Who is 'the Rock'?

[Ghosty]

You still seem confused. Why is the church making arrangements/arguments about the change of Rome’s secular position? They had no right to do so.

I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about here. The Church is discussing the change in the Church of Constantinople’s status, not the change in the city of Rome’s status. The change in Rome’s status was based on the decisions of the Emperor, not the Church, and is not being addressed here.

"If our critics claim Linus was the first after Peter then what was Paul doing in this line of authority? The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t claim Paul was the second bishop of Rome. Irenaeus however is quite clear that Paul was involved in the placement of Linus as the bishop of Rome. He also mentions that the apostles gave Linus the episcopate of the church of Rome and was charged with “governing that church.”

This has nothing to do with the fact that Peter died in Rome, and upon dying he passed his authority to Linus. Paul’s involvement is not important in this regard; Paul could have easily been the man who ordained Linus as bishop without any change in the Catholic claims about Petrine succession.

Furthermore, where is it ever accorded that Paul was a bishop of Rome, in the East or the West? Do the Orthodox make the claim that Paul was once bishop of Rome? I will say that, as an Orthodox, you rely on some very strange sources. Watson, as a Mormon, denies the Trinity and eternal divinity of God. He would also consider your Church to be just as heretical and damned as the Catholic Church, as the split only occured after the “Great Apostacy”. Be careful when playing with vipers and heretics, Montalban, their bites are equally quick, and their venom equally toxic.

Then why do you seldom quote them in a source I can investigate? I note below this doesn’t satisfy you…

Because I’ve been dealing almost entirely with your misreprestations of the Church Fathers, and using the works you supply (and presumably have already read). I see no point in reposting the links that you yourself supplied when responding to your citations of them. If you didn’t read them before you posted them, you aren’t going to read them when I do. When I have cited things beyond your own passages, I’ve pointed it out. You just haven’t been paying attention, as you didn’t even realize that you posted, for me to read, paragraphs from the CCC that I already directed you to. That’s extremely sloppy on your part.

By the way, I found the source of Cyprian quote, and it doesn’t say what you’ve been posting up here. If you had gone to the original source, rather than biased second and third hand sources, you would have seen that the actual passage does not support your claim at all. I’ll post it here alongside your citation for comparison.

Yours:

…“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.”

Original:

Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there. ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm#P9402_2932994

Your quote speaks universally about the Church, while the actual one describes how this particular local synod should be handled.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

I’ve tracked down the source of this quote. It’s from this source, which uses a compilation and condensation of the writings of Synods by an Anglican Bishop Beveridge. It does not reflect the actual words of St. Cyprian, in fact it greatly distorts them. I don’t know if the work was originally Beveridge’s, or merely a translation into English of another’s, but we can obviously see that the original words and meanings were utterly mangled, and anyone who has actually read the original can see it.

I recommend you stop citing your version of the quote, as we have the actual words of St. Cyprian available, and they don’t support your argument at all.

In fact, unless you start going to the original sources and Catholic Church documents immediately, in addition to actually reading my responses before you issue counter-responses, I’m going to stop discussing this with you all together. While I’m learning a lot about the writings of the Church Fathers, espescially St. Cyprian as I’ve had to personally read much of his work in order to locate the parts that are being twisted beyond recognition by your sources, it’s simply not worth posting my findings for someone who won’t bother to read it.

I’ve shown that you’re not only misrepresenting the original sources you are using, but relying on faulty second and third hand sources for your accounts of what St. Cyprian says. Perhaps you need to get this stuff sorted out before you continue to try your hand in apologetics. You’d also do well to drop Whelton all together; if his work is as biased and sloppy as what you’re showing of it here, then he’s not doing you any favors. This abuse of the words of St. Cyprian, of a condensation of his writings no less, when the originals are plainly available is simply too much to take.

 

[Ghosty]

The ‘mutual honour’ shows that Cyprian views himself to have the same standing as his brother bishop in Rome.

sigh

It was a local Synod, so it didn’t require the Pope to sign off on it. Of course Cyprian was simply notifying his fellow bishop of what was discussed in his church. This happens all the time in the modern Church, when national assemblies, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meet to discuss local issues and render decisions. Nothing suprising here.

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty, I’ll address you frankly. Your opinion about the Papacy has been so far only backed up by your opinion by the Papacy, and an attempt to undermine a Catholic Encyclopeida, quite dishonestly, based on the fact that it was founded some time ago. I asked you speifically to provide evidences AND to state where you believe the Catechism I have cited contradicts my earlier citation from said newadvent site.
“Although 84 years old, readers will find the information solid, surprisingly relevant, and eternally valuable.”
newadvent.org/cathen/00002a.htm

You’ve done neither. You seek to continue on arguing based on your ‘just-so’; it is, because it is, because it is. Valuable as you may believe your opinion to be, I don’t quite share the same regard. I do note that you have cited two sources, however they agree with me. You have yet to cite any thing other than your opinion that agrees with you.
Let’s quickly however go over one of your twists.
I said…

Montalban:

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.

you replied Post #95…

Ghosty:

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

You attempt again to do so by asking where was Paul bishop of Rome? Where was Peter bishop of Rome? The article I cited states that Linus received his ‘power’ from the church founded by Peter and Paul. You claim it must have been by Peter, because it was, because it was, because it was.

Now moving onto Cypiran. Your own quote states that no bishop has power over another bishop.
Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there. ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05…m#P9402_2932994
But then we go back in circles to your misunderstanding of the Papacy, which when I’ve tried to correct, you based your own ‘retort’ on the age of the Catholic cite.

 

[Montalban]

You erroneously add…

Ghosty:

Your quote speaks universally about the Church, while the actual one describes how this particular local synod should be handled.

Which is incorrect, given the title of that article shows that the Pope had made a ruling, and that Cyprian, not bound by that ruling, set about to convene a council to judge it locally - which as I said, each bishop is the head of his own bishopric, which, again brings us back in circles on your own misunderstanding of the Catholic position about the Pope. But we shall get further to your misunderstanding of the Papacy as the post progresses. Because this thread can progress no further till you cite your own evidence about Papal governence. Though you’ve falsely claimed to have already directed me to evidence (yes, you’ve cited ‘evidence’ but nothing that supports you)
Actually, now that we’re on about evidence, even your own critique about my sourcing is astounding consindering that I’ve cited the ccel.org site since day one and you claim to have ‘tracked it down’. Then you give your own opinion (AGAIN) as to why it’s inaccurate.

You then demand that I post only from Catholic sites! Not only do you reject Catholic sources when presented to you (see newadvent site dispute), you now demand that I only cite Catholic sources! Oddly enough you don’t seem to believe that this would be biased sourcing!

Montalban:

Thus the Pope is the supreme head of the church. Even the college of cardinals can do nothing without him. How do you think this contradicts with what I’ve already cited?

Ghosty:

Where on Earth are you getting that from those passages? In fact, are you aware of how a Pope is selected in the first place? Not familiar with the term “sede vacante”, eh?

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#I
(This is also given at the site you cite in post #95) It has NO POWER EXCEPT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE POPE!
It repeats this next up…
884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

But earlier, and you ignore this, which I posted already
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#I

Again, your own cite repeats my stance!
"The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v3.html
The site then goes on to the Peter-is-the-rock argument, which is not agreed to by the various Church Fathers I cited in the opening posts to this thread.

The Catholic mode of operation is that the Pope is a priestly prince. He is the head of the Church and he rules through the use of a college, which he appoints members to! He is the bishop over other bishops!

IN CONTRAST to this is the examples of Pope Victor’s day wherein the Pope lauched proceedings to excommunicate a bishop in another bishopric. He was chastised for it. For he had no right to do so. There are to be no bishops over bishops.

The Orthodox Church follows the method by which no bishop is head over any other bishop in matters ecclesiastical. The Roman model is a Papal prince who holds power over other bishops. Who offer “…due submission to the primacy of the pope.”
newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
The Pope appoints cardinals and confirms bishops. He might ‘delegate’ some of his power to others, but it is his power to delegate!

You’ve said that if I don’t you won’t bother to respond. Well, to be frank, I don’t care! I’ve tried to bring you up to speed on Catholic doctrine. You don’t even bother to check your own sources!

 

[Philthy]

Hi Montalban! Hi Ghosty! :yup:

Take a couple of deep breaths guys - this is a very worthwhile thread and even though I can’t hope to keep up with you, it is fascinating to follow along slowly. I do have one comment on the following exchange:

Originally Posted by Montalban
*Thus the Pope is the supreme head of the church. Even the college of cardinals can do nothing without him. How do you think this contradicts with what I’ve already cited? *

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
Where on Earth are you getting that from those passages? In fact, are you aware of how a Pope is selected in the first place? Not familiar with the term “sede vacante”, eh?

Montalban - your statement that “the college of cardinals can do nothing without him”, meaning the pope, is misleading. Ghosty attempted to point that out to you (see above) in consideration of the fact that the bishops elect the pope - during the time that there is no pope. This would seem to clearly refute your claim - at least in this limited instance.
I am not picking sides - I hope you both see that - Im quite sure neither of you would really want me on your side
I will add one last thing: no one took me up on the offer to define for us the criteria by which we would judge the historical data. I find that, well, odd. At the very least I would think a critical evaluation of the method will allow you both to see that competing interpretations are possible and that, more than likely, the endpoint will be agreeing to disagree. Hopefully that would be an endpoint that can be reached with mutual respect.
You will both have a valid point in interpreting a particular reading of an ECF. However the degree to which you feel comfortable interpreting essentially circumstantial “evidence” as it relates to the specific role of the Pope throughout the history of the church is not something which will ultimately be easy to unify. Don’t you think there’s good reason for this debate existing for over a thousand years?
Sorry to interrupt -
Phil

 

[Ghosty]

I do note that you have cited two sources, however they agree with me.

If they agree with you, then how do the cardinals select a Pope when the seat of Peter is vacant? How is the U.S. Conference of Bishops able to issue documents like these without direct Papal (name removed by moderator)ut:

usccb.org/hispanicaffairs/encuentromission.shtml
usccb.org/bishops/norms.shtml
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html
usccb.org/bishops/charter.shtml
usccb.org/laity/laymin/layecclesial.shtml
usccb.org/education/ourhearts.htm
usccb.org/laity/ygadult/toc.shtml

The list goes on and on, and this is just from my own country. Take note that most of American Catholics are even members of the Roman Church, and the autocephalus Churches have even wider ranges of authority without requiring the Pope’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

You attempt again to do so by asking where was Paul bishop of Rome? Where was Peter bishop of Rome? The article I cited states that Linus received his ‘power’ from the church founded by Peter and Paul. You claim it must have been by Peter, because it was, because it was, because it was.

No, I’ve explained that the authority passed from Peter upon his death to the Bishop of Rome, not as an inherent right of the Bishopric from the word go. The authority was Peter’s before there even was a Church in Rome, as can be seen by the Church’s historical understanding of the keys and the rock of faith, and has been brought up in citations all up and down this thread. It was only upon Peter’s death in Rome that Linus became Pope, the successor of Peter in the sense of Papal authority, and the authority passed down through the Bishopric of Rome.

As for where does it say that Peter was bishop of Rome? Honestly I simply expected that you were familiar with this claim, since it’s one that the Orthodox have always accepted, to my knowledge. I answered this many posts ago with St. Cyprian’s 51st Epistle, to which you responded with a citation of a New Advent article that admits that up until the 9th Century Rome was the only place celebrated as the “Chair of Peter”, and that the additions of Antioch being recognized as such in celebration were interpolations.

St. Cyprian recognized Rome as the Chair of Peter, and that Cornelius was Peter’s successor. Rome was universally recognized as the very unique and special place of Peter’s for nearly a millenium. To get around this you cite St. Irenaeus who never says that Peter was not bishop of Rome, only that Linus was named bishop of Rome, not first Bishop. I commented on this, and you never returned to it, instead doing a lengthy quotation of non-ecclesiastical sources to show that the Church views the Pope as some kind of tyrant. All of this was addressed, and you are simply ignoring it.

Now moving onto Cypiran. Your own quote states that no bishop has power over another bishop.

Yes, in the local synod of Carthage. St. Cyprian never speaks universally in this meeting, only locally and to his given audience. That is indeed the primary difference between the quote you’ve been using, and the actual text.

But then we go back in circles to your misunderstanding of the Papacy, which when I’ve tried to correct, you based your own ‘retort’ on the age of the Catholic cite.

sigh
Have you read the Church documents I posted on the matter? Apparently not, or you would not be saying this. My critique on New Advent was that it was outdated theological opinion, rather than constant Church teaching.

Which is incorrect, given the title of that article shows that the Pope had made a ruling, and that Cyprian, not bound by that ruling, set about to convene a council to judge it locally - which as I said, each bishop is the head of his own bishopric, which, again brings us back in circles on your own misunderstanding of the Catholic position about the Pope.

What article? The actual record of the synod has no indication of a papal ruling. Where are you getting this?

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

Actually, now that we’re on about evidence, even your own critique about my sourcing is astounding consindering that I’ve cited the ccel.org site since day one and you claim to have ‘tracked it down’. Then you give your own opinion (AGAIN) as to why it’s inaccurate.

You’ve cited it, but then you couldn’t track down the part of that site the quote was from? I tracked down the part of the site it was from when you couldn’t, that’s what I was refering to. I find it funny that you call it “my opinion” when I actually showed the differences between your 17th century Anglican quote, and the actual documentation of St. Cyprian’s words side by side. It’s not my opinion that they are different, they are different, one (the original) is addressing a local synod and how it shall be conducted, and the other is made out to address the entire Church (which would be odd for any local synod to do in the first place).

You then demand that I post only from Catholic sites! Not only do you reject Catholic sources when presented to you (see newadvent site dispute), you now demand that I only cite Catholic sources! Oddly enough you don’t seem to believe that this would be biased sourcing!

I never said you should only post from Catholic sites, just that you should be using official Church documents to show what the official Church belief and policy is. You haven’t been doing this at all, rather you’ve been posting biased and incorrect accounts of what the Church believes. Let’s get the word on Church beliefs from the Church’s own mouth, not Whelton’s. That is not asking too much, nor is it asking that you only cite Catholic sources in general in this discussion.

(This is also given at the site you cite in post #95) It has NO POWER EXCEPT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE POPE!

Yes, but this does not mean what you imply, as I’ve shown with the fact that the College of Cardinals exercises power without even the existance of a Pope. It is simply saying that the Pope has veto power, which is what I’ve been saying all along. Their power doesn’t require the Pope’s initial personal agreement, only that it doesn’t meet with Papal veto. There is a big difference between positive agreement, and negative agreement, and this is illustrated by the authority of the College of Cardinals.

Again, your own cite repeats my stance!

Yes, but again you are making it into more than it is. The Pope can always act unhindered, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of the Church can only act with his active and positive approval, which is disproved by the autonomous activity of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They can meet and make decisions, which the Pope can later veto, but they don’t need to run it all by him first, and often they go under the radar of Rome entirely.

IN CONTRAST to this is the examples of Pope Victor’s day wherein the Pope lauched proceedings to excommunicate a bishop in another bishopric. He was chastised for it. For he had no right to do so. There are to be no bishops over bishops.

The Pope never made an infallible declaration on it, so they were perfectly right in chastising him. He expressed his own desire, but his own desire does not equate to infallible expression of Papal authority.

You’ve said that if I don’t you won’t bother to respond. Well, to be frank, I don’t care! I’ve tried to bring you up to speed on Catholic doctrine. You don’t even bother to check your own sources!

By all means, continue to try to do so. You’ll have to address the independant motions of the U.S.C.C.B. in order to “correct” me, though. Good luck!

 

[Ghosty]

Philthy: My apologies, I didn’t realize your question was directed at everyone so I refrained from answering it. In your first post you asked Montalban specifically, so I didn’t think you were asking the rest of us.

If you would like an answer from me, I’ll be happy to give you one. Just let me know

 

[Philthy]

Ghosty:

Philthy: My apologies, I didn’t realize your question was directed at everyone so I refrained from answering it. In your first post you asked Montalban specifically, so I didn’t think you were asking the rest of us.

If you would like an answer from me, I’ll be happy to give you one. Just let me know

You are correct that the original request was made to Montalban.
I would like to hear a brief response from anyone who is willing to post an answer. I do not wish to derail the thread. I think it is important, however, because what seems to be happening is:

• A contentious topic of discussion is initiated
• ECF comments which don’t explicitly deal with the topic are cited
• Each side has a mutually exclusive interpretation of how that comment relates to the topic
• Little progress is made towards unity of understanding
• The resulting frustration leads to hostility

what’s your take?

Phil

ps How do you guys read all this stuff? How long have you been researching the ECFs as it relates to this topic?

 

[steve_b]

Montalban:

Thanks. See this footnote…
[The Apostolic See of the West was necessarily all this in the eyes of an unambitious faithful Western co-bishop; but the letter itself proves that it was not the See of one who had any authority over or apart from his co-bishops. Let us not read into his expressions ideas which are an after-thought, and which conflict with the life and all the testimony of Cyprian.]

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-79.htm#P5695_1758177

When footnotes in this case are opinions by a Protestant polemicist, how helpful can that be?.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Montalban, have a think about the argument your promoting and the reasoning that your using.

If no Bishop has power over another Bishop then technically no group of bishops can have power over another Bishop, puting a group of them together does not make them “infalliable”

If you go down the track of some sort of gathering of the Bishops as being the deciders of what is true and not true etc then you also have to define exactly how many bishops of the bishops are required for a “binding council” or teaching.

Not only that you would have to show where historically speaking a decision was made by the whole Church where they defined the exact number of Bishops and necessarily representatives from the 4 corners of the globe required to be present to make a “binding decision”.

If you can’t state exactly what the requirements are then any reasoning you have about the orthodox church being the true church is purely and utterly a circle becasue you want to believe it so.

Now that does not automatically make the Catholic Church claim that the Popes “approval” is automatically the right one becasue The catholic Church can define its requirment fro “binding decision”

It merely means that one can use sound reasoning then to measure the merits of the Catholic Church claim.

Reliegeon to a a large degree is based on faith rather than provable fact, but that does not mean that we cannot use reasoning to determine the more likely one.

 

[Ghosty]

Philthy:

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?
• If your analysis is correct, what do you feel is the most significant practical aspect of that reality for a Roman Catholic

I think that comments and writings of the ECFs are useful insofar as they demonstrate an ancient understanding of practices and beliefs that are present today. They do not represent any kind of dogma in and of themselves, but rather offer us an insight into the minds of great theologians who lived in the days of the Early Church, and we can see the Early Church reflected in their words.

The problem with Montalban’s argument, as Tim Hayes has just pointed out, is that while the ECFs can be understood, in some isolated and debatable circumstances, to contradict Catholic belief and practice, those same interpretations prevent Orthodox understanding and practice insofar as Ecumenical Councils are concerned.

On the other hand, when the Catholic understanding is taken, it preserves not just what we know of modern Catholic belief and actions, but the very foundation of the authority that we know of from the centuries before the Great Schism, namely the Ecumenical Councils that the Orthodox do recognize as being authoritative. This is significant because only the Catholic interpretation supports all points of history for the existance of the Church, only it explains the things that both the Orthodox and the Catholics accept.

The Orthodox attack on the Catholic Church using the ECFs actually undermines their own authority just as much, because it leaves absolutely no room for explaining how the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were binding in the face of widespread heresies such as Arianism.

So, in short, the only useful interpretation of the ECFs is one that preserves what we know of all stages of Church history, both before and after the Schism. Beyond that it begins to become more and more a matter of faith and conviction, with either side trying to defend their own position as viable rather than taking down the other.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Montalban:

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.

The powers given to the twelve in Matthew 18:18 relates to authority within limited jurisdiction, as apposed to that in Matthew 16 given to Peter over the whole Church.
Origen in Commentary on Matthew 18:18 (Commentary XIII) says “In the case of Peter, this saying “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,” has been specially set before the words, “And what things soever ye shall bind on earth,” etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class.” In other words Peter authority given in Ch16 was pre-eminent to that given to the Apostles in Ch18

The authority given to Peter to bind and loose is given over the whole Church, it is related to the Keys and Peter being appointed as head of it. Each Church being Catholic or not relates to its communion with the head of the Church. In communion with him they share in the power of the keys and they have authority collectively over the Church.

Pax

Brian

---

---

 

[Brian_Ingram]

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

St John Chrysostom in his Homily 88: 1 on the Gospel of John clearly teaches that Jesus puts into Peters hands the chief authority among the Twelve

“Jesus saith to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me more than these? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee.” “He saith unto him, Feed My sheep.” And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of 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.”

Your quote "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” being given equal charge does not equate with equal authority. If St John Chrysostom had meant it that way it would clearly go against what he had earlier written [1] “Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren.”

Montalban:

”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”

I have answered this in an earlier post. All Bishops in union with Peter share in the Keys. Again the Catholic position is in harmony with the whole of Saint John Chrysostom writings, as apposed to your taking his writings out of context in a way that appears he is a fool that contradicts himself…

Pax

Brian

 

[Montalban]

Philthy:

Hi Montalban! Hi Ghosty! :yup:

Take a couple of deep breaths guys - this is a very worthwhile thread and even though I can’t hope to keep up with you, it is fascinating to follow along slowly. I do have one comment on the following exchange:

Originally Posted by Montalban
Thus the Pope is the supreme head of the church. Even the college of cardinals can do nothing without him. How do you think this contradicts with what I’ve already cited?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosty
Where on Earth are you getting that from those passages? In fact, are you aware of how a Pope is selected in the first place? Not familiar with the term “sede vacante”, eh?

Montalban - your statement that “the college of cardinals can do nothing without him”, meaning the pope, is misleading. Ghosty attempted to point that out to you (see above) in consideration of the fact that the bishops elect the pope - during the time that there is no pope. This would seem to clearly refute your claim - at least in this limited instance.
I am not picking sides - I hope you both see that - Im quite sure neither of you would really want me on your side
I will add one last thing: no one took me up on the offer to define for us the criteria by which we would judge the historical data. I find that, well, odd. At the very least I would think a critical evaluation of the method will allow you both to see that competing interpretations are possible and that, more than likely, the endpoint will be agreeing to disagree. Hopefully that would be an endpoint that can be reached with mutual respect.
You will both have a valid point in interpreting a particular reading of an ECF. However the degree to which you feel comfortable interpreting essentially circumstantial “evidence” as it relates to the specific role of the Pope throughout the history of the church is not something which will ultimately be easy to unify. Don’t you think there’s good reason for this debate existing for over a thousand years?
Sorry to interrupt -
Phil

Thanks, however the Catholic church quite clearly states…
883 “The college or body of bishops has **no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” **As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#I

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty, what a mixed up argument. You say that I should cite original sources, then to prove how inaccurate my source is to ‘the original’, you cite the quote from ccel.org. Then in the same breath you demand that I don’t use ccel.org, but only Catholic sources, but then again you demand that I abandon one Catholic source - the on-line encyclopaedia, because it’s ‘too old’ (which it isn’t)! Wow!

Then, you deny that the Pope’s the monarch of the Church, because you claim that Whelton’s argument against it is a straw-man. Here’s some information that denies this (some of which, not surprisingly, is Catholic)

“THOSE WHO SUCCEED PETER IN ROME SUCCEED HIM ALSO IN THE SUPREME HEADSHIP
History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries.”
newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
The doctrine of papal primacy upholds the divine authority of the Successor of St. Peter to rule over the entire Church with ordinary and immediate jurisdiction.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm
i) universal: it extends to the whole Church, i.e. to all the members of the Church (pastors and faithful) as to all the various matters which can arise;
ii) ordinary: it is not extraordinary, which would mean that it can be used only in exceptional circumstances; nor is it delegated, that is, it belongs inherently to the office of Pope and is not delegated to him by someone else;
iii) supreme: meaning that it is not subordinated to any other authority;
iv) full: it takes in all questions which might arise in the life of the Church, and does so from every point of view;
v) immediate: it need not be exercised through intermediaries and where necessary can have the most practical applications.
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papab3.htm
Today the pope is regarded generally as the supreme head of the Catholic Church and, among Catholics, as the head of the universal Christian Church
See also
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

It is based on the very notion that “Catholic” means “universal” (which I’ve already demonstrated was not what it meant, when it was first used: it meant ‘complete’ because each church headed by a bishop was complete, and therefore “Catholic”)

Now, against these claims are the actual examples from Church history, such as that in the issue of Pope Victor who DID NOT HOLD PRIMACY OVER OTHER BISHOPS - which is evidenced from him being rebuked by other bishops.

 

[Montalban]

You simply continue to ignore this and make claims that I haven’t read what you’ve cited. I’ve cited the Cathechism twice already (and once more below) which completely disagrees with you.

Montalban:

I do note that you have cited two sources, however they agree with me.

Ghosty:

If they agree with you, then how do the cardinals select a Pope when the seat of Peter is vacant? How is the U.S. Conference of Bishops able to issue documents like these without direct Papal (name removed by moderator)ut:

The Pope has delegated them the power to do so, so the power still resides within the Pope as the supreme head of the church, which is what I’ve already stated, and what you’ve ignored. Again!
All you’ve done is pointed out an obvious anomaly with the Catholic idea of Papal primacy… which is, after-all an invention of Catholicism, and thus your own problem.
I must repate AGAIN what your own church says about it…
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#I
(This is also given at the site you cite in post #95) It has NO POWER EXCEPT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE POPE!
It repeats this next up…
884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

Montalban:

You attempt again to do so by asking where was Paul bishop of Rome? Where was Peter bishop of Rome? The article I cited states that Linus received his ‘power’ from the church founded by Peter and Paul. You claim it must have been by Peter, because it was, because it was, because it was.

Ghosty:

No, I’ve explained that the authority passed from Peter upon his death to the Bishop of Rome, not as an inherent right of the Bishopric from the word go. The authority was Peter’s before there even was a Church in Rome, as can be seen by the Church’s historical understanding of the keys and the rock of faith, and has been brought up in citations all up and down this thread. It was only upon Peter’s death in Rome that Linus became Pope, the successor of Peter in the sense of Papal authority, and the authority passed down through the Bishopric of Rome.

You don’t realise that this is a just-so argument you make. The document clealy says that Linus received his authority in the church that was founded by Peter and Paul. Neither were bishops of Rome! Show me where it says this.

Ghosty:

As for where does it say that Peter was bishop of Rome? Honestly I simply expected that you were familiar with this claim, since it’s one that the Orthodox have always accepted, to my knowledge. I answered this many posts ago with St. Cyprian’s 51st Epistle, to which you responded with a citation of a New Advent article that admits that up until the 9th Century Rome was the only place celebrated as the “Chair of Peter”, and that the additions of Antioch being recognized as such in celebration were interpolations.

That’s not entirely true either. I said that the Antiochian text was acknowledged EVEN THOUGH it was added later - because Antioch was also founded by Peter.

Ghosty:

St. Cyprian recognized Rome as the Chair of Peter, and that Cornelius was Peter’s successor. Rome was universally recognized as the very unique and special place of Peter’s for nearly a millenium. To get around this you cite St. Irenaeus who never says that Peter was not bishop of Rome, only that Linus was named bishop of Rome, not first Bishop.

NO. It says he received his authority in relation with the church founded by Peter AND Paul.
“the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch, Saint Gregory the Great (on whom De La Salle wrote a meditation for March 12) says that Saint Peter was regarded as the head of the Church in Antioch for seven years prior to his going to Rome. The feast is now called simply the Chair of Peter. It was celebrated as early as the fourth century in Rome itself.”
cbhs.org/lasallian_resources/February_22.htm
Antioch was also known as the Chair of Peter.
And Ignatius of Antioch is known as the second bishop…
“Chapter XXII. Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.
11 At this time Ignatius175 was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first.176 Symeon177 likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.”
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1497_696002

 

[Montalban]

Peter was not the first bishop of Antioch either!
Calling Rome the Chair of Peter is correct as is calling it an Apostolic See. Peter sat there and taught. And he was an Apostle. These terms however are not the exclusive domain of Rome, any more then me calling you “Mr.” is, by reason of being correct in address to you is not exclusive to you.

Ghosty:

I commented on this, and you never returned to it, instead doing a lengthy quotation of non-ecclesiastical sources to show that the Church views the Pope as some kind of tyrant. All of this was addressed, and you are simply ignoring it.

No, he is the head monarch of the church. I have cited the cathechism for this, now three times. To which you give me an apeal to incredulity.

Montalban:

Now moving onto Cypiran. Your own quote states that no bishop has power over another bishop.

Ghosty:

Yes, in the local synod of Carthage. St. Cyprian never speaks universally in this meeting, only locally and to his given audience. That is indeed the primary difference between the quote you’ve been using, and the actual text.

You seem confused here.
a) it doesn’t say that this is restricted to only Carthage.
and
b) if it is restricted to only Carthage, then you are acknowledging bishop can rule over another bishop, which is the exact argument you’re arguing against, in relation to the powers of the Pope!
Please stick to one line of debate.

Montalban:

But then we go back in circles to your misunderstanding of the Papacy, which when I’ve tried to correct, you based your own ‘retort’ on the age of the Catholic cite. Which as noted above, is you attempting to have all arguments at once. Sort this out, and then get back to me.

Ghosty:

Have you read the Church documents I posted on the matter?

You are being dishonest. I have cited the catechism. Now three times where it disagrees with you

Ghosty:

Apparently not, or you would not be saying this. My critique on New Advent was that it was outdated theological opinion, rather than constant Church teaching.

Yes, and this is dishonest of you. This, by the way will be the last time I address you directly, lest you have something new to say.

Montalban:

Which is incorrect, given the title of that article shows that the Pope had made a ruling, and that Cyprian, not bound by that ruling, set about to convene a council to judge it locally - which as I said, each bishop is the head of his own bishopric, which, again brings us back in circles on your own misunderstanding of the Catholic position about the Pope.

Ghosty:

What article? The actual record of the synod has no indication of a papal ruling. Where are you getting this?

Considering that I cited the site, your question is (although its the second time you’ve done this) truly bizzare.

 

[Montalban]

steve b:

When footnotes in this case are opinions by a Protestant polemicist, how helpful can that be?.

Are selectivity! Ghosty actually demanded that I look at that cite for a ‘proper’ (my word) version of a quote! (whilst at the same time demanding that I only cite Catholic sources, and that he ‘discovered’ this site which I’d been using for days - evidence that he doesn’t read my posts)