Who is 'the Rock'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montalban
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
CARose:
Throughout Scripture, it is Peter who is listed first among the Apostles and Peter who takes the lead. Peter is also the worst in that he promises to love Christ (3 times) and then immediately betrays him (again 3 times). But this is before the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Paracleat or Advocate who has been with us through all the ages.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt the statistics. As you should be aware though Christian belief is not based solely on Scripture. Now you’ve gone to a sola scriptura statistical ‘proof’.
40.png
CARose:
Christ promised that the Gates of the Netherworld would not prevail against his church. We are also told that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation (or Bulwarks, depending upon your translation) of the Truth. We are also told that if we have a difficulty with another, we are to first attempt to address it with the person, then take it to another couple of friends, and finally to the Church. The church, as with the Orthodox, is an actual entity. But ultimately, there must be a final authority. In the case of the church, that final authority is the Pope. And yet the Infallibility of the Magesterium functions not only in the Pope but also in the Bishops acting in union with him.
Click to expand...
The ultimate authority is the catholic church.
40.png
CARose:
What I love is that even after all these years that the Orthodox have been seperate from the Latin Rite Catholics, and out of communion with the Pope, the Dogma we hold to be true is consistant in all but a very few points (Papal authority being one of the primary sticking points).
Click to expand...
This is because the church is a reflection of the Trinity - unity within diversity. To change the notion of the church, as you have done - vesting all in one bishop, is to change the notion of the Trinity.
The ealry church councils had not one presiding bishop. Though we do believe that Rome, because of the importance of the city, was first amongst eqauls.
THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (Nicea)
States in canon 6.
“The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.”[1]

This can and has been misinterpreted by some Catholics, however the matter is made more clear in the following…

THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

(THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE)

CANON II states

“THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.”[2]

Notes on the Coucils.​

[1] members.aol.com/DSeraphim/1.html
[2] ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/3Const1/Canon2.htm
 
BTW, we’ve discussed that Launoy and the other studies on the Fathers and Peter question, Do a search in these forums. The anti-Catholic Anglican George Salmon has misrepresented those studies.

It is very clear all the Fathers who taught it was Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession (e.g. John Chrysostom) or all the apostles or all believers together (like Origen) ALSO taught that Peter (and/or his successors) is the rock. See for example this exhaustive study on the Greek/eastern Father St. John Chrysostom by John Chapman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also sees several interpretations and applications of Matthew 16 (note paragraphs CCC 881, 586, 552, 442, 424, 756). Yep 1 Corinthians 3:11; 10:4 and 1 Peter 2:4ff and Eph 2:19-20 are in Roman Catholic Bibles too.

Phil P
 
I should also note that ‘Catholic’ meant ‘complete’ not ‘universal’
It wasn’t until the time of Augustine that it took on the meaning of ‘universal’.

[Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou(from neuter genitive of holos, whole. See sol- in Indo-European Roots).]
dictionary.reference.com/search?q=catholic
It thus means ‘from the whole’ or ‘complete’. This is more easily recognised when we look to see where the term was first used…It first appears in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
"Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
BTW, we’ve discussed that Launoy and the other studies on the Fathers and Peter question, Do a search in these forums. The anti-Catholic Anglican George Salmon has misrepresented those studies.

It is very clear all the Fathers who taught it was Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession (e.g. John Chrysostom) or all the apostles or all believers together (like Origen) ALSO taught that Peter (and/or his successors) is the rock. See for example this exhaustive study on the Greek/eastern Father St. John Chrysostom by John Chapman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also sees several interpretations and applications of Matthew 16 (note paragraphs CCC 881, 586, 552, 442, 424, 756). Yep 1 Corinthians 3:11; 10:4 and 1 Peter 2:4ff and Eph 2:19-20 are in Roman Catholic Bibles too.

Phil P
Click to expand...
He also said that John was also given ‘the keys’
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1.

Also at: ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-05.htm#P175_1913
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
It is very clear all the Fathers who taught it was Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession (e.g. John Chrysostom) or all the apostles or all believers together (like Origen) ALSO taught that Peter (and/or his successors) is the rock. See for example this exhaustive study on the Greek/eastern Father St. John Chrysostom by John Chapman.
Phil P
Click to expand...
Also, whilst on St. John Chrysostomon…
from[1]

These are exalted titles but in using them Chrysostom does not mean that Peter possesses a primacy of jurisdiction in the Church or that he is the rock upon which the Church is built. Again, we have already seen this in Augustine. He uses similar language in describing Peter but without its having a Roman Catholic meaning. We know this is also true for Chrysostom because he applies similar titles to the other apostles and did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be Peter. The term coryphaeus, for example, was a general title applied by Chrysostom to several of the apostles, not to Peter exclusively. It carries the idea of leadership but implies no jurisdiction. Chrysostom uses this term to describe Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul. He states that just as Peter received the charge of the world, so did the apostles Paul and John. Just as Peter was appointed teacher of the world, so was Paul. Just as Peter was a holder of the keys of heaven, so was the apostle John. He places the apostles on an equal footing relative to authority:

”He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart…Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…’We are able to drink the chalice.’”

-Saint John Chrysostom “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2”

quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X,; p. 345

also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-62.htm#P5483_1689815
[1] christiantruth.com/stephenray.html
 
<< Note in the OP I quoted from Cyprian, Augustus et al. They are not Protestants >>

Augustine is quite clear about Peter = Rock and the Roman primacy. Augustine (like the Catechism) has several interpretations, including Peter = Rock.

Cyprian is also clear that Peter = Rock, and was somewhat less clear on the Roman primacy. I’ll let you read John Chapman on that.

The Orthodox book The Primacy of Peter says on St. Cyprian (of Carthage):

“…according to his doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church…According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian’s passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise].” (page 98-99)

Although this book says more, it at least concedes this much.

Phil P
 
A few more quotes from St. John Chrysostomon, since you guys have cited him as a source…

”For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren”
This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler of the Church. However in the passage cited above Chrysostom speaks of the apostle John as also receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys equally with Peter:
”And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together
-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”

Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, pp331-332.
Also at: ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-92.htm#P5178_1692488

”Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod”
-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, p.169.
also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-33.htm#P1079_1025049

He goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter:

”Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love…I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it…Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!..what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38 )”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, pp561-562.
Also at: ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-96.htm#P3437_3131017

Further, Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:

”This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”
 
It’s getting late, so I won’t be able to do the research necessary to properly respond but I would like to say one thing before logging off.

I think you may misunderstand the concept of Papal Infallibility and the Infallibility of the Magesterium as defined by the Roman Catholics.

I am not (nor do I believe is the Roman Catholic Church) in any disagreement regarding the desire to make decisions with all the Bishops in union with Rome. If you take a look at the letter attached to the beginning of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it makes this point exactly. That the Catechism is the work of Church Universal and is so declared a sure norm for the teaching of the Faith.

But ultimately, if 2 or 3 are in disagreement, it ultimately needs to rest with some definitive authority as to whether or not these disagreements are substantial or they are personal rivalry.

I think you’ve missed some important stuff with regards to the first council in Jerusalem, as Peter was the ultimate authority in that one, not acting in a unilateral manner, as that is not Papal authority as I understand it, but as the final word when the decision was needed in a definitive manner.

Anyways, as I said, it’s late here, my file that I’ve been waiting on has finished downloading and I’m calling it a day. To be continued at another time.

CARose
 
St. Cyprian is clear when he stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5).[1]

St. Cyprian further says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
(Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics). [2]

St. Cyprian said in the opening address of the Council of Cathage…“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.”[3]

In his work on the unity of the Catholic Church, St. Cyprian wrote…

“And although Her assigns a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church’s] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one cflock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”[4] This text is much quoted by Romans as proof of Petrine supremecy.
End part one (notes to this text in next post below)
 
from part 1
However the Jesuit scholar Bévnot says…

“The whole context is against restricting the meaning to ‘the see of Rome.’ Cyrprian’s argument is based on the unicity of the origin (in Peter) of Church and authority alike. The one authority was perpetuated in the legitimate successions of the bishops, and to break with one’s bishop was to break with the one, Christ-established, authority, that is, the ‘Chair of Peter.’ Thus his argument was pertinent not only for Rome, where Novatian had broken with Cornelius (who’s ‘chair’ was Peter’s in a double sense), but also nearer home, where Feliccissimus and his faction were in revolt against himself.

However, for those who recognised the true primacy of the see of Rome, Cyrpian’s words (taken out of their context) would naturally express the necessity of communion with Rome. It is not unreasonable to suppose (until proof of the contrary is forthcoming) that such an interpretation, put upon his words at the time of the baptismal controversy, led Cyprian to revise this chapter of its final addition.”[5] (see Addendum to see St. Cyprian’s revised text below)

This is reflected in Tertullian’s work…
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile![6]

That is to say, for Rome, the very authority of ALL the apostles is held. The church there is complete; Catholic.
See part 3 for addendum

Endnotes
[1] ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664
[2] quoted in Whelton, p34.
[3] Ibid, p34
[4] St. Cyprian “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”, 4, quoted in Carlton, C., (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press), pp123-4.
[5] De Unitate 4, Bevenot, quoted in Cartlton, pp124-5.
[6] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics - Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3125_1133921
 
Addendum: This is what Cyrpian changes his words to state…

“It is on one man that He builds the Church, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, saying: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you …Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man’s, they shall be retained,” yet in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the Church is figured in the Canticle of Canticles when the Holy Spirit, speaking in Our Lord’s name, says: “One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darling of her womb.” If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the Church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, has he still confidence that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of Oneness saying: “One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God”?[1]

[1] English text taken from St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, tr. M. Bévenot, Ancient Christian Writers, v. 25 (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1957), pp. 46-47. (Hereinafter referred to as Unity.) For the Latin text, see Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera: De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, ed. M. Bévenot, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, v. 3 (Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Ponificii, 1972), pp. 251-52. (Hereinafter referred to as De Unitate.) Bévenot seems to have a corner on Cyprian interpretation. Besides the English and Latin editions cited above, he has done the definitive work on the manuscripts: M. Bévenot, The Tradition of Manuscripts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) and the article for the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Cyprian, St.,” 4:564-66. The last person who challenged his judgment, apparently, was J. Le Moyne in “Saint Cyprien est-il bien l’auteur de la re’daction breve du ‘De Unitate’ chapitre 4?”, Revue Benedictine 63:70-115 (1953). This is effectively answered in M. Bévenot, " ‘Primatus Petro Datur’: St. Cyprian on the Papacy," Journal of Theological Studies 5:19-35 (1954). (Hereinafter referred to as “Primatus Petro Datur.”) For bibliography on Cyprian n general, see M. Bévenot, De Unitate, pp. xii-xiv; on the work De Unitate in particular, pp. xvii-xxi. Quoted at nds.edu/lonergan/papal.htm
 
40.png
CARose:
I think you’ve missed some important stuff with regards to the first council in Jerusalem, as Peter was the ultimate authority in that one, not acting in a unilateral manner, as that is not Papal authority as I understand it, but as the final word when the decision was needed in a definitive manner.

CARose
Click to expand...
The quotes from Acts don’t suggest this at all. James presided and made the final decision. See post above where I referenced the Book of Acts
 
Here is Edward Giles, the Anglican historian on St. Cyprian:

“Cyprian is clearer than Origen about the meaning of our Lord’s words to Peter (Matt 16:18). To him the rock is Peter, and our Lord built his Church on Peter. He says this so often that no one doubts that it is his view. Cyprian also claims that this text gives the bishops their authority, for the Church is settled upon them…Disputes on this version [of De Unitate 4] have therefore turned on the question whether in Cyprian’s view the primacy of Peter was a permanent factor in the Church or not. On the one hand it is suggested that ‘Peter is not the real ground, not the cause nor the centre, but only the starting point in time, and the means of recognition of Church unity’ [quoting Hugo Koch]…Against this view Dom Chapman stresses the words ‘Upon one he builds the Church.’ That one is Peter; Peter is the rock, and the idea of a temporary rock is absurd. There is no mention of priority in time in Epistles 33 and 43, and from these letters it seems clear to Chapman that Cyprian means Peter, like the bishop to be ‘a permanent not a transient guarantee of the unity of the edifice which rises upon a single rock.’’” (Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, page 49, 52)

Now I don’t know where you are getting your interpretations of Cyprian, but he is quite clear that Peter = Rock. If you want a balanced historical study on the early Papacy, find this book by Giles. He quotes the leading scholars from both sides (Anglican vs. Catholic). Your best debates on this stuff took place 100 or more years ago, Rivington and Chapman (both converts from Anglicanism) are probably the top from the Catholic side. And just your luck their books are going up on my apologetics site. 😃

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Now I don’t know where you are getting your interpretations of Cyprian, but he is quite clear that Peter = Rock. If you want a balanced historical study on the early Papacy, find this book by Giles. He quotes the leading scholars from both sides (Anglican vs. Catholic). Your best debates on this stuff took place 100 or more years ago, Rivington and Chapman (both converts from Anglicanism) are probably the top from the Catholic side. And just your luck their books are going up on my apologetics site.Phil P
Click to expand...
The different between our arguments are, I use Cyrpians words, you use commentators on Cyrpian. I must repeat therefore what you ignore (hence you ask about not knowing where I’m drawing Cyrpian ‘interpretation’ from).
St. Cyprian stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5).[1]

Perhaps if you read the OP and the other posts I’ve written to bring yourself up to speed? For your ‘work’ also deals with the Tome of Leo, which I’ve already refuted (post #5). And just because Catholic sites repeatedly misquote this source doesn’t mean the debate is over. I do think that’s the trouble with your argument. I’ve continued to cite information, you continue to cite other people’s information… which I’ve already shown in some cases to be highly dubious. And Giles himself converted, and relied wholly on converts.
Fortunately, we can see his errors on-line at questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11128554, because Epistle 33 given at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-58.htm#P5301_1616915 mentions nothing of the sort. However, if you look at Epistle 26, then you’ll have the right one!

And, this reads…
. Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop2 and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."3 Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.4 Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith. For far be it from the mercy of God and His uncontrolled might to suffer the number of the lapsed to be called the Church; since it is written, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."5 For we indeed desire that all may be made alive; and we pray that, by our supplications and groans, they may be restored to their original state. But if certain lapsed ones claim to be the Church, and if the Church be among them and in them, what is left but for us to ask of these very persons that they would deign to admit us into the Church? Therefore it behoves them to be submissive and quiet and modest, as those who ought to appease God, in remembrance of their sin, and not to write letters in the name of the Church, when they should rather be aware that they are writing to the Church.[2]
He is not saying Peter is the rock at all. It is a clear reference to the Gospel where Peter proclaimed the ‘faith’, which as can be seen by the fact that he says that the church is founded upon the bishops (pl), that is, all those that have the faith that Peter proclaimed. This is clarified in the quote I give at the top of this post. It is the faith that Peter declares is the ‘rock’.

I had to look for some length of time for the actual words of Cyrpian, not least because your over-relliance on second-hand sources leads people to the wrong Epistle.

Note on Cyprian’s work…
[1] ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664

[2] ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-51.htm#P5180_1576749
 
Since second-hand references have currency, let’s look at another of his (Giles’) mistakes…
He quotes

"THE DISPUTE ABOUT EASTER A.D. 190

DOCUMENT 11-----Eusebius, H.E., Book 5. A.D. 311.
Chapter 23.
( L.C.L. 1. 502; L. & O. 168 †.)
  1. Now a question of no small importance arose in their time. For the communities of the whole of Asia, relying on a tradition of great antiquity, thought that they ought to observe the fourteenth day of the moon (the day on which the Jews were ordered to sacrifice the lamb) as the day for the festival of the Saviour’s Pascha; since they deemed it necessary at all costs to put an end to their fast on that day, no matter on what day of the week it should fall. But it was not the custom for the churches throughout all the rest of the world thus to celebrate it, preserving as they did by an apostolic tradition the custom which had obtained hitherto, that it was not proper to end the fast on any other day than on the day of the resurrection of our Saviour.
  2. So then, synods and assemblages of bishops came together, and unanimously drew up in letters an ecclesiastical decree for the faithful everywhere, to the effect that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead should never be celebrated on any other but the Lord’s day, and that on that day alone we should observe the close of the paschal fast.
  3. Now there is still extant to this day a letter from those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of the community at Caesarea, and Narcissus, of Jerusalem, presided; and likewise another also from those at Rome, on the same question, which indicates that Victor was bishop; one too from the bishops in Pontus, over whom Palmas, as the oldest, had presided; and also one from the communities in Gaul, over which Irenaeus was bishop.
A bit of historical background first. The Church in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from the rest of the Christian churches, and although he initiated a synod to investigate, this was done by request, not command. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus wrote to St. Victor “Victor and the Roman Church”, (Eusebius – v. 24). [1]

Eusebius further says “There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem; and from those at Rome a similar one, arising out of the same controversy, which names Victor as bishop. There are others from the Pontic bishops, presided over by Palmas as the senior; from the Gallic province, over which Irenaeus was archbishop, and from the bishops in Osrhoene and the cities of that region. There are personal letters from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more, who voiced the same opinion and judgment and gave the same vote. All these laid down one single rule the rule already stated.” [2]

Thus the decree came from the conference, not from the Pope. Polycrates disputed the council, however. Eusebius said “Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman Church attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian diocese, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy.” [3]
NOTE: Attempted He failed because “…this was not tot the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the
words of these men who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was
Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was
responsible for in Gaul.”[4] This hardly suggest universal over-lordship as understood by the early church.

Footnotes​

[1] quoted in Whelton, p45.
[2] Ibid, p45.
[3] Ibid, pp46-47.
Note that the Catholic Church regards Eusebius as the “Father of Church History” (newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm)
[4] Whelton, Ibid.

"
 
You guys have covered so much already, but I noticed no one brought up the parallel between Matt. 16:18-19 and Isaias 22:20-22.

Isaias 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Any thoughts?
 
40.png
Montalban:
My apology for answering you last. You make a very interesting post. How this helps Papal claims, I’m unsure of. My own church is Antiochian Orthodox. We were founded by St. Peter BEFORE he and St. Paul went to Rome.
Click to expand...
I had never seen the phrase Antiochian Orthodox so I looked it up. It appears that it is part of the Greek Orthodox Church - the Church that ended up seperate from the Roman Catholic Church around 1000 AD. (I guess I am asking to be sure of your history)

I went to an Antiochian Orthodox website (I think a rather open and honest one) and found the following question.

“Is it possible then that there might be one true Church?* How should we look at that question?”

I have my own answer to that question. The one true Church is made up of those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of the Living God. (As may appear obvious, this was Peter’s confession just before Jesus made him - or something - the Rock)

The debate over exactly what this means will probably carry until the end of time but one thing we should remember is Jesus is the focus of the faith of anyone who calls themself a member of the one true Church. Not Peter or anyone else.

I think that history matters. History tells us that Rome was a very important center of civilization at the time Christianity began. My understanding is even then some Greeks might argue that point and call the Romans ignorant barbarians and that culturally speaking, the Greeks had no equal.

But from a political point of view, Rome was a world power, perhaps no other nation in history could say with more confidence “We are the center of the world”

As Christianity spread, (and Paul was able to travel so freely to spread it because he was Roman citizen) the historical fact of Roman power did matter. If someone wanted to reach “everyone” Roman roads could help make that happen. Thus, purely out of hisorical happenstance and convenience, the Bishop of Rome came to be a focal point of the Faith. This focal point does not change the fact that those who are part of the one true church are those who believe Jesus is the Messiah. But this focal point means something. I am still trying to figure out exactly what it means, but I am certain that dismissing it as unnecessary and meaningless is not part of God’s plan.

So what would Jesus say about the church today. I don’t know for sure but I think, on a bad day, it might be something like Matthew chapter 23

Lets hope for good days.

peace

-Jim
 
OK, montalban, you said repeatedly the following is found in Cyprian’s treatise on the Unity of the Catholic Church. However I can’t find it there. You appear to be mistaken. According to you:

St. Cyprian stated: “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5).[1]

The footnote you gave for this repeatedly is the following:

On the Unity of the Church by St. Cyprian

That is indeed the correct link to Cyprian’s Unity writing, however your quote above is not found in that treatise. Where did you get that quotation?

UPDATE: I found it. You are referring to St. Ambrose. Let’s try to get our Fathers straight.

St. Ambrose (“On the Incarnation”)

“Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of hisfaith. Endeavor then, thyself to be a rock – thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the rock.”

So do you want to discuss St. Cyprian now or St. Ambrose? 😃

You have posted too much information to deal with. But thanks for the Edward Giles link, I didn’t realize that book is available online. It really is the best book I have found presenting “both sides” (at least the best Anglican vs. Catholic positions). Giles cites all the main historical material dealing with the early Papacy, and presents the commentary on them from all sides.

You keep referring to a “Whelton” in your footnotes, “quoted in Whelton” etc so that is a secondary source as well. And his book is very polemical (unlike the Anglican Giles).

James Likoudis has responded to both Michael Whelton (the fallen away Catholic) and Clark Carlton (the Baptist convert to Orthodoxy) and others in great detail. I’ll admit its a lot of complex history to deal with, and should be dealt with carefully, not sloppily. Cyprian is not Ambrose.

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top