Who is 'the Rock'?

[Ghosty]

Philthy: I would add that although both positions are reasonable in the case of this one particular incident, only the Catholic position is reasonable when it comes to the whole history of the Church prior to the Schism. The whole system of Ecumenical Councils is based on the idea of certain bishops over-ruling others, sometimes those bishops making the ruling being in the minority (as in the case of Arianism).

The modern Orthodox, despite claims of preserving the traditional faith of the Apostles, has no way of convening such Ecumenical Councils, and has not since the split. The argument that Montalban is presenting logically leads to the inability of the Church to even call such Ecumenical Councils, because it denies the power of bishops to rule over other bishops. We can see in history, however, that bishops absolutely did rule over other bishops, even excommunicating them, even outside of Council. This is most notable when St. Cyprian requests that the Bishop of Rome, Stephen, unilaterally excommunicate Marcianus:

1. Wherefore it behoves you to write a very copious letter to our fellow-bishops appointed in Gaul, not to suffer any longer that Marcian, froward and haughty, and hostile to the divine mercy and to the salvation of the brotherhood, should insult our assembly, because he does not yet seem to be excommunicated by us…
2. Let letters be directed by you into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place, and Christ’s flock, which even to this day is contemned as scattered and wounded by him, may be gathered together.(can be found [here](3. Let letters be directed by you into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place, and Christ’s flock, which even to this day is contemned as scattered and wounded by him, may be gathered together.))

A letter from Pope Stephen by which Bishop Marcianus will be excommunicated and another put in his place. Sounds an awful lot like the power that Montalban is denying, and that the Church has claimed as the basis for both Papal decrees and Ecumenical Councils. It also supports our contention that the Pope simply didn’t issue a formal decree on the Easter Controversy that he was counsled against doing by Irenaeus, because here he is being asked to do exactly that by Cyprian: to exercise a power that Montalban denies the Pope having.

So, while both positions are reasonable when taken on individual letters, the Orthodox position quickly falls apart when looked at in the total face of history and their lack of Ecumenical Councils since the split.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Montalban:

I thought about this last night as I was trying to sleep (I’m sick at the moment on anti-biotics).

Sorry to hear you are ill.

Montalban:

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.

James as Bishop of Jerusalem where it was held chaired it. A chairman controls the conduct of a meeting and presides over it.

That should not be confused with Peter role as head of the Church, it was Peter who gave the lead in the meeting and after his speech the debate ended. James as presider of the meeting then wound it up. I have experience this myself in meetings where the local leader or president of a branch (in this case a Political Party) presided over the meeting in which the national leader of that Party his superior was present. The local branch president conducted the meeting in which the Party leader after lengthy discussions from all stood up and gave what his position on the matter being discussed was. Usually this ended discussions as the party leader had given a clear lead. The presider of the meeting would then call for a vote and the issue settled

Montalban:

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…

That he had the power to excommunicate the Asian Bishops in certain circumstances is not disputed Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; and blamed him for his severity, and urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia. They did not dispute his authority to do so. Victor is remembered therefore for the intolerance he displayed towards any lack of uniformity in the church by excommunicating the bishops who opposed his views on Easter.
Now a case could be made that Victor exceeded his authority as Head of the Church by overturning the Traditional date for celebrating Easter given by the Apostle John when he set up these Churches. This is what upset the Asian Bishops that Victor had exceeded his authority not that he had authority over them. Just as a Pope has no authority to change or rewrite scripture to suit himself (like Joseph Smith)

Montalban:

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. .

What you say is correct to a point each bishop is head of his Church, However St Ignatius also acknowledged that the Church of Rome presided over the other Churches in his opening of his letter to the Church in Rome.

Also as an Orthodox your argument contradicts the structure of your own Church. A Patriarch does have authority over Bishops in his jurisdiction.

Pax

Brian

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Montalban:

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?

Chrysostom makes the point that Christ seems to give preferences to Peter, James and John. They were the ones he granted the vision of the transfiguration to. However within the three Chrysostom makes the point that they were not equal and I quote, “and among these three again there was a great difference…. And He set Peter before them” in other words amongst the three Peter is pre-eminent… “And John loved Him more than the rest,” you can interpret that as you want, however it does not mean that he is greater in authority than Peter.

Pax

Brian

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The modern Orthodox, despite claims of preserving the traditional faith of the Apostles, has no way of convening such Ecumenical Councils, and has not since the split.

This is not quite true, Ghosty. Since the 1970s the Orthodox have been preparing for what will be the 8th Ecumenical Council.

The centre which is handling the preparations for the Council is the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Centre at Chambezy. Some pre-conciliar meetings have been held.

Various topics on the proposed agenda have been farmed out to specific Churches and they have compiled their study of the topic. For example, the Serbian Orthodox Church was asked to look at the tradition of fasting and has already filed its report.

But the whole project has been on the back burner since the fall of atheistic communism in the 1990s. Many of our Churches are now involved with the massive work of re-introducing the Gospel to countries where it has been strangled for 70 years. Naturally they see the re-evangelisation of their countries as more urgent than a Council.

You should also be able to see from the convening of recent pan-Orthodox Synods that we are more than capable of convening councils if we wish. The last major one was the the one in Thessalonica in 1998, to discuss a common Orthodox approach to ecumenism and to participation in the WCC. A more recent pan-Orthodox event, but smaller than Thessalonica, was the convening of a pan-Orthodox meeting to deal with the crisis in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

---

Today (9 September) is the commemoration of St. Ciaran of Clonmacnoise
See groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints/message/2423

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The modern Orthodox, despite claims of preserving the traditional faith of the Apostles…

Ghosty, your view appears to be out of step with Pope Benedict. He is **much **more positive about the Orthodox preserving the traditional faith of the Apostles.

For example, he writes “While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity”

(Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius, 1987, 196).

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

James as Bishop of Jerusalem where it was held chaired it. A chairman controls the conduct of a meeting and presides over it.

That should not be confused with Peter role as head of the Church, it was Peter who gave the lead in the meeting and after his speech the debate ended. James as presider of the meeting then wound it up.

Your scenario is compatible with your own beliefs on papal authrotiy but it is not compatible with that of the Church.

We have Saint John Chrysostom’s commentary on the Council of Jerualem. It is different to yours. It is important because it is the Church’s understanding of the power structure at that Council. The Church had had 300 years of existence, plenty of time to reflect upon the meaning of the event. Chrysostom attributes the greater authority to Saint James.
“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. Peter indeed spoke more
strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."

Homily XXXIII. Acts 15:13, 15
St. John Chrysostom
ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-11/Chrysostom/Acts/Acts-Hom33.html

 

[Montalban]

Fr Ambrose thanks for responding to this thread which I left a year ago. (I’m a wee bit curious as to why now, but )

I have since slightly modified my position on ‘the rock’, but essentially I still maintain that the Catholic position requires a fair-bit of presupposing.

One can see that when they summize ‘evidence’.

For example in Acts 15 they remark that everyone was silent when Peter spoke. This for them is significant. Oddly enough, when Paul spoke and everyone was silent too, this is not significant.

This is because for Catholics it’s already ‘understood’ that Peter is the first pope - so evidence is found (selectively) that supports this. Evidence that supports the exact same reaction to another saint, at the same meeting is discarded.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

What you say is correct to a point each bishop is head of his Church, However St Ignatius also acknowledged that the Church of Rome presided over the other Churches in his opening of his letter to the Church in Rome.

Would you check up on this, Brian. I think that Ignatius said that Rome presided over the churches within its own territory - Italy, Gaul, etc. I don’t think he said over the entire Church.

Also as an Orthodox your argument contradicts the structure of your own Church. A Patriarch does have authority over Bishops in his jurisdiction.

/quote]

:nope: No. A patriarch has the authority to convene a synod of bishops if some disciplinary action is needed against a bishop. He cannot act unilaterally. At the synod the patriarch has one vote just like any other bishop at the synod. The Orthodox Church has always taken episcopal conciliarity very seriously, since the first centuries.

Bishops are elected (and dismissed) by the Synod of the national Church, not by the Patriarch.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose thanks for responding to this thread which I left a year ago. (I’m a wee bit curious as to why now, but )

I saw a post of yours in Eastern Christianity and wondered who you were. When I found your post in this thread I started reading the thread.

BUT I’ve made the mistake of thinking this was a current thread. I saw September but did not realise it was September 2005 and not 2006 !!

 

[Montalban]

I saw a post of yours in Eastern Christianity and wondered who you were. When I found your post in this thread I started reading the thread.

No problemo. It’s good timing then that I’m back to discuss these things.

As I said my emphasis on this has changed. I was influenced by Michael Whelton’s book “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition : Rome’s Claims of Papal Supremacy in the Light of Orthodox Christian Teaching”. I disagree with his emphasis that just about no one considered Peter the Rock, to one that Peter and all of us who share the same faith are ‘the rock’. So that Peter can be seen as ‘the rock’, but so can all.

As Augustine said “Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ. “And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.” Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25, quoted Whelton, pp31-32 also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-43.htm#P4186_1789723

St. Paul says that the church was built on the Apostles

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

It is not enough to simply state that Jesus is the Christ “For “the devils also believe and tremble,” as the Scripture tells us.” Augustine - Homily X quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-141.htm#P4618_2490251

 

[Montalban]

"Brian Ingram:

What you say is correct to a point each bishop is head of his Church, However St Ignatius also acknowledged that the Church of Rome presided over the other Churches in his opening of his letter to the Church in Rome.

Would you check up on this, Brian. I think that Ignatius said that Rome presided over the churches within its own territory - Italy, Gaul, etc. I don’t think he said over the entire Church.

Ignatius of Antioch thus addresses a letter to the Romans as a church in charge of local affairs. He begins his Epistle “…to the Church that is in charge of affairs in Roman quarters.”[1] Note he doesn’t say ”To the church that is in charge everywhere throughout the Christian world”, but limits this to the church that is in charge of the affairs within its own area.

Notes

---

[1] Whelton pp43-44. (also at earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html)