Whom founded the Orthodox Church?

[SingleMomMonica]

josie_L:
St. Peter also appointed a Successor in Antioch prior to his martyrdom and yet it was still 3rd on the totem pole in rank and honor prior to the Council of Chalcedon.

Pope Linus was the Successor, not just of St. Peter but of both Sts. Peter & Paul as both of these Apostles established the Church in Rome.

 

[josie_L]

**The Silence of the 7 Ecumenical Councils **re: the claim that the Bishop of Rome is Supreme over all Bishops of the world, the sole holder of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the like is completely Deafening!

According to John Meyendorff, an Orthodox scholar:

(3) There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, **had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice”
**

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” (Schmemann, page 163-164)

(2) The earliest Fathers recognized the primacy of Rome (or what might be called “priority”) and Orthodox scholars generally concede this

on ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (c. 96 AD)

“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor…Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (page 124)

“The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. **So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.” **(page 125-126)

bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

---

Explain how Rome was (still is) the center of ecumenical agreement and yet you say that Rome was not involved (the silence was deafening) in the ecumenical councils within Church history?

 

[josie_L]

St. Peter also appointed a Successor in Antioch prior to his martyrdom and yet it was still 3rd on the totem pole in rank and honor prior to the Council of Chalcedon.

Pope Linus was the Successor, not just of St. Peter but of both Sts. Peter & Paul as both of these Apostles established the Church in Rome.

St. Peter who had the keys of the kingdom and was the prime minister/right hand man of Jesus, the King was martyred in Rome and therefore it was in this his last resting place which his successors would succeed him. You are grasping at straws because every Church father (not aware of one that has denied this) refers to the bishop of Rome as the successor to Saint Peter and as such sitting in the chair of Peter.

 

[John_Larocque]

St. John Chrysostom also referred to one of his predecessors as possessing the “chair of Peter.” You speak of the chair of Peter as being exclusive to the Bishop of Rome, but was it? Here in this quotation from Gregory the Great

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. …And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi. 17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
(Book VII, Epistle XL)

As stated earlier, in the Cyprianic system, every bishop is an apostolic successor possessing the “chair of Peter”, which is the unity of the episcopate. HOWEVER, here, in the Roman view, the chair of Peter appears to be exclusive to only three sees, and shared across each of three. A kind of the unity of the “episcopate of three.” Because of this perspective, Rome never was happy with Canon 3 of Nicea II or Canon 28 of Chalcedon, because of the stature it placed on “non-Petrine” see (that is, not one of the historical sees of St. Peter).

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Maybe this might help you get a more realistic view of Chalcedon:

Thereafter, **Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451. **

That couldn’t be more of a polar opposite of reality - it’s laughable.

It’s so funny that you wrote that since Pope Leo I was very public about the fact that he DID NOT WANT another Council to be called, but that the Emperor and Empress wanted one and so they called one.

“According to the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law, an ecumenical council is an assembly of bishops and other specific person, convoked and presided over by the pope, for the purpose of formulating decisions concerning the Christian faith and discipline, which decisions require papal confirmation…However, it is abundantly clear from the history of the first seven ecumenical councils that this neat definition has not always applied. Rather, the first seven ecumenical councils were all called by the emperor, the vote of the papal legates not subsequent approval signified papal adherence to conciliar decrees, all five patriarchs had to be present in order that a council truly be ecumenical and councils were sometimes only designated ecumenical by the action of subsequent ecumenical councils.” chapter 9, p 323 (my bold)

“When Leo I at Rome received the summons to the Council, he excused himself on grounds that it was against precedent for the pope to attend.” chapter 5 p. 175 (my bold)

Both these quotes come from a Roman Catholic who is a Historian & Author: Leo Donald Davis, S.J. in his book: The First Seven Ecumencial Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology - this book is Volume 21 of the Theology and Life Series. Davis received a S.T.L. from the Gregorian University in Rome and his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin. He’s taught at both the Xavier University in Cincinnati and the Weston School of Theology. He’s writings are found in the form of articles and reviews is publications such as Traditio, New Scholasticism, Theological Studies and Catholic Historical Review.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

St. Peter who had the keys of the kingdom

Yes, St. Peter is one of the key holders! The Early Church Fathers are abundantely clear that St. Peter was NOT THE ONLY Apostle that held the Keys of the Kingdom. All of the Apostles held the Keys! This is the witness of the early Church!

 

[John_Larocque]

Yes, St. Peter is one of the key holders! The Early Church Fathers are abundantely clear that St. Peter was NOT THE ONLY Apostle that held the Keys of the Kingdom. All of the Apostles held the Keys! This is the witness of the early Church!

And every bishop is a successor to all the apostles… Actually, a Roman Catholic scholar commented on a passage where St. John Chrysostom made reference to the “Peter and his successors.” Dom Chapman added that “his successors” “does not mean the popes, but all bishops.”

 

[josie_L]

“Universal” is not the meaning of “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” Each church celebrating the eucharist with the faithful surrounding the bishop IS the Catholic Church. Just as each person who receives Holy Communion receives not a part of Christ’s body but the WHOLE of Christ’s body, so too each church under a bishop is the whole Church.

John

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . .

catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

---

I would like to quote Pope Benedict XVI from his book “Called to Communion”:

"The institution of the most holy Eucharist on the evening before the Passion cannot be regarded as some more or less isolated cultic transaction. It is the making of a covenant and, as such, is the concrete foundation of the new people: the people comes into being through its covenant relation to God. We could also say that by his eucharistic action, Jesus draws the discipline into his relationship with God and, therefore, into his mission, which aims to reach “the many”, the humanity of all places and of all times. These disciples become a “people” through communion with the Body and Blood of Jesus which is simultaneously communion with God. . . . This fact already implies that the Church and her unity are but one. ** It is true that the many celebrations in which one Eucharist will be realized also point ahead to the multiformity of the one Body. Nevertheless, it is clear that these many celebrations cannot stand side by side as autonomous, mutually independent entitites but are always smply the presence of one and the same mystery. **

---

Those that make up the Church (not churches) are God’s elect and we are one as the body of Christ is one, therefore, to say that on the local level we are whole is wrong. We all share in the same mystery (eucharist) and therefore are united in this mystery as one, i.e., we are all in (one) communion with Christ’s Body (which is one) and we cannot be separated.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, St. Peter is one of the key holders! The Early Church Fathers are abundantely clear that St. Peter was NOT THE ONLY Apostle that held the Keys of the Kingdom. All of the Apostles held the Keys! This is the witness of the early Church!

Quote some (and I mean at least more than several) in conjunction with scripture which upholds their view and then maybe we’ll have something to stand on? Until then this is nothing but empty rhetoric.

 

[John_Larocque]

Here again is Zizioulas…

The adjective katholiké in Greek comes from the Aristotelian sense of kath’olou, which is used by Aristotle sometimes in contradistinction to ίο kata meros107 and sometimes to kath’ ekaston, 108 understood not only as an adverb but also as an adjective of manner so that it can mean the same as the adjective katholikos. 109 Aristotle did not give katholou a geographical sense so as to mean “world-wide” or “universal” nor a quantitative sense which would take it to mean a sum or total of the “particulars” (epi merous or kath’ ekaston). It is notable that whenever he defines it he gives it a qualitative sense denoting what is full, whole, general or common: "That which is true of a whole class and is said to hold good as a whole (which implies that it is a kind of whole), is true of a whole in the sense that it contains many things by being predicated of each, and by ail of them (e.g. man, horse, god) being severally one single thing, because all are living things."110 Aristotle precludes the geographical or quantitative sense of katholou still more clearly when he uses the example: “As ‘man’ belongs to the general (kath’ olou) and ‘Kallias’ to the particular (kath’ ekaston).” 111 Through the comparison of the “general” (katholou) with man in a generic sense and of the particular (kath’ ekaston) with the particular human being, the meaning of the term katholikos becomes clear. The kath’ ekaston is in no way a segment of the katholou, but constitutes its actual concrete form. Each actual man is as much full man as is man in a generic sense {katholou), which he encompasses in himself, constituting the only actual, personal expression it has in space and time.

We return to St. Ignatius…

In the text where the term “Catholic Church” first occurs, we observe that it is talking about being devoted to the Bishop as Christ showed Himself devoted to the Father, and to the presbyters as to Apostles, and to the deacons as to a “command of God.” Nothing relating to the Church can exist without the Bishop. The only assured (vevaia) Eucharist is that which is performed by the Bishop or his representative. Wherever the Bishop appears, there should the local Church (“the multitude of the people”)126 be, exactly as where Jesus Christ is, there is the “Catholic Church.” It is not permitted either to baptize or to “celebrate an agape” without the Bishop. But whatever he approves, this is well-pleasing also to God so that whatever is done may be assured and certain. It is quite obvious that the whole text refers to the unity of the local Church which revolves around the Bishop.127 It is he that sums up and incarnates the entire unity of the local Church. Whatever takes place, and above all those elements which are expressions par excellence of unity, namely baptism, the agape and the Divine Eucharist, acquire ecclesial substance (they are “assured and certain”) only when they are expressed through the Bishop. This is summed up in the phrase: “where the Bishop is, there is the multitude,” i.e. the local Church. But Ignatius also adds to this conclusion the comparison: “just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” What is the meaning of this “just as” (hosper) placed between the local Church and the “catholic” Church? Does it introduce a relationship to a reality different from what precedes, or is it an expression of the same thing in another form? Linguistically, either sense is possible. The “just as” can mean either that the local Church is united around the Bishop whereas the Catholic Church is united around Christ, or that the local Church constitutes a reality exactly the same as that of the Catholic Church.

And guess which Church Father was the first to fully equate “catholic” = “universal” …

310 Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 18.23, PG 33:1044) was the first to introduce the idea of universality into the definition of catholicity (see above, p. 126, n.4). But it should be noticed that he does not yet regard this universality as synonymous with catholicity but as one element which can describe it among others. Only Augustine, for reasons that are well-known (see above p. 126, n.3), identified the catholicity of the Church completely with her universality.

 

[josie_L]

St. John Chrysostom also referred to one of his predecessors as possessing the “chair of Peter.” You speak of the chair of Peter as being exclusive to the Bishop of Rome, but was it? Here in this quotation from Gregory the Great

As stated earlier, in the Cyprianic system, every bishop is an apostolic successor possessing the “chair of Peter”, which is the unity of the episcopate. HOWEVER, here, in the Roman view, the chair of Peter appears to be exclusive to only three sees, and shared across each of three. A kind of the unity of the “episcopate of three.” Because of this perspective, Rome never was happy with Canon 3 of Nicea II or Canon 28 of Chalcedon, because of the stature it placed on “non-Petrine” see (that is, not one of the historical sees of St. Peter).

If this is all you have then it is a pittance compared to those fathers who refer to the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and therefore possessing the chair of Peter (with none others mentioned). Furthermore, St. Cyprian is stating that they possess “the chair of Peter” only in the sense that if they remain united to the Bishop of Rome they possess “the chair of Peter”, this is my understanding. Moreover, the Catholic Church is structured in the same manner that the Kingdom of Israel was, in that, the King (which Jesus most definitely was) appointed a prime minister (of which there was only one) that was second in command with 11 other ministers (brother bishops) who helped administer to the kingdom.

 

[Harpazo]

In Rome’s view, Byzantium was not a “Petrine” see and should not displace two existing Petrine sees. (By Petrine, I mean in the narrow context of tracing the See’s lineage back to St. Peter). But a lot had changed over the centuries - after Chalcedon, the other two Petrine sees, Alexandria and Antioch were no longer in communion with the Greco/Roman church, so Rome in effect became the only see associated with St. Peter. And then there was the schism between Latin and Greek.

Mark Bonocore, Catholic apologist, contributed to this tlimeline:
davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

Here’s what he says about the Second Council of Lyons:

Canon 28 was passed in the context of one of the many (failed) attempts to reunify Orthodoxy with the Roman Catholic Church, in this case brokered by the Roman Emperor. At Lyons, Emperor Paleologos also affirmed the following:

Lyons was in more ways than one a predecessor to the Council of Florence.

By the way Monica, I have a quote from Pope St. Gregory which stated that in Rome’s view, the three Petrine sees were equal in importance and acted in tandem. This question of which Petrine See was greater is absurd, at least from a pre-Chalcedonian era. However, the one thing that made Rome unique was its connection to both SS. Peter and Paul. One could assert that its voice was consulted because it preserved intact the faith that was handed down to them by both apostles.

I’m just curious, but where are you getting this whole “Petrine See” business? I’ve read many of the Fathers and it does not seem to be something of great importance but a recent anachronistic imposition on the early Church. I don’t see how the idea of a “Petrine See” is even important in Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Harpazo]

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . .

catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

---

I would like to quote Pope Benedict XVI from his book “Called to Communion”:

"The institution of the most holy Eucharist on the evening before the Passion cannot be regarded as some more or less isolated cultic transaction. It is the making of a covenant and, as such, is the concrete foundation of the new people: the people comes into being through its covenant relation to God. We could also say that by his eucharistic action, Jesus draws the discipline into his relationship with God and, therefore, into his mission, which aims to reach “the many”, the humanity of all places and of all times. These disciples become a “people” through communion with the Body and Blood of Jesus which is simultaneously communion with God. . . . This fact already implies that the Church and her unity are but one. ** It is true that the many celebrations in which one Eucharist will be realized also point ahead to the multiformity of the one Body. Nevertheless, it is clear that these many celebrations cannot stand side by side as autonomous, mutually independent entitites but are always smply the presence of one and the same mystery.**

---

Those that make up the Church (not churches) are God’s elect and we are one as the body of Christ is one, therefore, to say that on the local level we are whole is wrong. We all share in the same mystery (eucharist) and therefore are united in this mystery as one, i.e., we are all in (one) communion with Christ’s Body (which is one) and we cannot be separated.

Sorry, but CA is wrong in this regard as prodromos pointed out. Καθόλικος does not mean what you want it to mean.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[John_Larocque]

The importance of a “Petrine see” (in the narrow sense of tracing the particular see back to Peter) was held by the occupants of the bishops of Rome. It does not appear to have been of much import among the other church fathers (especially the East).

The Pentarchy is essentially Jerusalem + Three Petrine Sees (Rome/Alexandria/Antioch) + Byzantium. Byzantium’s importance was confirmed at Nicea II. Rome was never happy with Byzantium’s seat at the table, and its reasons for its displeasure were based on the episcopal ancestry of the See, from which it derived its Petrine authority. The point isn’t that this should be important to Orthodoxy, but that it has ALWAYS been important to Rome. This is clear if you understand what Petrine authority meant, in the mind of St . Leo and St. Gregory.

But what is interesting is that as time went on, especially after Chalcedon, Rome stopped talking about the unity of the three sees and spoke almost exclusively in terms of Rome.

St. Gregory is actually a great example of the original view. His view of the authority and pre-eminence of the Petrine sees was a Roman understanding, and yet he also rebelled against the concept of an ecumenical patriarch, viewing it as an imposition of a “universal bishop.” The other sees ( Alexandria and Antioch) didn’t view the title in that way so his entreaty failed. And yet there’s a wealth of quotes from that period:

“If one, as he supposes, is ‘universal bishop,’ it remains that you are not bishops.” And “I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist”

It’s clear that St. Leo and St. Gregory both viewed their Petrine authority as “collegial” (in the sense that they shared it with Alexandria and Antioch). If anything can be learned from the ecumenical patriarch controversy, is that Rome and other sees were divergent in their ecclesiology, and as time went on, it was no longer possible to remain in communion with each other. But it’s ironic in a way that after the schism, it was clear that Petrine authority (in the understanding of Leo and Gregory) was no longer collegial, and that the very see that rebelled against the concept of a universal bishop over all bishops, proclaimed itself as such.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

According to John Meyendorff, an Orthodox scholar:

(3) There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, **had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice”
**

The significant difference between “Supremacy” & “Primacy” seem to be completely lost on you, but not on Orthodox Christians.

The question for Orthodox is not: Was there a Primacy of Rome? We acknowledge, as do the Councils, that bishop of the Church in Rome was “first among equals” - his brother Bishops/Patriarchs.

The question for Orthodox is: What was that Primacy based on and how, if at all, does it relate to the Church of Rome’s newer/current claims of Supremacy and Infallibility.

1. The Primacy, as is clearly shown in the early Church Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils, was based on elder Rome being the imperial city. - Even a Roman Catholic Council: 2nd Council of Lyons (after Rome split from the Church) led by a Pope in 1274 acknowledged that the primacy was based on elder Rome previously being the Imperial City of the Roman Empire.
2. The current claims of the Church of Rome of having had a primacy based on anything other than it being the former imperial city of the Roman Empire, current claims of Supremacy - above all other Bishops and current claims of the Pope of the Church of Rome having in his person Infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals are groundless in light of Christian Tradition: The Scriptures, the Witness of the Early Church Fathers and most importantly the 7 Infallible Ecumenical Councils.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Quote some (and I mean at least more than several) in conjunction with scripture which upholds their view and then maybe we’ll have something to stand on? Until then this is nothing but empty rhetoric.

It is you Church that is making claims of Supremacy, so it should be you who need to “prove” those claims; however, out of Christian charity, I will comply with your request with a few quotes from the following early Church Fathers: St. John Chrysostom, Tertullian, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Gregory & St. Ambrose. The testimony of 6 Church Fathers, together with the witness of the Ecumenical Councils, should be enough to sway you if you are open to the Truth. If you are not, then no amount of “proof” will ever be sufficient.

Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).

Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

[Peter] is not the only one among the disciples who is worthy of pasturing the Lord’s sheep. If Christ speaks only to one, it is to emphasize unity. Indeed, so that you may know that it is the Church who has received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord has said elsewhere to all the apostles: ’ Receive the Holy Spirit.’ And later, ‘Anyone whose sins you have forgiven, they are forgiven: anyone whose sins you retain, they are retained’ (Jn 20:22-23).
Augustine, Sermo 295, 2-8.

Remember that the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, keys which each one carries with him if, when asked, he confesses the faith.
Tertullian, Scorpiace, 10, PL 2, 142

…to be continued…

 

[John_Larocque]

And here is where I get to correct an Orthodox poster. This is fun…

1. The current claims of the Church of Rome of having had a primacy based on anything other than it being the former imperial city of the Roman Empire, current claims of Supremacy - above all other Bishops and current claims of the Pope of the Church of Rome having in his person Infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals are groundless in light of Christian Tradition: The Scriptures, the Witness of the Early Church Fathers and most importantly the 7 Infallible Ecumenical Councils.

If you read St. Gregory and St. Damasus (below), their understanding of “Petrine” importance was always based on the ancestry of the See. The fact that the other sees didn’t share this view (i.e. their willingness to accept Byzantium as an equal) - is really beside the point. In the minds of the early popes, their authority derived by virtue of the fact that their see originated from St. Peter.

Let me quote from Damasus, who affirmed within the three Petrine sees Roman pre-eminence by virtue of Peter having died there and the presence of St. Paul:

tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

1. After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have thought necessary to say what, although the universal catholic church diffused throughout the world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: ‘You are Peter,’ he said, ‘and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven’.

1. In addition there is also the presence of the blessed apostle Paul, ‘the chosen vessel’, who not in opposition, as the heresies jabber, but on the same date and the same day was crowned in glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar; and equally they made the above-mentioned holy Roman church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in their presence and veneration-worthy triumph before all other cities in the whole world.

1. Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter ‘having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]’.

However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom.

Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.

This was his argument against the disordering of the apostolic order at Nicea II.

The thing that armchair apologists sometimes forget is that not all church fathers or popes or patriarchs occupied the same space. Which is why we can speak of an “Alexandrian school” or an “Antiochian school.” There is a distinct Roman ecclesiology has evolved (post Chalcedon) but it still based largely on the Petrine ancestry of their see.

You have to accept this as a historical fact, even if you reject its ecclesiology. Rome has always affirmed the importance (and exclusivity) of its Petrine ancestry (which it admitted it shared with Alexandria and Antioch). That is why it didn’t want to view Byzantium as an equal and why it resisted for centuries Canon 28 of Chalcedon. It’s a fact.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Quote some (and I mean at least more than several) in conjunction with scripture which upholds their view and then maybe we’ll have something to stand on? Until then this is nothing but empty rhetoric.

…Response continued…

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229).
Augustine

Cyril of Alexandria
But why do we say that they are ‘foundations of the earth’? For Christ is the foundation and unshakable base of all things—Christ who restrains and holds together all things, that they may be very firm. Upon him also we all are built, a spiritual household, put together by the Holy Spirit into a holy temple in which he himself dwells; for by our faith he lives in our hearts. But the next foundations, those nearer to us, can be understood to be the apostles and evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the word who have arisen for the strengthening of the faith. For when we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from Christ. For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God,’ Jesus said to divine Peter: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple. Likewise, the psalmist says: ‘Its foundations are the holy mountains.’ Very truly should the holy apostles and evangelists be compared to holy mountains for their understanding was laid down like a foundation for posterity, so that those who had been caught in their nets would not fall into a false faith (Commentary on Isaiah IV.2, M.P.G., Vol. 70, Col. 940).

For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops(St Cyprian of Carthage)

St. John Chrysostom:
“Behold,” he says, “how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. . . .” Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

If you believe," he says, Origen, Commentary on St. Matt. “that God has raised the whole building of his Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the son of the Thunder? What will you say of each of the Apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail against the others? Are not the words, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, addressed to them all? Have not these words had their fulfillment in each one of the Apostles?”

Pope St. Gregory:
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a God, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, p. 226).

…to be continued…

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Quote some (and I mean at least more than several) in conjunction with scripture which upholds their view and then maybe we’ll have something to stand on? Until then this is nothing but empty rhetoric.

…Response continued…

Pope St. Gregory to the Pope of Alexandria:
“Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227).

St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew:
“The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to Nestorius:
“Peter and John were equal in dignity and honour. Christ is the foundation of all -the unshakeable Rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice.”

“The word ‘Rock’ has only a denominative value–it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles.” -Saint Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D)

The highest VISIBLE authority in the local Church for the Orthodox is the ruling bishop.
The highest SUPREME authority is Jesus Christ.
St. Ambrose

Response completed. Again, the separate testimony of 6 well known early Church Fathers together with the 7 Ecumenical Councils should be sufficient “proof” (again, not like we should have to prove anything since it is the Catholic Church that is making the claims of Papal Supremacy & Infallibility); however, if you are not open to the Truth, then no amount of “proof” will ever be sufficient.

If your heart is truly open to learn the actual history and consistent witness of the early Christian Church, you will learn it. God bless!

 

[prodromos]

This action on the part of Jesus was a continuation of what former Kings of Israel did when they would assign a prime minister (out of 12 ministers) to be the right hand man of the King.

You can cite historical records which show that the Kings of Israel had 12 ministers of whom they would choose one to be prime minister?
Please present your evidence.

John