean that his habitation would be desolate and no one would live in it? The psalm uses the word “tents” rather than habitation but one gets the idea that it means a place of domicile, a tent if you are nomadic, a house if not. Now recall what was said of Jesus, that He was of the house of David. Jesus was of David’s linneage. That was what ‘house’ meant. Here Peter is saying that Judas’ linneage would be desolate and no one would be descended from him. And for sure, no bishop in the Catholic, Orthodox or Coptic churches has ever claimed linneage from Judas and that includes Matthias. Now look at the second psalm verse Peter quotes. It is Psalm 109 verse 8, “And his bishopric let another take.” The word in the RSV is “office” but in the DR [and KJV] it is “bishopric”. Any guesses what the word is in the original Greek? It is episkope the very same word that is used in other parts of the NT and translated as ‘bishop’. So Peter was calling for someone to be consecrated as bishop to fill the office that Judas vacated. He was not calling for someone to replace an Apostle. Matthais is probably the only bishop who could claim to have been consecrated a bishop by not just one but 11 Apostles.

Very interesting. Thanks for that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

[bibledrb]acts 1:20-25[/bibledrb]

Matthias was an apostle, end of story.

 

[Cavaradossi]

James was an apostle. Therefore he was already a bishop and would not follow in normal successon to Peter. So while the later bishops can trace their Apostolic Succession to James, it remains, none the less, that the first leader of the church in Jerusalem was Peter.

Christ called twelve men to be apostles. One [Judas] failed to make the grade. Jesus replaced that one with Paul. Scripture calls Paul an Apostle no less than ten times. Now who is correct here Tradition or Scripture? By the way, Jesus only called twelve not thirteen or furteen or any other number someone wants to throuw out. The Catechism refers to the Apostles as being twelve in number not thirteen, not fourteen, just twelve.

Find for me some fathers then, who numbered Paul among the twelve. I’m not interested in your personal exegeses of the Scriptures but in the faith of the fathers, and I’m almost positive that no custom supports numbering Paul as one of the twelve. If you cannot demonstrate that your ideas are consonant with the fathers, then they are nothing but innovations.