Who is 'the Rock'?

[Montalban]

Brian Ingram:

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.

I don’t mind using an unorthodox writer either (start by taking note of the title)

Origen
11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,"71 hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”?72 Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"73 be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,"74 etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit,"75 etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord"76 they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."77 And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,78 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom.79 And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “Thou art Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.” But what is the “it”? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs,80 cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock,81 is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.”[1]

Note:

---

[1] ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm

 

[Montalban]

Brian Ingram:

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
I have already cited
christiantruth.com/stephenray.html
Which shows that the language of John Chrysostomon, though of praise for Peter was, also of equal praise for others. He does not confuse himself, because when he speaks of Peter he is full of praise, and is justified for being so. And he is for the other Apostles, and is justified for being so. You seem hower to separate these too and thing ‘wowee, he’s talking up Peter here’ and making nothing of when he praises someone else - except if it’s to invent an occasion that he’s only doing so in conjunction with Peter, because of your a priori, that he must be - even if he’s not expressing it. So that when he mentions Peter and John having the keys, you read into this that John can’t have it without Peter - even though it’s not stated so. You believe so, because you do.

 

[Montalban]

Philthy:

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?

I was forced to, as I already noted, by being barraged by three different Catholics with a quote mine of stuff alleging that the Orthodox church has always believed that Peter was the head of the Church.

I found myself without answers, so I researched their quotes to find that a great many were out of context, which I will happily example (again; a third time).

From post #12
Claim:Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).
Counter:As it was a See founded by an Apostle it is Apostolic. It is not ‘the’ Apostolic throne.
“because it was an Apostolical throne;”
Athanasius History of the Arians 35[2]
Also See THE APOSTOLIC THRONE OF ANDREW AND JOHN[3]
Notes:
[2] ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-51.htm#P4861_1933128
[3] patriarchate.org/ecumenical_patriarchate/chapter_1/throne_of_Andrew_and_john.html

Thus the claim that Rome is called an “Apostolic Throne” whilst accurate, has to be viewed in context that it’s not a title that’s exclusive to Rome; likewise the term “Chair of Peter”. To me I am combating dishonest selective use of ‘evidence’.

I certainly am indeed feeling frustrated, and have stated this to the appropriate poster. However if you wish to know anything else, please feel free to ask me. Though I can’t say how long I’ll be posting here, as you’ll see this session of posts spans an hour and I don’t look forward to expending so much of my time on one forum (I am on several including
christianforums.com/f76-non-christian-religion.html
I mention this site, because I was invited by a Catholic from that site to come to this site to debate him on this issue. He had failed to do this and I feel like he has attempted to draw me from a larger forum to this one - almost a sense of entrapment -tying in nicely with dishonest posters!

 

[Sirach14]

I don’t understand why why the opponents of the Papacy can’t understand there is no difficulty between the Rock, and the profession of faith. Pope John Paul II, in his book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”, refers to the rock of Matthew. 16 as Peter and as Christ: ’ He [Peter] became the ‘rock’, even if as a man, perhaps he was nothing more than shifting sand. *Christ Himself is the rock,*and Christ builds His Church on Peter—on Peter, Paul, and the apostles. The Church is apostolic in virtue of Christ…In the Church----built on the rock that is Christ—Peter, the apostles. and their successors are witnesses of God crucified and risen in Christ" (9-11)

 

[Sirach14]

Paragraph 552 of the *catechism of the Catholic Church, *refers to Peter as the ‘Rock’ by stating ’ Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’" Our Lord then declared to him: ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’" Christ, the ‘living stone,’" thus assures *his Church, built on Peter, *of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he *confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church"’ *(Vatican city: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994) But the Catechism earlier asserts that the ‘rock’" is Peter’s *faith! *‘Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’" On this faith confessed by St.Peter, Christ built his Church’" ( CCC424) *The Fathers used matthew 16 in many ways—*as does the Catholic Church today."

 

[Sirach14]

“Even if, for the sake of argument, Augustine had said that Peter was definitely not the rock in Matthew 16 (which, by the way, no Father ever said), the Fathers taught and practiced what most Evangelicals fail to understand–that the Petrine succession was apostolic origin and was an organic outgrowth of the Holy Spirit’s leading and protection of the Church and would have been adhered to even if Matthew 16 had not existed.” ( Upon This Rock, by Steve Ray, pg232)

 

[steve_b]

Montalban:

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)

My point specifically was that Schaff, a Protestant, as all the Protestants who wrote footnotes into the writings of the ECF’s on the CCEL site, aren’t balanced. They’re polemics disguised as scholarship. I personally ignore their footnotes.

 

[Ghosty]

Montalban: Your arguments are based on personal bias and strawmen, and I’ve shown this time and time again. I have no faith that you will actually listen to reason, so I’m going to stop now. You continue to put words in my mouth, strawmen in place of actual Catholic belief, and dodging questions posed to you by falling back on bias. I’m confident that your argument has been thoroughly debunked, and I see no reason to try and convince you of that fact.

If neither of us are going to add anything new for eachother, it’s time to cut it off.

If anyone else has comments or questions regarding anything I’ve written, I’ll be glad to address them.

I will thank you, Montalban, for getting me to dig deeper into the ECFs and Church documents, and therefore securing me even further into the Catholic faith.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Montalban:

I have already cited
christiantruth.com/stephenray.html
Which shows that the language of John Chrysostomon, though of praise for Peter was, also of equal praise for others. He does not confuse himself, because when he speaks of Peter he is full of praise, and is justified for being so. And he is for the other Apostles, and is justified for being so… So that when he mentions Peter and John having the keys, you read into this that John can’t have it without Peter - even though it’s not stated so. You believe so, because you do.

Chrysostom giving praise and honour to various Apostles should not be confused with him clearly acknowledging Peter leadership. Chrysostom clearly teaches that it was Peter who was intrusted with the Keys, and leadership of the Church.
“This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation.” (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48])

Dom John Chapman’s Studies on the Early Papacy and originally from the “Dublin Review” (January 1903).on line at bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm helps to further clarify Chrysostom position in regards Peter

And I quote in part
"The commonest title of all is coryphaeus, the head-man, or (of a chorus) leader, conductor. The word of itself implies no idea of jurisdiction. It is used in the singular by St. Chrysostom of St. Peter only, so far as I can discover, but he calls Peter, James and John together, “the coryphaei” :

“He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart…Why does he take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…‘We are able to drink the chalice.’” (Hom 56[57] in Matt, vol VII, 550[566])

“Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation (by Herod).” (Hom 26 in Acta, vol IX, 198[208] and ibid, 199[209])

“He said not to Peter, ‘If thou lovest Me, do miracles,’ but, ‘Feed My sheep’; and everywhere giving him more honor than the rest, with James and John, wherefore, tell me, did he prefer him?” (Hom 46[47] in Matt 3, vol VII, 480[485])

And similarly with Andrew they are “the two pairs of coryphaei” (Hom 37[38] in Matt, vol VII, 424[420]), or James and John, or Peter and John, are “the two coryphaei” (Hom 32[33] in Matt, vol VII, 380[368] and Hom 10 in Acta, vol IX, 85[80]), and so especially are St. Peter and Paul:

Still “the coryphaeus” par excellence is Peter. It is best to give St. Chrysostom’s own explanation.

“In the Kingdom, therefore, the honors were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three were above the rest; and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact tot he last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left,’ he said, ‘is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,’ And He set Peter before them saying: ‘Lovest thou Me more than these?’ And John loved Him more than the rest. For of all there will be an exact examination; and if you excel your neighbor ever so little, God will not overlook it.” (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750])" ENDQUOTEChapman further states “'I have been at pains to find and read whatever St. Chrysostom has said about St. Peter, and I have found more than ninety passages to copy out and set together, having reference either to the primacy of St. Peter or to his relations with the other apostles. The conclusion at which I have arrived, and at which I expect the reader to arrive, is that St. John Chrysostom, at once the most voluminous and the most popular of the Greek Fathers, believed and taught, and was ever anxious and careful to teach, that St. Peter was really the chief ruler of the Church.”

Pax

Brian

 

[Sirach14]

*Letter of Cyprian to Antonianus, a Bishop in Numidia 55 (52), 1, written between 251 and 252, *in Jurgens , *Faith of the Early Fathers, *1;230. “If you want to be in communion with the whole Catholic Church, you must be in immediate communion with the bishop of Rome. This was the assurance of orthodoxy, unity, and communion.” (Upon This Rock, by Steve Ray,pg. 184)

Letter of Cyprian to Antonianus, a Bishop in Numidia 51, 6, written 252, ANF 5:328. " Why was it necessary to write to Rome? If Cyprian believed in the universal equality of all bishops, why was it necessary to acquire Rome’s approval? Why was it necessary to relieve a doubt as to the insufficiency of the ’ large number’ of African bishps by appealing to Rome? These letters of cyprian demonstrate his practical, day-to-day recognition of the primacy of the Roman bishop, which belies some of the theoretical modifications he seems to have made later in his bishopric."

 

[Sirach14]

*Cornelius * Pope] *to Cyprian, on the Return of the Confessors to Unity *[Epistle 49, 2 (45 in coxe)], aanf 5:323. “Many had followed the heretic Novatian; and when they repented and confessed the truth, Pope Cornelius received them back into communion with the Church. He quotes verbatim their words of repentance in this letter. Cornelius informs Cyprian of the solemn return of the Roman confessors who had been deceived and alienated from the Church by the craft and malice of Novatian. It is clear again, even at this early age of the Church, that the primacy of Rome was the safeguard and gateway of orthodox teaching.” (Upon This Rock, Steve Ray; pg.186)

*To Father *[Pope] *Stephenus, concerning Marcianus of Arles, who had joined himself to Novatian; Epistle *LXVI, ANF 5:367-69. “If Cyprian held to the equality of all bishops, is it not a bit strange that he would write to Pope Stephen requesting that he excommunicate Marcion, the bishop of Arles? Even Cyprian, whom many hold up as a Father opposing the Papacy appealed to Rome to exercise its jurisdiction over the universal Church. Is this a primacy of honor only, or one also of jurisdiction?” (Upon this rock, by Steve Ray, pg 186-187)

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Montalban:

I don’t mind using an unorthodox writer either (start by taking note of the title)

Origen
11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,"71 hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them?

In the “Gates of Hell will not prevail against it” the “it” is clearly the Church. In regards to Origen statment “Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles”
The gates of hell did prevail against the Apostle Judas. However it was only Peter that Christ prayed for in Luke 22:32 “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”
Clearly it is though Peter and his office that the faith of the Church is preserved against error

Montalban:

And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”?72 Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"73 be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only,

As I have said before the Bishops who are the sucessors of the Apostles and are in communion with Peters sucessor share in the Keys. Those not in communion that is in schism or heretical do not share in them. The perfect illustration is heretical or schismatic Bishops in Councils such as the so called “Robber Council” of. Ephesus(449) They have no authority within the Church.
Cyprian, explains it thus:
“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)

Pax

Brian

 

[Philthy]

Montalban:

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

Here’s what you said:
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? *

These are different statements. “Can do nothing” is not " have no authority".

In the “Hierarchical Constitution of the Church” “Christ himself is the source of ministry”.
879 The Sacramental ministry… has both a personal character and a collegial form. This is evidenced by the bonds between the episcopal college and its head, the successor to St Peter, and in the bishops pastoral responsibility for his particular church and the common solicitude of the episcopal college for the universal Church.
**Within the context of the collegial form of this Sacramental ministry: **
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.

What exactly is your gripe with this?

Phil

 

[Montalban]

Philthy:

Here’s what you said:
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?

These are different statements. “Can do nothing” is not " have no authority".

In the “Hierarchical Constitution of the Church” “Christ himself is the source of ministry”.
879 The Sacramental ministry… has both a personal character and a collegial form. This is evidenced by the bonds between the Episcopal college and its head, the successor to St Peter, and in the bishops pastoral responsibility for his particular church and the common solicitude of the Episcopal college for the universal Church.
**Within the context of the collegial form of this Sacramental ministry: **
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.

What exactly is your gripe with this?

Phil

I have attempted to demonstrate that the position of the Pope in relation to the early church is not as it is now, within the Catholic Church.

To do this I have shown that with the case of Pope Victor, he was sternly rebuked for attempting to excommunicate a bishop in another bishopric. This happened because the early church viewed all bishops to be equal to all other bishops - which is contrasted to the Catholic Church where the power of the Pope has been ‘developed’ to a point where the Pope is a church-prince. All power comes from him as the bishop of bishops/Christ’s vicar on earth.

Now someone like Ghosty could argue that this was a justifiable development of power, however he has argued that I have misunderstood the way the church governs itself today. And my statement ‘can do nothing without him’ is still true. All their power derives from him (in Catholic doctrine) as the supreme bishop. The fact that there are anomanalies to this is to me not surprising. There was even a time when there were three popes, thus three different people each claiming to be sole representative of Peter. These anomalies, I think heighten the problems of Catholic developed doctrine.

When I say they can do nothing without him, I don’t mean that every single decision has to be run past him. The pope has delegated power to others to do the work, and this in no way lessens his power. An analogy is that in the USA the President is the chief executive. Now just because someone in a post office sells stamps without directly consulting the chief of posts, or his chief, the President, in no way diminishes the President’s power. Perhaps a better choice of words, such as that they have no authority without him" could have been used; but this still leaves up in the air how they are able to elect a pope, when they need a pope to have authority to do so - lest they have residual authority vested in them from the previous pope… because you seem to think it is a problem for me to show how a new pope is elected by the cardinals, but even using your choice of words would not resolve this.

So, the Orthodox church continues with the collegiate system of church government. Titles such as ‘the Apostolic See’ and ‘the Chair of Peter’ are not unique to Rome.

However Rome did have ‘authority’ from being the seat of a major urban centre. This is not unique. Jerusalem, which had a ‘higher’ Apostolic tradition, was for some time of lesser accord that Caesarea (the major city of that province - ‘major’ in terms of civil position). Rome was also the ‘domain’ of two great church founders; Peter & Paul.

 

[Montalban]

Brian Ingram:

Chrysostom giving praise and honour to various Apostles should not be confused with him clearly acknowledging Peter leadership. Chrysostom clearly teaches that it was Peter who was intrusted with the Keys, and leadership of the Church.
“This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation.” (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48])

I don’t for a minute dispute that Peter was given the keys. All the Apostles were given the same powers. And in fact, as I’ve already quoted, he singled Peter AND John out in relation to the keys.
Brian Ingram:

Dom John Chapman’s Studies on the Early Papacy and originally from the “Dublin Review” (January 1903).on line at bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm helps to further clarify Chrysostom position in regards Peter
And I quote in part
"The commonest title of all is coryphaeus, the head-man, or (of a chorus) leader, conductor. The word of itself implies no idea of jurisdiction. It is used in the singular by St. Chrysostom of St. Peter only, so far as I can discover, but he calls Peter, James and John together, “the coryphaei” :

Naturally enough he uses the plural for more than one. And for some reason the fact he acknowledges that it implies no jurisdiction doesn’t seem to register with you.
Brian Ingram:

Still “the coryphaeus” par excellence is Peter. It is best to give St. Chrysostom’s own explanation.

No, he refers to Peter (s.) as leader (s.), because he is referring to only one person. He uses the exact same word (except the plural), when dealing with more than one.
It is the same as ‘leader’ and ‘leaders’. You believe that this distinction is not horizontal, but vertical. There is nothing to show this, other than your assumption that it must be so.
And, as he notes, it implies no actual jurisdiction. This is because Peter was never bishop or Rome, or Antioch, but a travelling Apostle, going about setting up churches. Paul did the same. Only James became a bishop, and when he did, he was the head of the church in Jerusalem, as shown by the example of Acts 15 where he presided.

“In the Kingdom, therefore, the honours were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three were above the rest; and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact tot he last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left,’ he said, ‘is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,’ And He set Peter before them saying: ‘Lovest thou Me more than these?’ And John loved Him more than the rest. For of all there will be an exact examination; and if you excel your neighbor ever so little, God will not overlook it.” (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750])" ENDQUOTE

So you’re suggesting (just by this quote) that Chrysostomon believed in a triumvirate! Peter and John are again singled out. Which argument then are you making?

 

[Montalban]

I have already quoted several of the texts you have. Here they are again, with the other times he uses the word.
from[1]

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

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

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

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

also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-62.htm#P5483_1689815

”Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI”

quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, p.169.

also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-33.htm#P1079_1025049

”The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election”

(Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265. Cited by Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928 ), p76).

”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).

---

[1] christiantruth.com/stephenray.html

 

[Montalban]

Brian Ingram:

Chapman further states “'I have been at pains to find and read whatever St. Chrysostom has said about St. Peter, and I have found more than ninety passages to copy out and set together, having reference either to the primacy of St. Peter or to his relations with the other apostles. The conclusion at which I have arrived, and at which I expect the reader to arrive, is that St. John Chrysostom, at once the most voluminous and the most popular of the Greek Fathers, believed and taught, and was ever anxious and careful to teach, that St. Peter was really the chief ruler of the Church.”

Pax
Brian

Yes, this would be his conclusion based on the assumption that when he calls Peter by a title, its significant, but when he calls others the same thing, it’s not significant… which is also something I stated in my previous post.

I thought about this last night as I was trying to sleep (I’m sick at the moment on anti-biotics). Initially I was thinking, well, by these verses one ‘might’ perhaps believe your case, till I remembered again the other things that you ignored. One is the example of church relations. It is well enough for a Catholic such as yourself to attempt a type of ‘sola scriptura’ argument (related to the quotes of Chrysostomon), but the context of the Church must be known. We know (and I’ve cited these instances already) that at the Council in Jerusalem, James headed it, not Peter. The instance with Victor shows that he had no power over other bishoprics. The first use of the word ‘Catholic’ meant ‘complete’ not ‘universal’, in that each church headed by a bishop is complete/Catholic…
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans "Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"[1]

“Each local church was under the complete authority of its bishop, elected for life by the clergy and representatives of the laity of the see, with the consent of the neighboring bishops, one of whom would consecrate him, so that the apostolic succession from Christ’s disciples would be maintained. The charismatic equality of all bishops has never been challenged in Eastern Christendom; but in the later part of the third century, in the period between the persecutions of Valerian and of Diocletian, when the number of Christians rose sharply, it became the custom of bishops to meet now and then in conclave in the local metropolis, under the presidency of the metropolitan bishop, who thus gradually obtained an undefined administrative and even spiritual authority over his fellows.”[2]

This administration tended to follow the pre-existing lines of Roman provincial administration. And likewise the conclaves followed the Roman pattern…

“Bishops adopted for many of their councils the official senatorial formulae of convocation. Like the Senate the council was a deliberate assembly, each bishop having equal rights in the discussion.”[3]

It is in knowing this that I understand Chrysostomon would call all the leaders of the church ‘leaders’.

---

[1] ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

[2] Runciman, S., (1977), “The Byzantine Theocracy”, (Cambridge University Press), p8.

[3] Davis, L. D., (1983), “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology”, (Michael Glazier Inc; Collegevile, Minnesota), p23.

 

[Montalban]

*Cornelius * Pope]
*to Cyprian, on the Return of the Confessors to Unity *[Epistle 49, 2 (45 in coxe)], aanf 5:323. “Many had followed the heretic Novatian; and when they repented and confessed the truth, Pope Cornelius received them back into communion with the Church. He quotes verbatim their words of repentance in this letter. Cornelius informs Cyprian of the solemn return of the Roman confessors who had been deceived and alienated from the Church by the craft and malice of Novatian. It is clear again, even at this early age of the Church, that the primacy of Rome was the safeguard and gateway of orthodox teaching.” (Upon This Rock, Steve Ray; pg.186)

*To Father *[Pope] *Stephenus, concerning Marcianus of Arles, who had joined himself to Novatian; Epistle *LXVI, ANF 5:367-69. “If Cyprian held to the equality of all bishops, is it not a bit strange that he would write to Pope Stephen requesting that he excommunicate Marcion, the bishop of Arles? Even Cyprian, whom many hold up as a Father opposing the Papacy appealed to Rome to exercise its jurisdiction over the universal Church. Is this a primacy of honor only, or one also of jurisdiction?” (Upon this rock, by Steve Ray, pg 186-187)

A few points, I can’t locate your references at ccel.org, so I won’t comment on them any more, except to say see Post #32 with regards Novatian, and the idea about one bishop having jurisdiction over another is something I have argued that the Catholic Church believes in, and something Ghosty says is a straw-man.

You are correct, from a Catholic stand-point, but you should bring this to his attention, which is what I’ve attempted to do. Argue amongst yourselves, if you like

 

[Ignatius]

Jesus wouldn’t have changed his name from Simon bar Jonah to Kephas (Rock in Aramaic) and then follow it by stating - on this kepha I will build my Church, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven - if the two didn’t go together. Taken as a whole, these statements clearly indicate that Simon was the object. Also you must keep in mind that the changing of a name by God in the Bible always means a significant event.

 

[Philthy]

Montalban:

I have attempted to demonstrate that the position of the Pope in relation to the early church is not as it is now, within the Catholic Church.

Fair enough

Montalban:

To do this I have shown that with the case of Pope Victor, he was sternly rebuked for attempting to excommunicate a bishop in another bishopric. This happened because the early church viewed all bishops to be equal to all other bishops - which is contrasted to the Catholic Church where the power of the Pope has been ‘developed’ to a point where the Pope is a church-prince. All power comes from him as the bishop of bishops/Christ’s vicar on earth.

There was some disagreement on this point between you and Ghosty. He interpreted the disagreement to be outside of “infallibility” , and that just because the pope has the power to unilaterally make decisions, he may choose not to fully exercise that right out of deference to his colleagues and the “collegiate episcopate”. He may have wished to do it(excommunicate), and he may have attempted to do it, but he did not choose to exercise any supreme papal authority in order to accomplish his wishes: that much is clear. What is not so clear, is whether that authority actually existed and he CHOSE not to exercise it(Ghosty’s view) or whether he did not exercise papal authority BECAUSE HE HAD NONE(Your position). We are left, in my opinion, not knowing, and forced to choose between two reasonable alternatives.
If he had issued something saying that he is exercising his “supreme authority” as Pontiff in this matter and all the rest of the bishops said “you have no such thing” - that would be something different. That would be your “smoking gun” But we don’t have that. It is not entirely possible to know, for certain, how that particular event in history should be applied to our specific understanding of papal authority. That’s why, BTW, I was interested in understanding the criteria to use in judging such information.

Phil