Who is 'the Rock'?

[Montalban]

More from John Chrysostomon
”And if any should say ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world…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”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, pp. 331-332).
Also at: ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-92.htm#P5178_1692488
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”
-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
”The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere”
(Homily 24, On Genesis. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 165).
It is clear from these statements that Chrysostom, while certainly granting a large leadership role to Peter, does not consider him to have been made the supreme ruler of the Church. These passages demonstrate that the exalted titles applied to Peter were not exclusively applied to him. There is one passage in which Chrysostom does state that Peter received authority over the Church:
”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”

• Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2” quoted in 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
  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
  Source

---

[1] christiantruth.com/stephenray.html

 

[Montalban]

kaycee:

My point is theologically, there is no evidence of patristic consensus to support the Vatican I papal interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 equating the rock with the person of Peter, assigning to him and the Roman bishops the place of pre-eminence of rule in the Church through the authority of the keys. Vatican I is just plain wrong

Peter is often accorded the title ‘first’ because he was first to declare the faith (which is ‘the rock’).* He was accorded some ‘powers’ by Christ but so were all the other Apostles. The belief that the Pope should rule the church is one that attributes special privileges to Peter alone (despite the fact he didn’t pontificate; as noted by the sources already cited). And that this ‘status’ by-passed every church he founded before Rome, (and also, he probably founded some in Spain too, afterwards - so these get by-passed too!), and then attributes to him the status of bishop, which he wasn’t known by.**

*he might be sometimes referred to foremost because he sometimes moved ahead of the others, but then sometimes others took over; such as in Acts 15 where James presided. Each Apostle acted to the best of their ability and they worked as one accord.
*see Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859

 

[Ghosty]

Montralban: Others have supplied the quotes from the Fathers regarding Peter being recognized as having individual authority among the Apostles; there’s no reason for me to repost what they have been doing. I’m simply trying to clarify aspects of their arguments that you seem to be missing or misunderstanding.

To say, however, that Peter was never recognized as the leader of the Apostles is patently false. While the nature of his leadership might be amiguous in the writings of some Fathers, the fact is that he was recognized as the leader of the Apostles by the vast majority.

Thus your theory is highly sinuous. It grants to one See founded by Peter some inherent role that can be passed on from generation to generation not because Peter founded it first, (nor likely last), but because he founded Rome which attests that it inherited this special place from Peter, alone.

No, it’s because Peter died in Rome, and upon his death his authority was passed down. This is recognized by Cyprien, to name one, when he says:

And he was made bishop by very many of our colleagues who were then present in the city of Rome, who sent to us letters concerning his ordination, honourable and laudatory, and remarkable for their testimony in announcement of him. Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; Epistle 51: Paragraph 8

Fabian and Cornelius were the 19th and 20th successors of Peter in Rome, the 20th and 21st popes. Notice that Rome is specifically shown to be the place of Peter’s priestly throne, and these two men are specifically listed as being his successors. So while the Church of Antioch was indeed founded by Peter, it was regarded as “his place” as Rome is in the above citation.

Honestly, I’m kind of suprised that you’re seeking to challenge this point in particular considering how well founded it is in history. Rome is the place of the successors of Peter’s Apostlate, the only real debate is over the implication of this.

disputed by me because of
a) evidence from Peter’s role in the Council in Jerusalem (itself attested by his behaviour in Acts 15, and various already cited Church Fathers)

His behavior is precisely that of a Pope in a Council. He is a bishop among bishops in the Council, not required to act as anything other than a bishop. He can even have personal disagreements with the decisions of the Council, but his disagreement, and even “no” vote (if not exercised in Papal Authority) does not equate to a veto over the decision of the Council. So long as he honors the decision of the Council, whether by concession or majority vote, there is no need to do anything greater than what Peter did at Jerusalem.

b) by Church history; none of the 7 Ecumenical Councils were called by the Pope,** they were all held in the east, dominated by the emperor.

Irrelevant for the same reasons I pointed out above. So long as veto isn’t exercised, there is no need for the Pope to call a Council, or even personally agree with its decisions. Again, the Pope is a position of last resort, not first, second, third, ect. The power always exists to speak on behalf of the whole “body of Apostles”, as signified by the same corporate authority of the Apostles being vested individually in Peter as well, but it is rarely necessary or exercised.

As for your points about other people being recognized as “equal to the Apostles”, I honestly don’t see how they are even worth addressing. Unless you can show that Jesus personally invested in those people individually the same power that was invested in the Apostles corporately (something immediately present in Scripture), then you have no case to say that calling them “equal to the Apostles” is the same as what we are saying of Peter.

 

[Ghosty]

The ‘powers’ given to Peter were given to all the Apostles. I’ve already stated this and given supporting evidence. Matthew 18:18, in case you missed it. Which, as I’ve also noted ties in with the notion of what it is to be ‘Catholic’. Each church headed by a bishop is Catholic (or ‘complete’). And this again also ties in with the history of the early church, as also demonstrated.

You keep falling back into this, and we keep trying to bring you up to speed. Not only do we agree with you on this point, we make it a fundamental point of Catholic doctrine. What we have said, and you have continually either ignored or failed to refute, is that no other Apostles are given this authority individually. When Jesus speaks to the Apostles in Matthew 18:18, he is speaking to a group, and there is nothing to indicate that the individual commission of Peter is overturned by this, nor that other Apostles were given an individual commission. The whole body of Apostles, therefore, has this same commission as Peter as an individual.

What I find amusing is that, in quoting John Chrysostomyou’ve ignored the clincher for the Catholic argument, and it takes place in the very same homily:

And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouthof the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren;

Chosen one, mouth of the disciples, leader of the band? This is nothing more, nothing less, than what the Catholic Church claims for Peter. Peter speaks on behalf of the Apostles, he is the individual who can be the mouth for the whole when necessary. That is precisely the role of the Pope.

I’m not convinced at all by your argument that John was also individually commissioned. The incontrovertable fact is that Peter is refered to as “Chosen one”, not “Chosen one of two”. Notice that it is even recognized that Jesus passes by the others, and speaks to Peter alone. Whatever honors and titles are heaped upon the Apostle John, the fact remains that John Chrysostomon recognizes a unique and individual chiefhood of Peter, one that “passes by” all the other Apostles. All the Apostles are great, all carry divine authority, but Peter is constantly singled out in a special way, even when honors are being heaped on all.

Actually, I thank you for supplying this homily by John Chrysostom, it’s among the best supports for the Papacy as the Catholic Church holds it I’ve ever seen.

That being said, I find it funny that anti-Catholics often heap much more power and authority on the Pope than we Catholics do. They build the office up to heights that we don’t claim, and then ask us how we can possibly support it. The fact is, we don’t view the Papacy as the “Apostalic Super-power” that non-Catholics seem to think we do. Veto power? Certainly, but only by virtue of the very same authority that the Apostles as a group are granted; as the voice of the Apostles, the Pope can speak as the Apostles. We are not challenged by the fact that the Apostles as a group are given the authority to bind and loose; in fact that precisely proves our point when paired with the passages regarding Peter individually, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Basically, if we had a Pope like non-Catholics seem to think the Pope is, Catholics would leave the Church en masse. Thank God we (including the Pope and the Magisterium) don’t give the Papal Office as much credit as the non-Catholics do!

 

[twiztedseraph]

The “Rock” is a third generation professional wrestler named Dwayne Johnson. Jokes, he’s St. Peter, duh!

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Montalban

below is part of a quote supplied by you in an attempt to bolster your view.

Now read it more carefully

“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 neighbouring 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… or a need to wait for the ‘power’ of the descendant of Peter.”

If there was no such thing as Universal jurisdiction then it would be utterly unthinkable for someone such as A bishop of Rome to even excommunicate the churches the matter relates to, he could only do so if he believed he had the power, now if my reading historically speaking is correct, these other bishops did not demand that the bISHOP of Rome forgive them but they requested him to do so.

If what the Bishop of Rome did was cojmpletely out of the ball park then there is no way that the rest of the Bishops would have simply requested himto change his mind, the language would be ocmpletely different as it would be a crime against the Church for the Bishop of Rome to excommunciate them, as if he had the right.

 

[Ghosty]

Tim Hayes: Wow, good catch!

 

[Montalban]

Tim Hayes:

Montalban

below is part of a quote supplied by you in an attempt to bolster your view.

Now read it more carefully

“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 neighbouring 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… or a need to wait for the ‘power’ of the descendant of Peter.”

If there was no such thing as Universal jurisdiction then it would be utterly unthinkable for someone such as A bishop of Rome to even excommunicate the churches the matter relates to, he could only do so if he believed he had the power, now if my reading historically speaking is correct, these other bishops did not demand that the bISHOP of Rome forgive them but they requested him to do so.

If what the Bishop of Rome did was cojmpletely out of the ball park then there is no way that the rest of the Bishops would have simply requested himto change his mind, the language would be ocmpletely different as it would be a crime against the Church for the Bishop of Rome to excommunciate them, as if he had the right.

That’s a beautiful twist of the facts! It is clear that the Roman bishop over-stepped his powers. He attempted to excommunicate someone, and it was ignored. That’s the end of the story. It was not within his powers to do so. The reason the other bishops acted the way they did was because they wished to politely remind the Roman bishop that he was out of line. IF you believe the bishop of Rome had the power to exercise this power, then why was his excommunication not enforced? That’s the problem you’ve ignored. You’ve concentrated on the fact that the Roman bishop did do something (ignoring that it was wrong) and not looked at the fact that it wasn’t enforced, and read into the concillatory and brotherly acts of other bishops as some kind of tacit approval of what he did, when they didn’t approve. Simply because they were civil about it! Also, note that the other bishops had no power over the bishop of Rome. No bishop had power over another bishop. The bishop of Rome declared a ruling, it was not in his power to do so. The other bishops didn’t enforce the ruling, because they didn’t come under his command, for the sake of Christian unity they had to request that the bishop of Rome change his mind.

I’m truly amazed that you completely ignore the fact that they didn’t ‘obey’ the bishop of Rome!!!

 

[Montalban]

One poster has tried to make the most of a fact that Peter was mentioned separately to the other Apostles. Well, here’s the bishopric of Constantinople signled out and noted that he should enjoy the exact same rights and powers as the ‘successor of Peter’ (as you guys claim the Bishop of Rome is)

The Fourth Ecumenical Council.; The Council of Chalcedon. Canon XXVIII shows up claims for papal power…
“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.” [1]

That is, a council decided what honours should be attained by a particular bishopric, and they decided Constantinople, which was then as important a city as Rome, should receive THE SAME HONOURS as Rome.

“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 stedfast 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, "Dost thou know me? "“I do know thee, 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 sinneth, being condemned of himself.” 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.”[2]

That is, Polycarp, of Asia, also holds Apostolic authority, and his church too bears witness to Christianity.

---

[1] ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-105.htm#P5349_1101598

[2] earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

 

[Philthy]

Man is my head spinning! This is why I have always hated history - endless reading and debate over, ultimately, opinions. Can I ask Montalbon a question?
What is the criteria by which we judge our current search(ie this thread) for truth regarding Peter and the rock?

• Are we to simply assume that the most logical interpretation of the historical “facts” will lead us to the actual truth? What if they are not one and the same?
• Or are we simply only morally responsible for following what seems to us to be the most logical interpretation even if it ends up being incorrect?
• Has this search strengthened your faith?

Dizzy,

Phil

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

Montralban (sic): Others have supplied the quotes from the Fathers regarding Peter being recognized as having individual authority among the Apostles; there’s no reason for me to repost what they have been doing. I’m simply trying to clarify aspects of their arguments that you seem to be missing or misunderstanding.

You mean, someone has given a quote mine from an unspecified source, wherein some of the quotes don’t even address the issue (see Athanasius’ remark about an Apostolic Throne, which despite the fact that I stated it, then refuted it, someone just quoted it again, without context). And we really have to get down to post #41 before someone does this, rather than cite a site that does this… and I note I haven’t directly responded to this post, but soon shall do.
Let’s actually look at the ‘history of this thread’. This continued down to post #18 wherein one poster at least linked an entire web-site, to narrow down my search
Post #24 someone introduces the type of site I’d already refuted in post #5
Post #28 a poster urges me to look to a site that misquotes Augustine (see Appendix), and again urges me to look through the Chapman web-site to research the answers to prove your case!
And I continue to wade through these claims of past victories.
I stated a position, giving sources from Whelton, and from the web. To this one poster gave the stock-standard knee-jerk response; assuming I was Protestant. Several others have stated that there’s no reason to debate me, because if I wanted to the answers are somewhere else for me to search for, to prove them right.
I get down to post #35 before someone offers me a second-hand account on St. Cyprian. I point out in post #36 that I use original sources (often).
We get down to post #40 before someone shows me up for attributing to Cyprian, what Ambrose said. And aside from this mistake, ignores the fact that both personages have issued statements that attribute to Peter’s faith, and not to Peter himself the idea of ‘the rock’.

Ghosty:

To say, however, that Peter was never recognized as the leader of the Apostles is patently false. While the nature of his leadership might be ambiguous in the writings of some Fathers, the fact is that he was recognized as the leader of the Apostles by the vast majority.

:yawn: You continually re-stating your opinion of this is rather boring. You continuing to ignore both the example from Acts 15, and the commentaries on that example is likewise boring.

Montalban:

Thus your theory is highly sinuous. It grants to one See founded by Peter some inherent role that can be passed on from generation to generation not because Peter founded it first, (nor likely last), but because he founded Rome which attests that it inherited this special place from Peter, alone.

Ghosty:

No, it’s because Peter died in Rome, and upon his death his authority was passed down. This is recognized by Cyprian, to name one, when he says:

At last!!!

Ghosty:

And he was made bishop by very many of our colleagues who were then present in the city of Rome, who sent to us letters concerning his ordination, honourable and laudatory, and remarkable for their testimony in announcement of him. Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; Epistle 51: Paragraph 8

to be found at…
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-76.htm#P5563_1696936
And Peter also founded a place in Antioch…
In its present (ninth-century) form the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” gives a second feast of the Chair of St. Peter for 22 February, but all the manuscripts assign it to Antioch, not to Rome
newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm
Although this Catholic site does believe that the Antiochian note was an addition, it still was celebrated there, because Rome and Antioch are both places of Peter. And although they both were, Peter was not bishop in either. (see below)

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

Fabian and Cornelius were the 19th and 20th successors of Peter in Rome, the 20th and 21st popes. Notice that Rome is specifically shown to be the place of Peter’s priestly throne, and these two men are specifically listed as being his successors. So while the Church of Antioch was indeed founded by Peter, it was regarded as “his place” as Rome is in the above citation.

You believe he’s descendant in power and office from Peter
Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859) and Ibid. Book III.3.2-3, Ibid. Book III.3.3 shows that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome.

And he also refers to Cornelius as “Cornelius our co-bishop”
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-76.htm#P5563_1696936

Ghosty:

Honestly, I’m kind of suprised that you’re seeking to challenge this point in particular considering how well founded it is in history. Rome is the place of the successors of Peter’s Apostlate, the only real debate is over the implication of this.

Yes, I know you believe that these things ‘just are’. As noted, Antioch is also a ‘place of Peter’. And, Peter is not viewed as the first bishop of either place. The ‘place of’ refers simply to the fact that he was there.

Montalban:

disputed by me because of
a) evidence from Peter’s role in the Council in Jerusalem (itself attested by his behaviour in Acts 15, and various already cited Church Fathers)

Ghosty:

His behavior is precisely that of a Pope in a Council. He is a bishop among bishops in the Council, not required to act as anything other than a bishop. He can even have personal disagreements with the decisions of the Council, but his disagreement, and even “no” vote (if not exercised in Papal Authority) does not equate to a veto over the decision of the Council. So long as he honors the decision of the Council, whether by concession or majority vote, there is no need to do anything greater than what Peter did at Jerusalem.

He didn’t preside. James did. James did, because he was the bishop of Jerusalem. Note that your Catholic Church believes that Peter was pope from 32AD
(see St. Peter (32-67)
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)

Montalban:

b) by Church history; none of the 7 Ecumenical Councils were called by the Pope,** they were all held in the east, dominated by the emperor.

Ghosty:

Irrelevant for the same reasons I pointed out above. So long as veto isn’t exercised, there is no need for the Pope to call a Council, or even personally agree with its decisions. Again, the Pope is a position of last resort, not first, second, third, etc. The power always exists to speak on behalf of the whole “body of Apostles”, as signified by the same corporate authority of the Apostles being vested individually in Peter as well, but it is rarely necessary or exercised.

Again your OPINION is duly noted.

Ghosty:

As for your points about other people being recognized as “equal to the Apostles”, I honestly don’t see how they are even worth addressing. Unless you can show that Jesus personally invested in those people individually the same power that was invested in the Apostles corporately (something immediately present in Scripture), then you have no case to say that calling them “equal to the Apostles” is the same as what we are saying of Peter.

That’s equivalent to knocking on the head any declaration by ‘other people’ of anyone being a Saint.
So, even though Antioch and Rome were known as ‘the place of Peter’ and although Peter was not bishop of either place, Rome somehow acquires some Petrine power attributed to him, even though all the other Apostles had been given this power, because you believe that their power was only equal to Peter’s combined (based on your opinion of such). And that even though the Church can announce someone as a saint, the calling of someone as the ‘equal of the Apostles’ is totally meaningless!!! As I said, your case is a sinuous route through the facts.
If Peter is praised, it’s significant. If someone else is equally praised, not significant!
St. Cyprian says
"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 use 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.
Opening address to the Council of Carthage, Whelton, p34
also at…
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm#P9402_2932994

 

[Montalban]

APPENDIX "Rome has spoken; the case is closed"
According to Whelton;
“It should be pointed out that the famous epigram attributed to St. Augustine, “Roma locuta est; causa finita est” (Rome has spoken; the case is closed), is completely untrue. Augustine made no such statement. The origin of this remark is supposedly drawn from sermon 131:10 which is as follows: “Already two councils have sent to the Apostolic See concerning this matter, and rescripts have come from hence. The case is concluded; would that error soon cease…” Augustine is stating that two African Councils have rendered judgment against the Pelagians and they were sent to Rome, “from thence rescripts have come; the cause is finished.” The African church and Rome have condemned Pelagius and that is the end of the matter.” pp28-29
That is, to settle a matter it needed the agreed rulings of two different churches. African and Rome together have ruled!
Whelton continues…
“When Pope Zosimus restored Pelagius, Augustine and the African church did not hesitate to vigorously oppose him by calling a council a Carthage where Pelagius was anathematized. The council then appealed to the tribunal of the Roman Emperor Honorius who issued an imperial edict banishing the Pelagians from Rome. Pope Zosimus ultimately backed down and issued his own condemnation. Catholic scholars uncovered this error over 100 years ago and Catholic historians like Warren H Carroll are in full concurrence.”*
Ibid. p29
*He cites Caroll’s work “The Building of Christendom” - vol. 2, p99-100.

 

[Ghosty]

IF you believe the bishop of Rome had the power to exercise this power, then why was his excommunication not enforced? That’s the problem you’ve ignored.

Nobody is ignoring it, it never occured. The Pope showed a desire to excommunicate, he was counsled against it, and he never made an infallible decree on the matter. That is exactly what we do in the Catholic Church. Again, you seem to think that we are simply waiting around to jump at the slightest whim of the Pope, which not what the Catholic Church has ever argued. If the Pope expressed an interest in excommunicating someone, I myself, as a layman, would be within my rights and place to personally counsel the Pope against it, even harshly if necessary. You’re arguing a “Catholic stance” that does not, and never has, existed. It’s a straw man. Whelton’s book is simply wrong about the way the Catholic Church views the powers of the Pope, at least insofar as I’ve seen it presented by you here. He’s attacking a Church that, to put it bluntly, doesn’t exist.

How about you post the source of Whelton’s claims that the Catholic Church regards the Pope in the way he describes, rather than just assuming it. As of now it’s sounding more and more like a straw-man.

I’m truly amazed that you completely ignore the fact that they didn’t ‘obey’ the bishop of Rome!!!

Show us where it was an infallible decree, and you’ve got a case. Otherwise, you’re blustering.

Well, here’s the bishopric of Constantinople signled out and noted that he should enjoy the exact same rights and powers as the ‘successor of Peter’ (as you guys claim the Bishop of Rome is)

Nope, it says that it enjoys all of the imperial rank of Old Rome (the Papacy is not, and never has been, considered part of the imperial honor of Rome), and says that in ecclesiastical (Church) matters Constantiople should be ranked “next after her (Rome)”. Not the same, but ranked after Rome. Thanks again for proving our argument for us!

That is, Polycarp, of Asia, also holds Apostolic authority, and his church too bears witness to Christianity.

Of course Polycarp held Apostalic authority. Where have we disputed that fact? Polycarp is one of the prime people we use to support Apostalic authority against Protestant heresy, this passage in fact. What exactly are you trying to prove regarding Roman authority by citing the fact that Polycarp enjoyed Apostalic Succession?

I stated a position, giving sources from Whelton, and from the web.

That’s the problem: Whelton’s position is against a straw man. You’ve repeatedly ignored the fact that the Catholic Church doesn’t make the claims about the Papacy that Whelton seems to be claiming we do. Our quote’s are “refuting your argument” because your argument is baseless. We’re talking past eachother.

:yawn: You continually re-stating your opinion of this is rather boring. You continuing to ignore both the example from Acts 15, and the commentaries on that example is likewise boring.

I’m not ignoring Acts 15 at all, in fact I cited it as a perfect example of the Catholic approach to the Papacy. Who are you arguing with, exactly?

Although this Catholic site does believe that the Antiochian note was an addition, it still was celebrated there, because Rome and Antioch are both places of Peter. And although they both were, Peter was not bishop in either. (see below)

Read the article more carefully. It shows that there were two celebrations given to Peter in Rome; it was a later addition to the text that one of the celebrations was for Antioch. Once again, you are doing the heavy work for us in proving that these honors given to Antioch were later and unfounded.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

continued…

You believe he’s descendant in power and office from Peter
Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01…m#P7297_1937859) and Ibid. Book III.3.2-3, Ibid. Book III.3.3 shows that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome.

No it doesn’t, it says that the episcopate was given to Linus. We Catholics agree. It doesn’t say Linus was the first bishop of Rome at all, only that he was indeed a bishop of Rome appointed by the Apostles. That perfectly attests to the Catholic claim of Linus being the successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome.

And he also refers to Cornelius as “Cornelius our co-bishop”

That would be because Cornelius was a bishop. Your point?

As noted, Antioch is also a ‘place of Peter’. And, Peter is not viewed as the first bishop of either place. The ‘place of’ refers simply to the fact that he was there.

The only thing you’ve noted is that Antioch was given accolades centuries after the fact, in an alteration of a manuscript made in the 9th Century. Congratulations, you’ve succeeded in showing that the honors given to Antioch were an invention of interpolators from the Middle Ages. You have a great future as a Catholic apologist

He didn’t preside. James did. James did, because he was the bishop of Jerusalem. Note that your Catholic Church believes that Peter was pope from 32AD
(see St. Peter (32-67)

Right, which fits perfectly with the Catholic position that the Pope can simply be bishop among bishops at Councils. You are pressuming that the Church makes an argument (the Pope presiding at all Councils) that it doesn’t. More straw men.

Again your OPINION is duly noted.

It’s not my opinion at all, it’s the position of the Catholic Church as it regards to the Magisterium. Check out section 22 of Lumen Gentium and paragraphs 880-896 of the Catechism. While presiding at an Ecumenical Council (which Jerusalem was not, regardless) is the prerogative of the Pope, it’s not in any way required.

In short, you need to stop addressing straw men and actually deal with real Church teaching, which is readily available online in Encyclicals, Canons, and the Catechism. As I’ve said, you’re attacking a Catholic Church that does not, and has not, ever existed.

 

[RyanL]

Not to intrude, but…

Please stop misrepresenting the Fathers of the Church.
Cyprian on the Papacy:

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (*Letters *48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“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” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

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

More here.

St. Augustine on the Papacy:

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (*Letters *53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (*Sermons *295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (*Commentary on John *56:1 [A.D. 416]).

More here.

I just didn’t want anyone to get the wrong impression.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Montalban]

RyanL you need not be insulting. You have made the statement that I am misrepresnting people. I have quoted them and give on-line sources where you can read them, unlike yourself.

 

[Montalban]

I apologise for the late response…

PhilVaz:

Here are some of the main passages of Cyprian that need to be dealt with carefully:

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which 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 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

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?”[1] This text is much quoted by Romans as proof of Petrine supremecy.

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.”[2] (see Addendum to see St. Cyprian’s revised text)

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![3]
That is to say, for Rome, the very authority of ALL the apostles is held. The church there is complete; Catholic.
end part 1

 

[Montalban]

ADDENDUM – The Revised text of St. Cyprian
(note this is the text Cyprian himself re-wrote!)
“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”?[4]

Endnotes.

---

[1] 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.

[2] De Unitate 4, Bevenot, quoted in Cartlton, pp124-5.

[3] 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

[4] 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

 

[steve_b]

Montalban:

Who really is ‘the Rock’ of Matthew 16? [snip]

This claim stems in part from Jesus saying “On this rock, I will build my Church”; Catholics assuming that ‘rock’ here refers to the Apostle Peter himself. And as a result of this, Peter’s successors are to inherit some special power over the whole church. But what in fact did the early church make of this statement?

A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter,** forty-four** thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith,** sixteen** thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles.

1. name these 85 fathers as they appear in these caregories. I know you copied this point from a Protestant web site without checking it for accuracy, but I’m not satisfied with that . I like specifics tecmalta.org/tft305.htm
2. He says 18 + 44 = 62 out of 85 (73%) say it’s Peter or his faith. Peter and his faith come as a package. It’s not like they are seperate either one or the other. Jesus didn’t rename his faith Peter. And He didn’t give the keys to His kingdom to Peter’s fairh. He renamed Simon, “Peter”(Rock) and gave the keys to Peter(the Rock).

Please identify these Church Fathers with their quotes, in order to fill in the different categories pastor Paul Mizzi makes? No offense to the pastor, but I’d like to see specifics.

Montalban: