The Papal Claims: Orthodox and Catholic Perspectives

[Rusty T]

Okay, let me preface this by saying that I probably shouldn't post this. But against my better judgment, I'm hoping that this dialogue can be civil. Before I post my first post along the lines of the topic heading, I want confirmation from the moderators that I can have only Orthodox (or those of the Orthodox persuasion - that covers Jezz, Jawaman, and me - as far as I know) and Roman Catholic (or those of the Catholic persuasion) participation. If this is not possible, I would like to invite three interested parties (me being one of the Orthodox perspective of course) of each side to join me in the Tennis Court. What say ye?

rusty

[spl_cadet]

I'm up for it. I've actually been thinking of asking for an Orthodox-Catholic debate on this subject.

[Rusty T]

If I can get confirmation that only Orthodox (or their ilk, as it were) and Roman Catholics can post, we'll get started. If not, then we'll move it into a Tennis Court.

Rusty

[scholasticus]

Dear Tizzidale,

Sounds like an excellent idea... from my point of view, the Orthodox / Catholic line is so fine, perhaps it is a good idea to have only those two views included - plus your other invaluable condition of a bit of civility!

I take it that you include Eastern Catholics (i.e. Eastern Churches which acknowledge the papal primacy) in your term "Roman Catholic", since I suppose you could sort of call Orthodox Christians "non-Roman Catholics"?! :ahem:

Peace

Keir

[Jezz]

Okay, let me preface this by saying that I probably shouldn't post this. But against my better judgment, I'm hoping that this dialogue can be civil. Before I post my first post along the lines of the topic heading, I want confirmation from the moderators that I can have only Orthodox (or those of the Orthodox persuasion - that covers Jezz, Jawaman, and me - as far as I know) and Roman Catholic (or those of the Catholic persuasion) participation. If this is not possible, I would like to invite three interested parties (me being one of the Orthodox perspective of course) of each side to join me in the Tennis Court. What say ye?

rusty
Rusty,

Regarding moderation rules: Usually, we enforce prohibitions on subject matter in the general forums, but we don't enforce prohibitions on participation of members. However, I think there is the possibility that a disinterested party might have something useful to offer. I think that you could achieve your desired result by simply putting the requirement that the subject matter be restricted to the Orthodox vs Roman Catholic views of papal primacy - posts with words to the effect of "both RCC and EO are wrong!" can be moderated.

If you really want to limit participation to certain people, then the Tennis Court thread will be the best place for it.

On to the actual subject: I would be keen to participate. I have been meaning to do something on this for some time.

[Rusty T]

How about Orthodox Catholics and Catholics in communion with Rome? That would cover all groups I think.

Ok, Jezz, let's do this on the thread. If there are non-Catholic participants, I would only request that you restrict your posts to addressing only the Orthodox Catholic vs Papal Catholics (easier to say; if it's offensive please let me know) and their views of the papal claims.

I do not know if I can keep anyone from posting whenever they want, but I would appreciate it if we first focus first on this topic:

The Fathers and their interpretation of "Thou art Peter . . ."

I will post later tonight hopefully. Can we try not to overwhelm each other with posts and if we could keep if civil - I think it would be a great witness to the Catholic faith.

God bless,
Rusty

[Rusty T]

I would first like to thank everyone who will participate in this discussion and remind them that we’ve agreed to keep this discussion as civil as possible. I’m only a soon-to-be catechumen in the Orthodox faith, but this question –of the Papal claims - is one that I’ve have been forced to deal with in my journey to the Catholic Church. When first examining where I was in Christ and where I needed to go, the Roman Catholic Church (and for simplicity’s sake, I will mean by the RCC all churches that are in communion with Rome) was looming large as a possible destination. I had not even thought of the Orthodox Catholic Church for the simple reason that I knew little about them. And to be quiet honest, my knowledge of the RCC was limited also – being raised in a state where 90% of the people are Southern Baptist and decidedly anti-Catholic in many ways. What I did know were half-truths and misunderstandings.

In a way, I’m still on this journey to the Catholic faith and forever will be. The Papal claims were at first summarily dismissed by me simply for the fact that I had always been taught that the Pope was next to the Devil in opposition to all that was Godly. But I’ve had to closely examine (as best I could) the claims of the Roman Church, and I now feel that the Papal claims are at best misguided and at worst guided by the basest of passions – pride.

I would say that I will be using many sources in this discussion, but I hope to rely on the original sources when discussing the Fathers of the Church, the Councils of the Church, and the various documents of importance. The version of the Bible I will be quoting from will be the Modern King James Version unless otherwise indicated.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to you. And whatever you may bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven, and whatever you may loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in Heaven.

I wanted to start my discussion of this issue with these verses, for in my opinion there is nowhere else to start. These verses form the scriptural basis of the Papal claims and it is imperative that we begin here.

I think I can summarize the Papal claims concerning this verse: that Jesus established Peter as the foundation of the Church AND that this position was not his alone but has passed successively to the Bishops of Rome. There are many verses in the Bible that I feel would illuminate the meaning of these verses more completely, but before I cite the scriptural problems with the Papal interpretation of these verses, I feel we need to discuss the Fathers and their understanding of the verses. I would like to say ahead of time that I do not have all the resources or knowledge of the Fathers that some may have, and if I leave something out that you feel is important please point it out and do not assume I did it intentionally.

Church Fathers and “Thou art Peter. . .”

I will try my best to focus on those Fathers who address the issue from the perspective that it is the Faith expressed by Peter that is the Rock, or that Christ Himself is the Rock. I will leave it to the RCC posters to provide their sources. Then we can debate the importance of the differences. (note: I will be highlighting those portions of my citations that I find interesting or significant)

I will preface again: a survey of the Early Father’s writings was conducted (by a Roman Catholic I believe) and it was found that seventeen saw Peter as the rock, forty-four thought it referenced his confession of faith, and sixteen thought Christ himself was the Rock. (Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731). I will only be quoting a few Fathers, but I’m sure others will enter the fray.

Let us begin with St. Augustine:

"And he brought him to Jesus; and when Jesus beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon the son of Joannes: thou shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, Peter." It is not a great thing that the Lord said whose son Peter was. What is great to the Lord? He knew all the names of His own saints, whom He predestinated before the foundation of the world; and dost thou wonder that He said to one man, Thou art the son of this man, and thou shall be called this or that? Is it a great matter that He changed his name, and converted it from Simon to Peter? Peter is from petra, a rock, but the petra [rock] is the Church; in the name of Peter, then, was the Church figured. And who is safe, unless he who builds upon the rock? And what saith the Lord Himself? "He that heareth these my words, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man building his house upon a rock"

In another place, St. Augustine says:

See what praises follow this faith. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church" What meaneth, "Upon this rock I will build My Church"? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock," saith He, "I will build My Church."

St. Cyprian:

Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock; thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.

St. Hilary of Portiers:

What are the conclusions forced upon us by the study of his words? He confessed that Christ is the Son of God; you, lying bishop of the new apostolate, thrust upon us your modern notion that Christ is a creature, made out of nothing. What violence is this, that so distorts the glorious words? The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This [his confession] is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth. Through revelation Peter learnt the mystery hidden from the beginning of the world, proclaimed the faith, published the Divine nature, confessed the Son of God. He who would deny all this truth and confess Christ a creature, must first deny the apostleship of Peter, his faith, his blessedness, his episcopate, his martyrdom. And when he has done all this, he must learn that he has severed himself from Christ; for it was by confessing Him that Peter won these glories.

There are many more, but I do not want to inundate the first post with them. I’m sure there will be some that will be contested and new quotes posted that will need to be addressed, but I must insist that we not get bogged down on the issue of “Thou art Peter. . .” for too long.

Other objections to “Thou art Peter. . .”

1. Peter never uses his supposed authority nor is it mentioned in Holy Scripture.

Never do we see it mentioned that Peter was in a position of authority “over” the other Apostles. During the Council of Jerusalem, for example, James gave the final sentence of judgment (Acts 15:19). In Acts 8:14, we’re told:

And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;

Here we see that it is the Apostles who make the decision to send Peter and John. It would seem that Peter is subordinate to the collegial will of the Apostles. In Galatians 2:7, Paul reproaches Peter for his withdrawal from the uncircumcised Gentiles. And in 1 Corinthians 3, Paul reproaches the Corinthians for attaching themselves to mere Apostles rather than the Master, Christ Himself. And St. Peter himself never mentions his supposed authority over the other Apostles in Holy Scripture.

2. The authority given to Peter in Matthew 16:19 was given to all the Apostles.

We see this very clearly two chapters later:

Mt 18:18 Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in Heaven.

Here Christ is speaking to the Apostles in total, giving them the shared authority. We see this also in Matthew 28:28 and in John 20:21-23.

3. Finally, if it can be shown that Peter was the receipient of authority over the Disciples from God, there must be proven that the Bishops of Rome received such authority over the Church as well.
________________________________

This is by no means the end of the argument, but only the beginning. There must be more said, but I will only put this short post up in order to get the discussion going. I hope that we can learn much from this discussion.

In Christ,

Rusty

[scholasticus]

Dear Tizzidale,

Well, OK... I thought you might have something heavyweight up your sleeve :ahem: ... but seriously, you have brought up some good points, and ones which I personally considered and studied as a Catechumen of the (Papal) Catholic Church!

Firstly, I would like to deal with the accusation of pride - well, the best defense for a Christian is confession! I think any Catholic apologist worth his (blessed) salt would agree that not only Peter, but also every pope since has had at least a tinge of pride, some of them bordering on Satanic scales. So, I'm keen as beans to state first and foremost that a number of popes have been absolutely awful. A sober, careful history of the Church will show that; no need to even begin any surveys of Dan Brown conspiracy theories or Boettner's polemics.

However, God does not bestow authority based on human merit, but rather on His free and sovereign choices. God makes the man, not the sinner; God chooses the official, not the abuser of power (sorry to Augustine!).

You did very well, as far as I can see, in bringing out the chief bits of evidence. I'd like to start with the Biblical source ("prima Scriptura"!).

One point which is often overlooked, but perhaps with Mr Gibson's new film, not so much in future, is that Jesus was a Jew who spoke Aramaic. We can see from many NT passages (even in the Gospels!) that the word He most probably used was actually Kepha (Cephas in the "Grecisised" English) which is just the plain old word for "rock". In the NT, we see the Apostles referring to him as Cephas. It's plain that this word was preserved in both the writings and the daily usage of the Church from day one. So it seems to put all the business about masculine and feminine Greek words out of the picture immediately. Kepha was his (new) name, and it's a kepha that the Lord was referring to.

Ummm... actually your first quotation from Saint Augustine seems to both confirm and go beyond what I am trying so pityfully to say: that Jesus saw *the Church* prefigured in Kepha! What else can I say?

We can almost ignore the other NT references to Kepha and his job, because they are quite well known; he was to strengthen his brothers, feed the lambs, feed the sheep, etc. How well he succeeded in this is another question; all that is at stake is the *basic* commission.

Now, the next layer of Tradition is the Fathers... it seems clear that at least a few of them (actually quite a few!) called Kepha the subject of the promise, and that's enough for me. The Tradition is not a "50% takes all" democracy, it's a living witness to the Truth. There is no reason under the sun why both Kepha *and* his confession shouldn't be the basis of the hierarchical Church - in fact, this is precisely true of Abraham as the "father" of the Jews - God foresaw his faith and thus appointed him; the Holy Spirit even calls Abraham "the rock" of the Jews (through the Prophet Isaiah).

For a really in-depth study of these 2 basic layers, check out a book by Stephen Ray "Upon this Rock"... he even starts it with a Chesterton quote, so he gets my vote :)

For me, the really interesting thing is the *development" of the papal office, and of the *official* pronouncements on its nature. It's clear that the role of chief bishop would have a lot of extra baggage, since it's obviously a big responsibility. But at least it is a job with a definition... I think it seems wiser to say that God would rather tie down His man with a name and a mandate, rather than leave a "service vacuum", open to pressure and persuasion - de facto popes, rather than de jure popes are probably a bigger danger. I can pull out a big list of bad popes and explain why they were so bad. I couldn't do that if I didn't have the doctrine of the papacy to measure them against.

Looking back in history, it seems wise to say "pity the man with such a weight on his shoulders" - indeed I read of one pope who used to pray before sleeping "Lord, it's your Church, now you look after it". The temptation to be over- or under-involved must be enourmous!

It's no proof that the primacy was not present in people's minds just because its full powers were not excercised in all ages. Imagine the chaos if anyone tried to excercise *all* of his rights *all the time* - oh, wait, actually there may be some examples of that nowadays (tongue in cheek). The point is that there is a different view of authority... it is something of a last resort, rather than a micro-managing omnipresence.

People often hark back to a couple of centuries of the Middle Ages or Renaissance for their ideal picture of a Pope (legitimately, since there were some spectacularly bad popes!) but they miss out on both the crucial origins and some of the more fascinating bits of papal history.

It seems that a more healthy viewpoint for a Catholic is to remember that firstly, Christ (and His words) is the Rock. Then, by God's mercy, the Church, with Peter's successor, is the rock of our faith in Christ. There is a hierarchy of truths, which we do well to remember.

So, in fact it is firstly Scriptural, secondly patristic, and thirdly historico-common-sensical arguments and fourthly a belief in the Spirit-led development of (the understanding of) doctrine that makes me a "papist"...

...did any of that make a little sense??

Peace

Keir

[Rusty T]

Dear Tizzidale,

Well, OK... I thought you might have something heavyweight up your sleeve :ahem: ... but seriously, you have brought up some good points, and ones which I personally considered and studied as a Catechumen of the (Papal) Catholic Church!It's good that you've responded. I appreciate the time you took. To be honest, I know that some one else (*cough* spl_cadet *cough*) will be soon stepping up to the plate with Patristic sources gallore, so I don't want to get too involved in contrasting our viewpoints as of yet. I will mention a couple of things, however.


Firstly, I would like to deal with the accusation of pride, *snipped*I really hope that this discussion does not devolve into a, "My Patriarchs better behaved than yours!" game. I really want to look at the underlying issues of the Papal Claims. I mentioned pride as simply the human passion that led Rome to these claims. Of course, the countercharge would be that pride led the East into schism, but that's not my contention.


However, God does not bestow authority based on human merit, but rather on His free and sovereign choices. God makes the man, not the sinner; God chooses the official, not the abuser of power (sorry to Augustine!).And I will not be basing any of my points on the human fallibility on display during Church history - unless such points underscore a larger issue.


You did very well, as far as I can see, in bringing out the chief bits of evidence. I'd like to start with the Biblical source ("prima Scriptura"!).I did poorly when compared to what others have done. I only wanted to get the ball rolling with a basic presentation of the case, and hopefully more fully discuss the issues as it goes along.


One point which is often overlooked, but perhaps with Mr Gibson's new film, not so much in future, is that Jesus was a Jew who spoke Aramaic. We can see from many NT passages (even in the Gospels!) that the word He most probably used was actually Kepha (Cephas in the "Grecisised" English) which is just the plain old word for "rock". In the NT, we see the Apostles referring to him as Cephas. It's plain that this word was preserved in both the writings and the daily usage of the Church from day one. So it seems to put all the business about masculine and feminine Greek words out of the picture immediately. Kepha was his (new) name, and it's a kepha that the Lord was referring to.None of my arguments that I presented were based upon Greek grammar. I think that it is important that the New Testament was written in Greek and we should make studies based upon what we know, not what might have been (most likely) stated. But other than simple statement, I'll leave it at that.


Ummm... actually your first quotation from Saint Augustine seems to both confirm and go beyond what I am trying so pityfully to say: that Jesus saw *the Church* prefigured in Kepha! What else can I say?
I can't say it emphatically enough: that the Church was prefigured in Peter (or in his confession) is a valid Patristic understanding of the text. But it does not follow that Peter has authority over the other Apostles or the Church. Nor does it follow that the "prefiguring" of the Church in Peter is passed onto the Bishop of Rome.


We can almost ignore the other NT references to Kepha and his job, because they are quite well known; he was to strengthen his brothers, feed the lambs, feed the sheep, etc. How well he succeeded in this is another question; all that is at stake is the *basic* commission.
It will perhaps be necessary to move naturally from Matthew 16 to John 21 and Christ's questioning of Peter, "Lovest thou me?" It will be very important to our issue as to the Patristic understanding of this portion of scripture as well. As to the "basic" commission - it was a commission that was shared by the other Apostles, and as we can see in the instances I cited, Peter was subject to the conciliar judgment of the Episcopacy.


Now, the next layer of Tradition is the Fathers... it seems clear that at least a few of them (actually quite a few!) called Kepha the subject of the promise, and that's enough for me. The Tradition is not a "50% takes all" democracy, it's a living witness to the Truth. There is no reason under the sun why both Kepha *and* his confession shouldn't be the basis of the hierarchical Church - in fact, this is precisely true of Abraham as the "father" of the Jews - God foresaw his faith and thus appointed him; the Holy Spirit even calls Abraham "the rock" of the Jews (through the Prophet Isaiah).
Well, I would appreciate that any time you would use scripture to bolster your argument that you give the citation. I only say this because I cannot find in Isaiah where God refered to Abraham as "the rock" or even "a rock". That being said, it is a large leap to go from Peter as the "rock" or even his confession as the rock and then to say that the Bishop of Rome has authority over his fellow Bishops. That less than 50% of the Fathers consider Peter as the receipient of the title of Rock is important, and we must move now (as I will with my next post hopefully) into whether or not the Fathers believed that this "prefiguring" was the sole possession of Peter and his successors in the Bishop of Rome - or if it was a conciliar possession among all the Bishops of the Church.


For a really in-depth study of these 2 basic layers, check out a book by Stephen Ray "Upon this Rock"... he even starts it with a Chesterton quote, so he gets my vote :)
There are several books that deal with this issue that I will recommend also. Perhaps we can all recommend a few books and I (or someone else) can put together a recommended reading list for both sides of the debate.

*snip the rest of your post*

I'm sorry to do this, but I'm forced to obey my own instructions - I want to deal exclusively with the question of "Thou art Peter . . ." I don't know how I can do this on a freewheeling thread other than to simply not go down rabbit trails when I'm tempted to.

God bless,

Rusty

[George Murphy]

Okay, let me preface this by saying that I probably shouldn't post this. But against my better judgment, I'm hoping that this dialogue can be civil. Before I post my first post along the lines of the topic heading, I want confirmation from the moderators that I can have only Orthodox (or those of the Orthodox persuasion - that covers Jezz, Jawaman, and me - as far as I know) and Roman Catholic (or those of the Catholic persuasion) participation. If this is not possible, I would like to invite three interested parties (me being one of the Orthodox perspective of course) of each side to join me in the Tennis Court. What say ye?

rustyI respect the intention of the originator of this thread & don't intend to participate in the subsequent discussion (unless there is some response to this specific post). But I think RCs & EO should be aware that over the past 50 years there have been a number of dialogues dealing with the general topic of papal claims between RC theologians and those of the Lutheran and Anglican communions. (& I should emphasize that I mean officially authorized dialogues. I'm not talking just about RC theologians freelancing.)
Some attention to these dialogues would help participants in this discussion to understand how RC theologians have tried to express claims about the papacy in a non-polemical fashion, and the extent to which western Christians who are currently not in communion with Rome are prepared to accept some form of a "Petrine office" in the church.

I would mention in particular the 5th & 6th of the US RC-Lutheran bilateral dialogues on Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (Augsburg, 1974) and Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church (Augsburg, 1978). The supporting volume Peter in the New Testament (Augsburg, 1973) might also be helpful.

Shalom,
George

[Jomby]

Hi Tizzidale.:smile:

I hope you don't mind if I chime in. I'll leave some of the bigger stuff for others, but I would just like to point out a few things about your citations from the Early Church Fathers-- and the danger in doing so. First, I'd like to show 3 quotations from the very same three authors, that say Peter is the rock:


"Come, brothers, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus cut off. Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see who to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly."
(Augustine, Psalm against the Donatist Party, 2 (A.D. 393))

" '...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"(Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae,4(A.D. 251))

"[B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom..."
(Hilary de Poiters,On the Trinity,6:20(A.D. 359))

I would say that each has to be taken within a context of the whole of their works. To say Christ is the Rock or the confession is the Rock does not necessarily preclude Peter from being the Rock.

Secondly, the person who you cite as surveying the Fathers and coming up with the numbers 16, 44, and 17 -- de Launoy-- was a seventeenth century Gallicanist, who wrote against the Ultramontanists and so, no doubt, had an axe to grind. I've looked for that source text before, but haven't yet found it. It would be interesting to see whom and what he cites- and how credible it is. Some have said that he even includes renaissance authors among his numbers. I have no idea, and that's why I'd like to see for myself.:wink:

(BTW, Gallicanism was declared a heresy at the first Vatican Council. So while he was in fact Roman Catholic, he teachings are not.)

[Rusty T]

I would say that each has to be taken within a context of the whole of their works. To say Christ is the Rock or the confession is the Rock does not necessarily preclude Peter from being the Rock.And I would say that by giving Peter the title Rock does not necessarily preclude Christ and His Church as the Rock. I see the different Patristic understandings as valid. But now we must ask how are they all valid, and to what point are they contradictory? I do not even dare to say that because I feel there are fewer Fathers who see Peter as the Rock - that somehow the views of those Fathers are voided. Rather I would say that it underscores the importance of understanding what they mean by saying, "Peter was the Rock", and how this relates to the issue of Primacy.

I do want to address the quotes you provided above. This may have the problem of descending into "dualing quotations" but we'll give it a go anyway.

Augustine:

Come, brothers, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus cut off. Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see who to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly." (Augustine, Psalm against the Donatist Party, 2 (A.D. 393))

Well, we should make clear that Augustine is not saying that the Roman Church is the Vine. He is making his case against the Donatist, and he is using the Roman See as an example of Apostolic succession - not the example. I would even contend that Augustine is not calling Peter the rock - but rather the Episcopacy - the Church. Let's look at the "grand scheme of things" concerning Augustine, and listen to his own words in his later work "Retractions":

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable

Cyprian

'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"(Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae,4(A.D. 251))

We must first say that Cyprian produced two versions of De Unitate Ecclesiae (The Unity of the Church). One version is often used by the Roman Church to support claims of Papal primacy, but it is often acknowledged that the second version was written later to repudiate a mis-understanding by some of Cyprian's words. In fact, Cyprian saw the "chair of Peter" as representative of all Bishops. In fact he once described his own Bishopric as "the chair of Peter". I just want to quote from a Roman Catholic historian concerning Cyprian:

Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.

Hilary of Poiters

[B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom...
(Hilary de Poiters,On the Trinity,6:20(A.D. 359))

From the very same work cited by you:

A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles...whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar–Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?...And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built...that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God.

This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven...The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God (On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.2)

____________________

What I believe is the foundational problem of the Roman interpretation of these verses - is not that Fathers can't be found to say that Peter is the Rock - but that even the Fathers who said this can not be made to say that Peter has authority over the Church or the other Apostles.

In Christ,

Rusty

[spl_cadet]

I intend to do a full response to tizzidale's post when I can (I'm a bit too busy right now with school and some of the most bizarre Protestants I've ever come across, check out the apologetics forum at www.fresh-hope.com if you want to see what I mean), but it seems to me that it can be boiled down to the papacy vs counciliarism and also what seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the Catholic position on the papacy by the Orthodox (and by many Catholics to be fair).

[scholasticus]

Dear Rusty,

OK, just so you don't get the impression that Catholics neccessarily play fast and loose with Scripture, I put the words "rock hewn" into Gospelcom's Bible search and got the Isaiah passage straight off; here it is:

Isaiah 51
Everlasting Salvation for Zion
1 "Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness
and who seek the LORD :
Look to the rock from which you were cut
and to the quarry from which you were hewn;
2 look to Abraham, your father,
and to Sarah, who gave you birth.
When I called him he was but one,
and I blessed him and made him many.

There are parallels with Kephas, perhaps? Abraham is called a rock, and also a father.

My point about kepha was the fact that precisely this word is *not* translated into Greek in the NT; in fact, John takes pains in his Gospel to tell us what the original word was (like he does with "Christ", I seem to remember?).

There is a pattern of untranslated words in the NT: Messiah, halleluia, hosanna, amen, Cephas, maranatha... these all say something important about Christ and the Church; that's why they made such an impression in the first layer of Tradition that there was almost always no need to translate them; either that or pains were taken to show that they were present from the beginning. My primary argument is that the fact of Christ is not just in the past, but constantly present to the Church, and this is the Proposition that the Fathers are defending.

Peace

Keir

[Rusty T]

I did not mean to cast aspersions nor to insinuate that you were "freewheeling" with scripture. I just needed to know what verse in particular you were referencing. I appreciate the clarification. Personally I do not see a parallel with Peter in these verses, and I'm trying to find references in the Fathers to Isaiah 51:1,2. If you have any that you wouldn't mind sharing, I would appreciate it.

I have waited for a few days before I go on to my second point about these verses, and hopefully I can make that post by tomorrow.

rusty

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I want to deal exclusively with the question of "Thou art Peter . . ."


One item in the attribution of petra that has not been mentioned so far is the one that is also built in to the grammar of the context. Christ responds, after Peter identifies Who Christ is, "Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, that flesh and blood hath not revealed to you, but the Father of Me Who [is] in the heavens, and I to you am saying: "You are Petros, and upon this the petra, I will build my Church..."

One aside is the formulaic of Father, which is the same as the address in the Lord's Prayer: Pater hmwn, hO en tois uranois. [Our Father Who art in Heaven], and it is this Father that is the giver of the *revelation* to Peter, the revelation of the identity of Christ, and *not* anyone in the flesh - Indeed not even Christ in the flesh - And this is the hook-up,as it were, of man to the Father, that establishes the identity of Christ, and the Church of Christ is built upon this rock of knowledge of Who Christ IS, and this knowledge is given by REVELATION from God, and not from human flesh and blood... Not even Christ's human flesh and blood... And it is this revelation by God the Father that is the ROCK upon which the SON builds HIS Church. And gramatically, apocalupse [revelation], the implied noun [of the verb of the same root], is a feminine noun.

And it is in honor of this revelation, that the first disciple to whom it is given is named after it, for without this revelation by the Father, the Chief cornerstone of the Church, Christ, will not have the rocks to build the edifice... And Simon-Peter Bar-Jona was the first, and was very much first among the apostles...

So that he is indeed a rock, and the first, to confess the identity of Christ as revealed by the Father to Him, yet it is the revelation by the Father of Christ's identity that is the rock of Christ's building of His Ekklesia, and not the man Peter, who was but the first to receive it, and was thereby given a leadership role among the Apostles...

And the revelation leads to the confession, and the confession leads to confirmation, and it is the confirmation in the faith that establishes the building blocks of Christ's Church in the flesh...

The rock of revelation by the Father of Who Christ IS, and it's confession, is the basis upon which Christ builds His Church... It is a revelation awaiting us all who have not yet received it...

And I don't know how patristic the referent of 'revelation' is - But it sure seems spot-on in the construction of this passage...

[geo] Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

I just want to say that this is something I've been looking forward to for a long time. I've only had my head as the battleground for this. Now I can finally look outside my own little shell and see what others have to say.

Which basically means, no, I have nothing to say right now. :wink:

[Rusty T]

I fully acknowledge that some Fathers of the Church state that Peter was declared the Rock in Matthew 16:18, I want to try to understand in what sense they meant it. I will look into two that are often cited by Roman Catholic apologists: Tertullian and Cyprian.

Tertullian:

Tertullian is an interesting and complicated case because of his eventual slide into heresy. I want to look at two passages of Tertullian that are often used to make the case that Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16 and that this implies universal primacy for the Roman Bishop.

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth?.

We must really look at the context of this passage in order to know whether or not that Tertullian is intimating that Peter the rock on which the Church is built or that he is the only one to whom the keys of the kingdom were given. Prescription Against Heretics was written to refute the teachings of various heresies. In chapter twenty-one, Tertullian sets forth a rule. He states:

Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

It must be plain from the context that Tertullian is not setting forth Peter as the foundation of Truth and authority in the Church (and by succession the Bishop of Rome), but that the judge of Truth in Doctrine is whether or not one’s doctrine conforms to that of the apostolic churches. I think we can see that even clearer by looking at chapter twenty-two of this work.

First, Tertullian tells us, the heretics would claim that the Apostles did not know all things and then almost in the next breath proclaim that they knew all things but withheld truth from all people. Tertullian is indignant because such impugning of the Apostles is ultimately an affront to Christ. He then states:

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand?
He then delivers the quote concerning Matthew 16:18 followed by other examples from the lives of the Apostles. It seems that Tertullian is battling dangerous teachings that would separate Truth from the Church, the pillar and ground of Truth (I Tim 3:15) by declaring themselves free from the True Doctrine delivered to the Apostles by Christ. Here, Peter as the rock is not given as the standard by which doctrine must conform, but as an example. It is important that this is recognized.

The Prescription Against Heresies was written before Tertullian fell into the Montanist heresy. However, there is a passage from his Montanist period that is often used by Roman Catholic apologists to prove the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Let’s take a look at the passage as quoted at this site (http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp))

The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys

However, let’s look at the entirely of the quote and in context. At this point in his life Tertullian was outside the communion of the Church, including the Bishopric of Rome. The very purpose of this passage was to maintain that the Catholic Church was not in sole possession of Truth, and was wrong to claim that she was in possession of truth based on Apostolic succession. We must note that this is entirely in contradiction with Tertullian’s earlier stance in The Prescription Against Heresies. Here is the full quote:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation.

Tertullian is making the case that no one can claim succession from Peter simply through Apostolic succession. Remember, at this time, Tertullian was outside the communion of the Catholic Church. It would behoove the Roman Catholic apologists to stop using this quote as support for their cause.

That Tertullian did not hold the Bishop of Rome to be in authority over the Church, we need only to look at Tertullian’s actions and other writings. In Against Praxeas, Tertullian reproaches the Bishop of Rome for his actions concerning Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla:


For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts.

To use Tertullian as a support for the Papal claims would be a mistake. His statements are inconsistent with one another – especially his later statements compared to his earlier. One thing is clear, however, and that is that at no time did Tertullian support the notion of Papal supremacy or authority over the whole Church.

Cyprian of Carthage
I have already given quotes from Cyprian, and I have acknowledged that he at times refers to Peter as the rock of Matthew 16:18, and others he says it is Christ himself or the entire episcopacy. But to further understand how Cyprian viewed Church hierarchy and the role of the Bishop of Rome let’s look at some other facts and passages.

The Council of Carthage was held to settle a dispute concerning baptism. The Bishop of Rome (Stephen) had been involved in a dispute with the African churches concerning the baptizing of heretics. The issue had even resulted in a time of non-communion between the churches. One should really read the letters of Firmilian against and to Pope Stephen during this dispute. It is clear that the idea of Rome having authority over the other local churches was foreign to the African bishop. However, I want to focus on the words of St. Cyprian from the final acts of the Council of Carthage:

It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

But perhaps I should quote from the 27th letter of St. Cyprian:

Jesus Christ in order to determine the honour due to a bishop, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, ‘I say to thee, thou art Peter,’ etc.”

Abbe Guettee comments:

Thus Christ does not confer upon Peter, by these words, a personal prerogative; he confers upon all the Apostles a power common to them all, and not only upon the Apostles, but upon all the Bishops their successors, who jointly and severally possess the episcopate, which is one, and which is thus the foundation of Church unity.

This post is already long enough. There are many more examples in Church history and the writings of the Saints that illustrate the proper attitude concerning the episcopate and Church hierarchy. I hope we can continue to discuss this.

God bless,


Rusty

[Jezz]

I don't have too many comments to add at this stage. But here are a few observations, and tying together a couple of related points.

Kier wrote:

One point which is often overlooked, but perhaps with Mr Gibson's new film, not so much in future, is that Jesus was a Jew who spoke Aramaic. We can see from many NT passages (even in the Gospels!) that the word He most probably used was actually Kepha (Cephas in the "Grecisised" English) which is just the plain old word for "rock". In the NT, we see the Apostles referring to him as Cephas. It's plain that this word was preserved in both the writings and the daily usage of the Church from day one. So it seems to put all the business about masculine and feminine Greek words out of the picture immediately. Kepha was his (new) name, and it's a kepha that the Lord was referring to.

And George B later wrote:

One item in the attribution of petra that has not been mentioned so far is the one that is also built in to the grammar of the context. Christ responds, after Peter identifies Who Christ is, "Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, that flesh and blood hath not revealed to you, but the Father of Me Who [is] in the heavens, and I to you am saying: "You are Petros, and upon this the petra, I will build my Church..."

One aside is the formulaic of Father, which is the same as the address in the Lord's Prayer: Pater hmwn, hO en tois uranois. [Our Father Who art in Heaven], and it is this Father that is the giver of the *revelation* to Peter, the revelation of the identity of Christ, and *not* anyone in the flesh - Indeed not even Christ in the flesh - And this is the hook-up,as it were, of man to the Father, that establishes the identity of Christ, and the Church of Christ is built upon this rock of knowledge of Who Christ IS, and this knowledge is given by REVELATION from God, and not from human flesh and blood... Not even Christ's human flesh and blood... And it is this revelation by God the Father that is the ROCK upon which the SON builds HIS Church. And gramatically, apocalupse [revelation], the implied noun [of the verb of the same root], is a feminine noun.

And it is in honor of this revelation, that the first disciple to whom it is given is named after it, for without this revelation by the Father, the Chief cornerstone of the Church, Christ, will not have the rocks to build the edifice... And Simon-Peter Bar-Jona was the first, and was very much first among the apostles...

So that he is indeed a rock, and the first, to confess the identity of Christ as revealed by the Father to Him, yet it is the revelation by the Father of Christ's identity that is the rock of Christ's building of His Ekklesia, and not the man Peter, who was but the first to receive it, and was thereby given a leadership role among the Apostles...

And the revelation leads to the confession, and the confession leads to confirmation, and it is the confirmation in the faith that establishes the building blocks of Christ's Church in the flesh...

The rock of revelation by the Father of Who Christ IS, and it's confession, is the basis upon which Christ builds His Church... It is a revelation awaiting us all who have not yet received it...

And I don't know how patristic the referent of 'revelation' is - But it sure seems spot-on in the construction of this passage...
Now, I think both of these guys have a point. Ultimately, though, I have to side with George on this issue. Why?

Well, Keir is 100% correct to note that Jesus originally spoke Aramaic. We do need to remember this. However, we also need to remember that we don't actually have the Aramaic words. Back-translation, as Keir has attempted to do, is always going to be speculative. So this argument is, at best, is always going to be a defensive argument for papal primacy (ie, proving that papal primacy is a possible interpretation of the text) as opposed to an offensive argument (ie, proving that papal primacy is the probable interpretation of the text).

That being said, I agree that Keir's back-translation of the text is probably correct. I say this because the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta (the ancient Aramaic translation of the Bible) actually translates it this way - using "Kepha" for both "Petros" and "petra".

Now, that being said, I don't think it actually matters much. I am willing to grant that this Aramaic rendition are the exact words of Christ. The question still remains: How did Christ's audience interpret them?

Here is where the Greek becomes relevant. Whatever the Aramaic was, one thing is certain: the Greek translator thought that the Aramaic phrase was best translated using two different words. The best explanation for this, I think, is that he understood them to be referring to two different things. If they were both meant to refer directly to the apostle himself, then he probably would have used the same word, I think.

So basically, what I am saying is that the Aramaic is an interesting but ultimately irrelevant diversion. The fact that the Greek translator chose to translate it this way tells us how the Greek translator (and presumably his audience) understood it. And as George explained, the Greek grammar would tend to indicate that the referent of the feminine word "petra" is the feminine word "apocalypse" (also feminine - meaning "revelation"). Although, I think perhaps this case is not as strong as it has been made out. "Petra" is a noun and can stand by itself - it need not need to have a "back referent".

My personal take on the "Thou art Peter" passage: I am happy to agree based on this passage that Peter was the first among the apostles to enter the Church. In this sense, he was certainly "first among the apostles". However, the word "first" here means temporally - in the same way that the Gospel was to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. This does not mean that the Jews were more important or that they had authority over the Gentiles - rather, it simply means that the Jews temporally received the Gospel first - at an earlier point in time. Likewise with Peter - to claim that he was "first" among the apostles is a purely temporal statement. It does not mean "first" in terms of authority. It cannot mean this, as is obvious from other parts of the NT. But this is starting to get a little off-topic.

[scholasticus]

Of back-translations, beams of Divine Light and the Buck Stops Here...

1. It's not my back-translation, it's the Apostles!! In my Bible, they often use this funny word "Cephas" instead of good-old-English "Peter" (like in my Narnia books!). They even go to the trouble of explaining what it means, right there in the Holy Books. Not my fault, gov, just listening to the 12 Apostles. Don't credit *me* with originating this back-translation! Were the Apostolic writers of Scripture speculating so wildly when they did this bit of 1st-century back-translation?

Interesting question about the Church Fathers; does their interpretation count as much as the Apostles? Surely the Apostles were "Fathers" as well?

2. Basically, the important point is exactly what George B. says; it's the revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God that *really counts*. Peter's primacy and authority and so on are also important and true, but *in a healthy perspective* they are there as secondary aspects of the story, dependent on the Trinitarian Mission. Can anyone (R) Catholic agree with me there?

3. In some ways, to be a Petrine minister means to be "last" - who would want this awful and in some ways dangerous and humiliating responsibility? The buck has got to stop somewhere (in the words of C. S. Lewis, "it's the same all the way up"). Someone has to take responsibility for the Kingdom until Christ comes... might as well be Peter.

Offensive or defensive? Why I should "defend" something which I beleive to be real is beyond me :p and I would never want to offend any of you people who seem so learned, intelligent and just plain nice!

My real intention is just in some poor way to make explicable something which is so incredibly health- peace- and life-giving in my own experience.

Peace

Keir

[Rusty T]

I think the important thing to recognize is that some Fathers did see Peter as the rock of Matthew 16:18. But (and it's a big but - har har) what did they mean by saying this? This is what I've addressed in my last post "Peter as the Rock - Part II". It is clear to me that the Fathers who equated Peter with the rock did not understand it in the sense that developed in the Roman church. I have other Fathers I wanted to address, but I did not want to inundate the thread with posts that no one is bothering to respond to. We could sit here all day and give our interpretation of Matthew 16, but if I wanted that I'd be a Protestant.

I will give the "Peter the Rock" topic a couple of days. I will then begin addressing the understanding of the role of Rome during the first three centuries of Christianity.

God bless,

rusty

[Jomby]

Hi Tizzidale:smile:

You have brought up some good points, to which I'd like to respond to in part. I am certainly not a scholar of the early church fathers, so I urge any Roman Catholic who is more familiar to please chime in and correct me where I'm wrong.

First, in reference to Tertullian. I agree with you that the thrust of his argument in "Prescription against Heretics" is the conformity with the apostolic churches. I also agree with your presentation of "on Modesty." Tertullian seems to be saying that Apolostolic powers are gone now; now, there is only teachings, discipline, institutio-- but no power with the bishops. Only the "new prophets" have power in any sense.

But he's talking here specifically about the power to forgive sins. Nothing about the governance of the church. And in fact, at the very beginning of this work he states his opponent: "The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops--issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.'" So, even though he is opposed to the acts of the pope, he still sees that the pope is recognized as the bishop of bishops. It is not a "foreign" idea, but most probably one that he did reject.

As for your final quotation from "Against Praxeus", I'm not sure what it accomplishes.

For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts.

The urging of false accusations is charged against Praxeus, not the Bishop of Rome. In fact, if anything, this passage supports the claim of authority of the Bishop of Rome, to decide matters outside of its immediate jurisdiction. Tertullian's problem here isn't with the authority, but with the results of Praxeus's lies.


As for St. Cyprian, again we have another complicated case. I don't think we can explain away the complexities by stating that each time he talks about the seat of Peter, he is merely referring to every bishop's seat. You are, however, quite correct in showing that Cyprian believed the powers of each bishop to be equal, and that no one is allowed to have authority over another bishop's jurisdiction. At the same time, however, Cyprian, had a sense of the importance of Rome. Take for example his epistle 54, paragraph 14:

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church (ecclesia principalis) whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom unfaith could have no access.

In this same paragraph, Cyprian expresses his surprise that Fortunatus and Felicissimus overstepped what he considered their proper jurisdiction by going to Rome. But, I want to focus on that last part of the last line: "to whom unfaith could have no access." Why does he say this? He doesn't say that it will be very difficult for unfaith, heresy (perfidia) to have access-- but rather, that it's an impossibility. It seems to me that this a reference to the second half of Matthew 16:18-- "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Cyprian saw something special about Rome, no doubt about that.

But furthermore, in the case of Marcian of Arles, Cyprian felt that the pope did have some sort of extraordinary power-- at least to dispose heretical bishops. But Cyprian only seemed to support this power when it accorded with what he thought was true. In the case of Basilides and Martialis, though, he urged the people to ignore Stephen's reinstatement because the appeal of those two was based on lies.


So, in essence, I agree-- these two cannot be used to support or agree with a full-blown notion of papacy. Now for the sake of parity, can we look at Theodoret, St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Nicephorus, or St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople? Or if you want we can look at some of the western fathers.

[Rusty T]

Jomby,

Thank you for taking the time to respond.


First, in reference to Tertullian. I agree with you that the thrust of his argument in "Prescription against Heretics" is the conformity with the apostolic churches. I also agree with your presentation of "on Modesty." Tertullian seems to be saying that Apolostolic powers are gone now; now, there is only teachings, discipline, institutio-- but no power with the bishops. Only the "new prophets" have power in any sense.

But he's talking here specifically about the power to forgive sins. Nothing about the governance of the church. And in fact, at the very beginning of this work he states his opponent: "The Pontifex Maximus--that is, the bishop of bishops--issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.'" So, even though he is opposed to the acts of the pope, he still sees that the pope is recognized as the bishop of bishops. It is not a "foreign" idea, but most probably one that he did reject.

I did notice that about Tertullian, but others have seen it as an ironic statement. I do not know that this passage can be used to indicate that the title of "Bishop of Bishops" was around. I do not think we need to look any further than the words of St. Cyprian which I quoted in an earlier post: "neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops."

I have to say that I'm trying to understand the proper way of viewing the Bishop of Rome, specifically how he was viewed in the first six centuries of the Church. I think it is important to recognize that the Church did see in Rome a primacy, but not a supremacy. It is this idea of supremacy that led to the Great Schism, and it is this that I'm trying to understand.


As for your final quotation from "Against Praxeus", I'm not sure what it accomplishes.

Well, I wanted to point out that Tertullian was not under the authority of the Pope, nor felt that he needed to be. Of course, he became a schismatic, so I was trying to urge caution in using him as a source. Thanks for pointing out flaws with that approach.


As for St. Cyprian, again we have another complicated case. I don't think we can explain away the complexities by stating that each time he talks about the seat of Peter, he is merely referring to every bishop's seat. You are, however, quite correct in showing that Cyprian believed the powers of each bishop to be equal, and that no one is allowed to have authority over another bishop's jurisdiction.

Well, I in no way meant to imply that every time Cyprian speaks of the seat of Peter he is speaking of every bishop. Rather, I wanted to underscore the important point: this early Bishop did not recognize the concept of Papal jurisdictional supremacy.

*snip*


Cyprian saw something special about Rome, no doubt about that.

And I would say that is true of nearly all the Fathers of the Church. But what did they see? Was it jurisdictional supremacy and authority over the other Patriarchates. I do not think we can even come close to saying this about St. Cyprian.

*snip*


So, in essence, I agree-- these two cannot be used to support or agree with a full-blown notion of papacy. Now for the sake of parity, can we look at Theodoret, St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Nicephorus, or St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople? Or if you want we can look at some of the western fathers.

I would love to take a look. Why not start with someone the East holds dear, St. John Chrysostom?

St. John Chrysostom:

St. John Chrysostom obviously believed that Peter was the “head of the Apostles”, something that the Orthodox Church does not deny. There are those who, in a reaction to the excesses of the Roman Church, have almost driven this doctrine underground – only to the detriment of true unity. I emailed an Orthodox priest about this issue, and he gave me this answer, which I can only assume is his public and not private opinion:

. . .if the bishop of Rome had or has universal authority and jurisdiction over the workings of all other bishops throughout the world, or if he were "supreme" rather than simply "prime," the "first among equals," there would have been no reason to bring all of the world's bishops together for the seven ecumenical councils, to determine what seemed good to them in dealing with issues that arose in the life of the Church. Peter was the "first among equals" of the apostles, but he was not the sole supreme authority among them.

I think this would sum up what should be the true Orthodox position on the papacy. Unfortunately, as we shall see as we continue the study, what was true and right became abused and misused by those who wanted supremacy of the Church and not primacy. But I’m off topic, back to St. John Chrysostom.

I know that there are countless quotes from St. John Chrysostom about St. Peter and his primacy among the Apostles. I’ll let you provide those if you wish, and perhaps I will quote a few myself. But what I want to focus on now is on trying to give perspective to these quotations that are often used by Roman Catholics to maintain that St. John Chrysostom viewed the papacy as they do today.

First I would prove that the titles Chrysostom often gave Peter in his writings, he gave to other Apostles also.

For, said they, Peter and James and John, the chiefs of the Apostles and the companions of Christ, forbade them not.

He says of St. Paul:

Angels often receive the mission of guarding the nations, but none of them ever governed the people confided to him as Paul governed the whole universe . . . . the Hebrew people were committed to Michael the Archangel, and to Paul were committed the earth, the sea, the inhabitants of all the universe – even the desert.

But we may go back and forth on the titles accorded to various Apostles by St. John, but there are two more passages I must quote, comment briefly on, and then allow you to have your say.

Of all spiritual magistratures the greatest is the apostolate. How do we know this? Because the apostle preceded all others. As the consul is the first of civil magistrates, so is the apostle the first of spiritual magistrates. St. Paul himself, when he enumerates these dignities, places at their head the prerogatives of the apostolate. What does he say? ‘And God has set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers.’ Do you observe the summit of these dignities? Do you mark that the apostle is at the apex of the hierarchy – no one before, none above him. For he says: “First, apostles.” And not only is the apostolate the first of all dignities, but also the root and foundation thereof.

I do not think it can be any clearer than that, however, I’m sure someone will contest the point.

I’m already making this longer than I intended, but I do have one more quote from St. John Chrysostom. That he viewed Peter as having primacy is unquestioned. That St. John viewed the Bishop of Rome as having supremacy over the church due to succession is very much in question. I’ll end with this passage:

One of the prerogatives of our city (Antioch) is to have had for her teacher Peter, the leader of the Apostles. It was just that the city which first of all the world was adorned with the name of Christian, should have received for her Bishop the first of the Apostles. But having received him as teacher, we did not keep him always; we yielded him to the imperial city of Rome; or rather, we have always kept him; for if we have not the body of Peter, we have kept the faith of Peter as our Peter, since holding Peter’s faith is as though we held Peter himself.

God bless,



Rusty

[spl_cadet]

Quick question tizzidale, but what exactly do you see as the Catholic view on the papacy? I want to make sure we're on the same ground here.

[Rusty T]

Quick question tizzidale, but what exactly do you see as the Catholic view on the papacy? I want to make sure we're on the same ground here.
This is how I view the Roman Catholic views on the Papacy - that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to Peter, has the power to govern (in the strictest sense of that word) the Catholic (universal church); his is not a local church, but rather his jurisdiction is worldwide; that he has the power to pass judgment upon the Church, and that there is no higher power - thus he is not subject to conciliar decrees.

I've been reading the documents of the U.S. Theological Consultation between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Church, and I would like quote from this document - which was agreed upon by both Churches.

The Orthodox do accept the notion of universal primacy, speaking of it as a "primacy of honor" accorded to a primus inter pares; at the same time, they cannot accept an understanding of the role of the primate which excludes the collegiality and interdependence of the whole body of bishops, and in consequence continue to reject the formulation of Papal primacy found in Vatican I's constitution Pastor Aeternus.

rusty

[kofh2u]

I fully acknowledge that some Fathers of the Church state that Peter was declared the Rock in Matthew 16:18, I want to try to understand in what sense they meant it. I will look into two that are often cited by Roman Catholic apologists: Tertullian and Cyprian.

Tertullian:

Tertullian is an interesting and complicated case because of his eventual slide into heresy. I want to look at two passages of Tertullian that are often used to make the case that Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16 and that this implies universal primacy for the Roman Bishop.

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth?.

We must really look at the context of this passage in order to know whether or not that Tertullian is intimating that Peter the rock on which the Church is built or that he is the only one to whom the keys of the kingdom were given. Prescription Against Heretics was written to refute the teachings of various heresies. In chapter twenty-one, Tertullian sets forth a rule. He states:

Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

It must be plain from the context that Tertullian is not setting forth Peter as the foundation of Truth and authority in the Church (and by succession the Bishop of Rome), but that the judge of Truth in Doctrine is whether or not one’s doctrine conforms to that of the apostolic churches. I think we can see that even clearer by looking at chapter twenty-two of this work.

First, Tertullian tells us, the heretics would claim that the Apostles did not know all things and then almost in the next breath proclaim that they knew all things but withheld truth from all people. Tertullian is indignant because such impugning of the Apostles is ultimately an affront to Christ. He then states:

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand?
He then delivers the quote concerning Matthew 16:18 followed by other examples from the lives of the Apostles. It seems that Tertullian is battling dangerous teachings that would separate Truth from the Church, the pillar and ground of Truth (I Tim 3:15) by declaring themselves free from the True Doctrine delivered to the Apostles by Christ. Here, Peter as the rock is not given as the standard by which doctrine must conform, but as an example. It is important that this is recognized.

The Prescription Against Heresies was written before Tertullian fell into the Montanist heresy. However, there is a passage from his Montanist period that is often used by Roman Catholic apologists to prove the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Let’s take a look at the passage as quoted at this site (http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp))

The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys

However, let’s look at the entirely of the quote and in context. At this point in his life Tertullian was outside the communion of the Church, including the Bishopric of Rome. The very purpose of this passage was to maintain that the Catholic Church was not in sole possession of Truth, and was wrong to claim that she was in possession of truth based on Apostolic succession. We must note that this is entirely in contradiction with Tertullian’s earlier stance in The Prescription Against Heresies. Here is the full quote:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation.

Tertullian is making the case that no one can claim succession from Peter simply through Apostolic succession. Remember, at this time, Tertullian was outside the communion of the Catholic Church. It would behoove the Roman Catholic apologists to stop using this quote as support for their cause.

That Tertullian did not hold the Bishop of Rome to be in authority over the Church, we need only to look at Tertullian’s actions and other writings. In Against Praxeas, Tertullian reproaches the Bishop of Rome for his actions concerning Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla:


For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts.

To use Tertullian as a support for the Papal claims would be a mistake. His statements are inconsistent with one another – especially his later statements compared to his earlier. One thing is clear, however, and that is that at no time did Tertullian support the notion of Papal supremacy or authority over the whole Church.

Cyprian of Carthage
I have already given quotes from Cyprian, and I have acknowledged that he at times refers to Peter as the rock of Matthew 16:18, and others he says it is Christ himself or the entire episcopacy. But to further understand how Cyprian viewed Church hierarchy and the role of the Bishop of Rome let’s look at some other facts and passages.

The Council of Carthage was held to settle a dispute concerning baptism. The Bishop of Rome (Stephen) had been involved in a dispute with the African churches concerning the baptizing of heretics. The issue had even resulted in a time of non-communion between the churches. One should really read the letters of Firmilian against and to Pope Stephen during this dispute. It is clear that the idea of Rome having authority over the other local churches was foreign to the African bishop. However, I want to focus on the words of St. Cyprian from the final acts of the Council of Carthage:

It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

But perhaps I should quote from the 27th letter of St. Cyprian:

Jesus Christ in order to determine the honour due to a bishop, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, ‘I say to thee, thou art Peter,’ etc.”

Abbe Guettee comments:

Thus Christ does not confer upon Peter, by these words, a personal prerogative; he confers upon all the Apostles a power common to them all, and not only upon the Apostles, but upon all the Bishops their successors, who jointly and severally possess the episcopate, which is one, and which is thus the foundation of Church unity.

This post is already long enough. There are many more examples in Church history and the writings of the Saints that illustrate the proper attitude concerning the episcopate and Church hierarchy. I hope we can continue to discuss this.

God bless,


Rusty


1) I want you to know that I respect all the scholarly energy you have invested in puzzling about this.

2) I suspect it has been interesting, and an investigation of the heart, too.

3) My take on the whole subject is that the question is both muted by prophecy (see item #6), and that it has proven to be unexplorable by reading opinions near 2000 years old.

4) In regard to the opinions of these church fathers, every generation of our forefathers, every group of humanity which has come, prior to our own short life experience, has already studied this question. Without resolving it.
They used your approach in many cases. They left us no answer, not even useful opinions. The arguments are proof.

It is about as certain that you waste your time here as it is to re-try failed scientific experiments.

There is wisdom, for example, in believing Tom Edison, for instance, about what doesn't work as a filament in an electric light bulb.
Your exegesis and authoritarian church father approach has had 2000 years, a chance in every one of the Christian generations to challange or support the meaning of the key given Peter, and the inference of the rock.

5) Using The Scientific Method, I suggest a new hypothesis be investigated.

The key(s) given Peter were a form of the Urim and Thummim, and they are held in the hand.

(Matt. 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, ....)

6) To this yet to be borne out by theories to follow, of course, but, IMO, the line of the Pope, from Peter on, is supported by bible prediction:

Rev. 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit (history), whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, (DESTROYER), but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon, (OR POPE).


7) What is the fan and how it performs as a key is the first theory, called the Spock Experiment.

8) Now admit it, this may not be orthodox Christian debate on this subject, one long paralyzed century after century by circular debate, but it does offer the honest inquierer an alternative perspective.

[Jomby]

Hi Rusty. :smile:

Well, I think that St. John Chysostom, if we look carefully, shows himself to be a supporter of the notion that Peter was not only the head of the Apostles, but was ruler over them and over the entire world.

"He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])

"If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world."(Ibid)

And:

"God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, 'Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren'." (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])

In reference to the Acts of the Apostles:

"Wherefore at the beginning he said: 'Men and brethren, it behoves us to choose from among you.' He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby making the elected objects of reverence, and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest....'Must one be ordained to be a witness,' that their college might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? What was the motive? This: that he might not seem to bestow it of favor."(Library of the Fathers, Homilies of St. J. Chrys on the Acts, Oxford 1852, hom 3, page 40; Migne, vol IX, 33[23])

Also:

"So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. [3] But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in that fashion now; nay, quite the contrary. For observe they were a hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as having been put in charge of them." (ibid Oxford, page 42, Migne, 37[26])

Chrysostom is very clear about the special office of Peter leading both the apostles and the entire flock.

[Jomby]

Sorry I didn't respond to your quotes. I shall do so now. :smile:

First one: Chrysostom saw a hierarchy within the apostles, within which Peter, James and John were the highest three.

Second one: Tough call on Paul, from what I have read. It seems that he does accord him a sort of co-generalship. He does say that they are equal in honor and dignity. But he also goes at great lengths to show that Paul recognized the superiority of Peter, despite the equality in honor and dignity.

Third one: He's talking about dignity here, but we already know that he accords different levels of dignity amongst the apostles. So I think the answer would be that he means there is no other "class" such as prophecy or teaching that is greater than the apostolate.

Fourth one: I see no necessary conclusions from this one. He's speaking figuratively that they are honored to have been founded by Peter. I think he's talking literally about the man Peter, and not the office of Peter.

[Rusty T]

Well, Jomby, I hate to keep dueling with quotes from St. John Chrysostom, but I will give a few more for perspective's sake. I will only begin by stating again that I believe that Peter held a primacy among the Apostles. The Orthodox Church does not teach contrary to this. What is not taught is that this meant Peter had the power to rule the other Apostles - nor would he need to. What transpired int he development of the Papal claims was unnecessary and tragic. What should have been a position of honor guidance, through politics and pride became a position of power and prestige. It is a sad fact, and one that hopefully we will see set right in our lifetime. Let's continue to look at St. John Chrysostom.


In the place where the cherubim are covered with glory, and where the seraphim soar, there shall we see Paul with Peter, (Paul) who is the prince and president (προστάτης) of the choir of saints.

On Paul recognizing Peter as superior:


What can be more lowly than such a soul? After such successes, wanting nothing of Peter, not even his assent, but being of equal dignity with him, (for at present I will say no more,) he comes to him as his elder and superior.



It would seem that St. John saw Paul coming to Peter more as a commentary on Paul's humbleness rather than Peter's superiority.



. . .Peter and Paul, the columns of the Church and princes of the Apostles, the most glorious in heaven, the walls of the universe, and guardians of earth and sea.



And there are many more quotations that I could cite, and perhaps more that you could as well. The question remains - did St. John Chrysostom see in the Bishop of Rome (whom he undoubtedly saw as Peter's successor - as he did the Patriarch of Antioch) a univeral supremacy over the episcopacy? I know what episode I will be discussing next, but I was waiting to bring it into the discussion upon the first centuries of the Church. We can discuss it now if you wish.



Rusty

[Jomby]

Hi Tizz/Rusty.:smile:

But my quotes show that he did have power to rule over the apostles. I agree, though, that the place of Paul in Chrystotum's eyes is quite high and on par with Peter. Either way though, you have at least one, if not two, rulers _over_ the apostles.

[Rusty T]

Jomby,

You and I have a different idea of what Chrysostom meant by "rule." And furthermore, who is/are the successor(s) of Peter, Jomby? Is it the Bishop of Rome? Of Antioch? Or in some sence is it all the Bishops? Or in another sense is it the whole Church? I think one of the most telling portions of commentary by St. John Chrysostom concerning the Christian priesthood. He says, "what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors." And who are these successors of Peter? The Bishop of Rome? No.


For He did not at that time wish to show how much Peter loved Him, but how much He Himself loved His own Church, and he desired to teach Peter and all of us that we also should bestow much zeal upon the same.

It is obvious that St. John considers all who tend the flock of Christ (Bishops and the priesthood through the Bishops) the successors of Peter.

Another hint to this interpretation by John is found in his Homily on Matthew 24:32-33 when speaking about Christ's instruction to Peter for the feeding of the sheep, he says, "But not to priests only is this said . . . ".

And also, in his commentary on Acts 1, St. John says this about the choosing of the replacement of Judas:

observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously.


This is how the office of Peter - whether that in Rome or in Antioch or found in all Bishops and priests - should be held. This is how the Orthodox Church recognized the Bishop of Rome, but rather than continue to "do everything with the common consent", the Popes of history have chose to do much "imperiously" - thus breaking the bounds of conciliar love.

Rusty

[Jomby]

Jomby,

You and I have a different idea of what Chrysostom meant by "rule."

I don't think I've said anything about what he meant by rule. Maybe we can look into that.


And furthermore, who is/are the successor(s) of Peter, Jomby? Is it the Bishop of Rome? Of Antioch? Or in some sence is it all the Bishops? Or in another sense is it the whole Church?

I don't know. I haven't found anything that tells me either way.


I think one of the most telling portions of commentary by St. John Chrysostom concerning the Christian priesthood. He says, "what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors." And who are these successors of Peter? The Bishop of Rome? No.

I haven't seen anything that definitively confirms your opinion yet.


It is obvious that St. John considers all who tend the flock of Christ (Bishops and the priesthood through the Bishops) the successors of Peter.

I'm not trying to be obstinate, but I don't think this is obvious. And this passage from homily 88 on the Gospel of John trumps that one:

""He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])"


Another hint to this interpretation by John is found in his Homily on Matthew 24:32-33 when speaking about Christ's instruction to Peter for the feeding of the sheep, he says, "But not to priests only is this said . . . ".

I think my above quote responds to this as well.


And also, in his commentary on Acts 1, St. John says this about the choosing of the replacement of Judas:

observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously.


This is how the office of Peter - whether that in Rome or in Antioch or found in all Bishops and priests - should be held. This is how the Orthodox Church recognized the Bishop of Rome, but rather than continue to "do everything with the common consent", the Popes of history have chose to do much "imperiously" - thus breaking the bounds of conciliar love.


You are misreading Chrysostum here. He is most certainly not saying that this is the way Peter was required to be-- as if there were a church law preventing him from acting "imperiously." He is praising Peter because he could very have acted imperiously and it would have been within his bounds to do so, but nevertheless he acts like a perfect and noble statesman! Read carefully the rest of that homily-- I have already quoted some of it above. He doesn't say that he seeks common consent because "church law required it" but because 1. so That the matter might not become an object of strife 2. and they might not fall into contention about it and 3. that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.

[Jezz]

I had been intending to make some comments on the whole "papal primacy" issue - specifically on the one point which I think is the most decisive. However, I had been holding back because this comment was not directly relevant to the interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But now that this discussion seems to have well and truly moved on from that particular focus, and in fact my point has already been alluded to by Rusty, I feel it might be appropriate to include it. If Rusty would like to return to a focus on Matthew 16:18, or perhaps start a new thread on this new issue, then I will follow his lead.

For me, the decisive argument against papal supremacy goes back to the fact that Peter was (as Rusty pointed out) the first bishop of Antioch. The Roman claims to papal supremacy (as opposed to mere primacy) is based on the following argument:

1. Peter was the supreme apostle.
2. Those who are Peter's successors inherit this supreme status.
3. The bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter.
4. Therefore, the bishop of Rome is the supreme bishop.

The Antiochian situation completely undermines this argument, in my view. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. Indeed, he was bishop of Antioch before he became bishop of Rome. If the supremacy argument applies to the bishop of Rome, then surely it must apply to the bishop of Antioch as well? Why is the Patriarch of Antioch not considered the supreme bishop as successor of Peter? Instead, Antioch was always considered 3rd behind Rome and Alexandria (and 4th behind Constantinople when the capital moved there). I'm curious to know what the Roman Catholic answer to this argument is? Because for me at present, this is a killer argument against the claims to papal supremacy.

With regard to my question about the relative ranks of Antioch and Rome - it might be argued that we have a "tie" for honour based on the succession of Peter only, and that this tie is broken by the fact that Rome is the capital. But then, what about Alexandria? Alexandria ranked as the #2 bishopric above Antioch - and yet, it was not founded by Peter, but by Mark. Sure, Mark was closely associated with Peter, but he wasn't Peter.

It seems to me from these two examples that the rank of a see was historically dependent primarily (pun intended) on the rank of that city within the Empire, rather than on the honour of the apostle who founded it. Indeed, the imperial ecclesiology always seemed to me to follow imperial lines. For example, what we think of as an ecclesiastical term like "diocese" actually comes from the imperial term for "province". Within the Roman Empire, the cities in order of importance and prestige were always Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. And, lo and behold, this is the same order of honour ascribed to the patriarchal sees.

I also note that, although Rome was typically named as the city to which people should look for Orthodoxy, this was not an honour accorded solely to that city. When the Emporers at the end of the battle against Arianism made Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire, they said that "all must follow the faith as held by <sorry, I forget his name> of Rome and Peter of Alexandria". Again, this makes sense when the primacy is seen as an imperial thing.

And also note that when Constantinople became the new capital of Rome - the new Rome, the honour of that episcopate of that city was elevated from nothingness to be 2nd in the empire at the 2nd Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. The official reason given at that council? It had nothing to do with the honour accorded to the first bishop of that region (which they claimed was Andrew). Rather, the official reason was "because Constantinople is New Rome". Likewise, when Constantinople was granted dispute resolution powers and jurisdiction in the East similar to that which Rome enjoyed in the West (again at an ecumenical council), the reason was the same - "Constantinople is New Rome".

Thus it seems obvious to me that the primacy of Rome was more related to the imperial and secular honour associated with that city rather than any theological argument or anything to do with Peter. Appeals to Roman primacy were similar to what we could expect from the future Orthodox Church in America appealing to the episcopate of Washington DC or New York in times of dispute.

[Rusty T]

I'm not trying to be obstinate, but I don't think this is obvious. And this passage from homily 88 on the Gospel of John trumps that one:
Well, I do not think that I'm trying to play dueling quotes with you, Jomby. I just want to understand what St. John meant when speaking of Peter. It seems to me that in some places he emphasizes that Peter was to feed the sheep, and in others that this was spoken to all who tend the flock of Christ. I would say that both are correct, for often we see in the writings of the Fathers that Peter not only was the "chief" of the Apostles, but the prefigurement of the Episcopacy. So, as the whole Church could be spoken of being founded on both him and his confession, the whole Church could be spoken of as being cared for by both him and the priesthood symbolized in him. This is what I'm coming to see.


You are misreading Chrysostum here. He is most certainly not saying that this is the way Peter was required to be-- as if there were a church law preventing him from acting "imperiously."
No, Jomby, I think that is exactly what he is saying. He is praising Peter for his action in acting collegially (sic) because this is how the government of the Church should work. And I believe if you would read the entire passage (I did, by the way) you'd see something interesting. St. John says, "Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive?" He does not say, "Why did Peter choose not to do it?" but rather, "Why wasn't it up to Peter to choose?" Peter was bound by something higher than himself to act as he did. Notice:

Not he appointed them: but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor.


He is praising Peter because he could very have acted imperiously and it would have been within his bounds to do so, but nevertheless he acts like a perfect and noble statesman!
I have yet to read where Chrysostom gives to Peter the power to act imperiously. I believe you have misread Chysostom.


Read carefully the rest of that homily-- I have already quoted some of it above. He doesn't say that he seeks common consent because "church law required it" but because 1. so That the matter might not become an object of strife 2. and they might not fall into contention about it and 3. that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.
I do not know where you get the "church law requires it", for I never wrote that nor did I quote anyone who wrote that. I would not say that Church law required it, but rather God himself requires it of all of us. Peter acted as Jesus taught him to act - to prefer his brethren, to guide them into Truth, not to usurp power over them. The scene of the footwashing comes to mind.

rusty

[Jezz]

When the Emporers at the end of the battle against Arianism made Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire, they said that "all must follow the faith as held by <sorry, I forget his name> of Rome and Peter of Alexandria".
It was Pope Damasus, and it was in the year AD 380. The edict was issued by the emporers and vice emporers Gratian, Theodosius I and Valentinian II.

[Jomby]

hi tizzidale. :smile:

Let's look at that quotation you brought out closely so were sure what it refers to.

Not he appointed them: but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor.

"Not he appointed them." As a matter of pure fact, he didn't appoint them, but the group did.

"But it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect"-- What proposition? What effect? The proposition is to have the same effect as him appointing them. The proposition is that one needs to take the place of Judas.

"at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own"-- What was not his own? The introduction of this proposition was not his own, meaning he did not craft it out of thin air. It doesn't say that "this was not his own, but everyone's combined."

"but from old time by prophecy; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor". I'm not sure of the original greek here, so my guess is that he is contrasting expositing and inventing precepts. Peter does not invent the rule, but explains it.

So what does all this come down to? The apostles on the whole appointed 2 candidates; Peter did not. But the proposition that one needs to be appointed was introduced by Peter. But even this was not of his making, but came from scripture. The "not his own" does not refer to him choosing the candidates, but to introducing the proposition. But even more importantly, "not his own" is not the same as "not his own to make" as if Chrysostum were citing powers or lack of powers. Again, it's not a matter of citing law, but citing a matter of fact. The proposition was in fact not his own, but from prophecy.

And as if to anticipate your objection, Chrysostum says later in that Homily: "And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively." If you are looking for a place where Chrysostum says Peter can act unilaterally, you can't pass over this passage.

(Here is the source text for those who are interested:ACTS: Homily 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm) )

[Rusty T]

Jomby,

Not he appointed them: but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor.


"Not he appointed them." As a matter of pure fact, he didn't appoint them, but the group did.Yep.


"But it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect"-- What proposition? What effect? The proposition is to have the same effect as him appointing them. The proposition is that one needs to take the place of Judas. The proposition refers to the fact that Peter pointed everyone to the prophecy in Psalms. He guided them to the decision, but . . .


"at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own"-- What was not his own? The introduction of this proposition was not his own, meaning he did not craft it out of thin air. It doesn't say that "this was not his own, but everyone's combined."And I am not saying it was "everyone's combined", Jomby. I am merely pointing out that Peter did not act imperiously at this junction, because he could not. Simply for the fact that it was not the will of God that he do so. Look at the passage again: even the "proposition" (to set aside those who were partakers in the ministry) did not come from him. He merely "pointed it out" to them from prophecy.


"but from old time by prophecy; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor". I'm not sure of the original greek here, so my guess is that he is contrasting expositing and inventing precepts. Peter does not invent the rule, but explains it.I agree with this.


So what does all this come down to? The apostles on the whole appointed 2 candidates; Peter did not. But the proposition that one needs to be appointed was introduced by Peter. But even this was not of his making, but came from scripture. The "not his own" does not refer to him choosing the candidates, but to introducing the proposition. But even more importantly, "not his own" is not the same as "not his own to make" as if Chrysostum were citing powers or lack of powers. Again, it's not a matter of citing law, but citing a matter of fact. The proposition was in fact not his own, but from prophecy.I agree with everything you said here. In fact, it was what I've been saying.


And as if to anticipate your objection, Chrysostum says later in that Homily: "And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively." If you are looking for a place where Chrysostum says Peter can act unilaterally, you can't pass over this passage.Here is the quote in context:

Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary.—For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, "And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.To me, Jomby, it would seem clear that Chrysostom is saying that Peter led the Apostles as Christ would have wanted him to lead. St. John Chrysostom obviously held Peter as the leader of the Apostles (as do most people), but how Peter led is far more important than how he could have led. For I think that what St. John is saying is that Peter led as he did because that is how he was taught to lead. To do so any other way would be contrary to the teachings of Christ.

To understand how St. John Chrysostom saw how the governance of the Church should be, let's look at his homily on the 15th chapter of Acts.

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. (v. 13.) (b) 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.

All of this is not contradictory if we say that Peter had primacy but did not lead imperiously - nor could he for it would be outside the teaching of Christ. It is an interesting study on Church governance, nonetheless.

In Christ,

rusty

[Jomby]

One more note.

Tizzidale, I do see what you are saying about the passage: "Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive?" The interpretations depend on whose motive is referred to in "the motive": God's or Peter's. Chrysostum adds, "This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor"-- which doesn't necessarily resolve the dilemma. It could be that Peter did not want to seem that way, or that God does not want Peter to seem that way. I would tend to take the first option-- that Peter did not do it so that he seemed to favor one over the other. If we take the option that it is God's motive-- then the answer seems inadequate. What was God's motive for not letting the decision rest with Peter? The Orthodox would say because all are equal, not that they wish to avoid showing favoritism. It doesn't make sense to ascribe the motive here to God; it only works as Peter's motive.

And then further on, "And besides, he was not yet endowed with the spirit." Will "being endowed with the Spirit" change the situation? Will that allow the decision to rest with Peter? Chrysostum seems to indicate as much, otherwise he wouldn't mention it as part of the motive.

[Jomby]

And I am not saying it was "everyone's combined", Jomby. I am merely pointing out that Peter did not act imperiously at this junction, because he could not. Simply for the fact that it was not the will of God that he do so. Look at the passage again: even the "proposition" (to set aside those who were partakers in the ministry) did not come from him. He merely "pointed it out" to them from prophecy.

You cannot derive a "could not" from a "did not," especially when Chrysostum talks about motives. In fact there is absolutely nothing that indicates he could not. And that's the whole point. Why praise Peter if he could not have acted any other way?



Here is the quote in context:

Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary.—For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, "And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.


To me, Jomby, it would seem clear that Chrysostom is saying that Peter led the Apostles as Christ would have wanted him to lead. St. John Chrysostom obviously held Peter as the leader of the Apostles (as do most people), but how Peter led is far more important than how he could have led. For I think that what St. John is saying is that Peter led as he did because that is how he was taught to lead. To do so any other way would be contrary to the teachings of Christ.

I find it interesting what you highlighted. Why vainglory? Do you believe that any exercise of authority without the consent of others is because of vainglory? Or that it automatically implies that one is not exercising "the provident care for the governed."

I think the most interesting line there is this one: "But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary." What does this refer to? An illegitimate papacy? I would find that very hard to believe. If this were really about an illegitimate papacy, this would certainly merit more than a single line in passing. No, I think he's talking about church government on all levels. But because that current sitation does not reach the perfect level of the apostles, does this make it illegitimate? Chrysostom indicates nothing of the sort. This homily is in part an exortation to strive for the perfection that the apostles maintained. The legitimacy of things are never questioned.


To understand how St. John Chrysostom saw how the governance of the Church should be, let's look at his homily on the 15th chapter of Acts.

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. (v. 13.) (b) 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.

All of this is not contradictory if we say that Peter had primacy but did not lead imperiously - nor could he for it would be outside the teaching of Christ. It is an interesting study on Church governance, nonetheless.

Yes, Peter had primacy and did not lead imperiously. But I'm still not understanding the "nor could he" part. We have to make some distinctions-- just because Christ taught it, does not mean it becomes impossible. Christ taught us not to sin, and, of course, this doesn't thereby mean we are unable to sin. What part is against the teachings of Christ? Or did Christ tell Peter do not make decisions without full consent because he is equal in rank to all others?

In this situation, James had the chief authority, considering that it was a local problem in Jerusalem. Was there a need for Peter to assume the "chief" role? Proabably not. But observe what Chrysostum says in the Homily before that one, #32: "And observe, he first permits the question to be moved in the Church, and then speaks." Before the council begins, he "permits" the question to be moved in the Church- as if to say he could have not done this. According to Chrysostum, Peter opens the council.

[Rusty T]

You cannot derive a "could not" from a "did not," especially when Chrysostum talks about motives. In fact there is absolutely nothing that indicates he could not. And that's the whole point. Why praise Peter if he could not have acted any other way?
This does come down to whose motive is being talked about here by St. John. Let's look at that passage again: "Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive?" Notice he did not say, "Why did Peter decide not to do it himself?", but rather, "Why did it not rest with Peter?" In other words, why did Peter not have the authority to make the election himself? I think it's clear whose motive St. John is referencing: God's.


I find it interesting what you highlighted. Why vainglory? Do you believe that any exercise of authority without the consent of others is because of vainglory? Or that it automatically implies that one is not exercising "the provident care for the governed."
In a word, "Yes." We see this principle consistently applied in scripture and witnessed to by the Fathers and in the Church.


I think the most interesting line there is this one: "But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary." What does this refer to? An illegitimate papacy? I would find that very hard to believe.
Of course not. I did not even intimate such. I think this phrase is St. John's own little commentary on the state of the hierarchy of his day - that "prelacy" had become an affair of dignity (unfortunately).

because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced.


If this were really about an illegitimate papacy, this would certainly merit more than a single line in passing. No, I think he's talking about church government on all levels. But because that current sitation does not reach the perfect level of the apostles, does this make it illegitimate? Chrysostom indicates nothing of the sort. This homily is in part an exortation to strive for the perfection that the apostles maintained. The legitimacy of things are never questioned.
I do not think it was a commentary on the papacy at all either. See above.


Yes, Peter had primacy and did not lead imperiously. But I'm still not understanding the "nor could he" part. We have to make some distinctions-- just because Christ taught it, does not mean it becomes impossible.
I keep thinking back to the lesson Christ taught at the washing of His disciples' feet:

If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.


Christ taught us not to sin, and, of course, this doesn't thereby mean we are unable to sin. What part is against the teachings of Christ? Or did Christ tell Peter do not make decisions without full consent because he is equal in rank to all others?
Of course this is speculation, for we have no example of Peter making such decisions outside of the agreement of the other Apostles -or that had to be explained to them (Cornelius comes to mind here). To compare Peter's possible excercise of power to our tendency to sin (even though we've been told to not sin) is apropos.


In this situation, James had the chief authority, considering that it was a local problem in Jerusalem. Was there a need for Peter to assume the "chief" role? Probably not.
I think you are wrong about it being "a local problem." In fact, St. John goes out of his way to say that the problem was not one in Jerusalem, but found in Antioch and other places. And in fact, after James gives the sentence, it is said:

"Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, to choose men of their own company"—do you observe they do not merely enact these matters, and nothing more?—"and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner."


But observe what Chrysostum says in the Homily before that one, #32: "And observe, he first permits the question to be moved in the Church, and then speaks." Before the council begins, he "permits" the question to be moved in the Church- as if to say he could have not done this. According to Chrysostum, Peter opens the council.
Peter's speech is mentioned first, but neither in the Biblical text nor here in St. John's writings is it mentioned that Peter "opens the council". This is conjecture. But what if he did open the council? And if St. John mentions that he "permits" the matter to be moved to the Church, what of it? In what sense is "permit" used here? As if he could have refused?

Rusty

[Rusty T]

Jezz,

Your post (#33) is wonderful, and I do not mind at all if someone wants to address the very important points you raised. I agree with you, so it would like preaching to the choir.

rusty

[Jezz]

Hey Jomby,

I won't say too much, because you and Rusty are having a good discussion. I just want to clear up what appeared to be a miscommunication:


You cannot derive a "could not" from a "did not," especially when Chrysostum talks about motives. In fact there is absolutely nothing that indicates he could not. And that's the whole point. Why praise Peter if he could not have acted any other way?
Rusty will correct me if I am wrong, but...

It seems to me that you are confusing two senses of the word "could". When Rusty said "could not", he didn't mean "was physically and mentally incapable of" - like, for example, praising Peter for not walking on the moon.

Rather, Rusty speaks of something that was within his capability as a human being to do, but that to do so would have been exceeding the authority of his office. Perhaps Rusty should (pun intended) have used "should" instead of "could", ie: "Peter should not have acted imperially (as it wasn't his prerogative to act imperiously)."

With this clarification, your note about the absurdity of St John Chrysostom praising Peter for refraining from acting imperially vanishes. It is not an absurdity in the same league as praising him for refraining from walking on the moon. Rather, it is like praising him for refraining from eating the forbidden fruit (which he could have done, but would have been wrong).

[Rusty T]

Jezz is correct. I should have used "should not", but I thought "could not" expressed a stronger prohibition against such actions. I meant "could not" only in the sense that Peter could not have acted imperiously and fulfilled the will of God for the Church.

Rusty

[Rusty T]

I appreciate everyone’s participation in this thread. I want to review where we’ve been, and then I hope to discuss the role of the Roman papacy in the first three centuries of the Church.

We began our discussion by focusing on Matthew 16’s “thou art Peter. . . “. It was an interesting discussion, which I tried to keep focused more on the Father’s of the Church and their understanding of these verses than on our 21st century re-hashing of old arguments. I hope that everyone learned something.

Jomby and I also had an interesting discussion on St. John Chysostom’s understanding of Peter’s role in the early Church’s government. I now want to move away from the Church’s understanding of Peter’s role specifically, and into the Church’s understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome.


The Bishop of Rome:


Did the Church give the Bishop of Rome universal authority during its first three centuries? Or was this authority assumed at a later date. These are the questions I will try to answer in my next few posts.

The Question of Pascha

In Eusebius’ history of the Early Church (The Church History of Eusebius, ed.Philip Schaff), we’re told that at the close of the 2nd century the question of when to celebrate Easter (Pascha) was one of great contention. There are several passages in Eusebius’ work that I want to reference. Let us start with a portion of chapter 23:

Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account,and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only.

We must not neglect to understand that this was a very important question. Eusebius continues:

There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus,bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor;also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas,as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëneand the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus,bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

Let us note that the Bishop of Rome is listed along with others, and in fact listed after the Bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem. If we continue reading in Eusebius, more interesting facts emerge about this controversy that will hopefully shed light on our questions.

There are some who think that all of the councils mentioned above were called at the request of the Bishop of Rome. Others contest this. I do not know for sure, and we can examine the issue if some wish. I do want to look at the response however of Polycrates to the Bishop of Rome, as quoted by Eusebius. I will also look at the actions of the Bishop of Rome, Victor, in his attempts to excommunicate the churches of Asia; as well as the response he received from certain others.

”. . . .those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: “I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire;whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.”

Eusebius, now writes:

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

There is some debate over whether or not Victor attempted to excommunicate these churches, or actually did, but this isn’t the issue. What transpired after these letters by Victor is important. Eusebius:

But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

Quoting from a letter from Irenaeus to Victor, Eusebius writes:

And when the blessed Polycarp was at Romein the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.

So, concludes Eusebius:

Irenæus, who truly was well named,became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

It is clear from these passages that Victor, the Bishop of Rome, did not have the authority to settle the matter. Instead it had to be settled by the conciliar decision of the Bishops.

__________________________________________________

I thought of writing more, but I will leave as-is this first post concerning the role of the Pope in the first three centuries. This question is too important to bog everyone down with too much detail all at once.

Rusty

[scholasticus]

I'm getting quite tired of this thread, because I don't have a complete copy of the Church Fathers (and neither did the Fathers!), but I do have my Bible:

Why wasn't more time spent going over the Old Testament references to the government of the Church, and putting the New Testament references in Scriptural context...?

Surely the Bible is the biggest common ground (although of course it's wise to admit straight away that it is the "Holy of Holies" of Theology, and we are all still in the foothills here) between Christians (doctrinally).

Let's remember that when the Apostles wanted to make a point, they used almost exclusively the Old Testament if they needed a text... is it not possible to understand something more of how they would have seen the issues in that light?

Peace

Keir

[Jezz]

I'm getting quite tired of this thread, because I don't have a complete copy of the Church Fathers (and neither did the Fathers!)...
You can access the complete works of the Fathers online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org). So now there should be no excuse. :smile:

As for the Church Fathers not having a complete copy of the Fathers... well, they didn't have a complete copy of the Bible either... :wink:


...but I do have my Bible:

Why wasn't more time spent going over the Old Testament references to the government of the Church, and putting the New Testament references in Scriptural context...?
The reason we didn't spend more time going over it is simply because the topic that Rusty chose for discussion was not "Old Testament interpretations of Petrine primacy" but "The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 according to the Fathers".

Besides which, if there were any OT precedents for the Papacy and for interpreting relevant passages in the NT, the Fathers would undoubtedly have made reference to them.


Surely the Bible is the biggest common ground (although of course it's wise to admit straight away that it is the "Holy of Holies" of Theology, and we are all still in the foothills here) between Christians (doctrinally).
What? A Catholic wishes to ignore Tradition and focus on Scripture alone? Something is amiss here... :smile:

It is of course true that the Bible is common ground, and of course it is always well to remember that it stands at the very peak of the Holy Tradition in terms of its importance. But we're not having a discussion here between Catholics and fundy Protestants. We're having a discussion between both the Papal Catholics and the Orthodox Catholics. We do not rely on the Bible alone for doctrine, and it is a very unCatholic thing to try and rely on Scripture without reference to Tradition.

But hey, if you wish to focus on the Bible alone, be my guest. It is, of course, impossible to demonstrate the doctrine of Papal supremacy from Scripture alone (as is the case for most doctrines... but I digress). At best, you can demonstrate Petrine supremacy. But the Bible is absolutely silent on whether or not this supremacy (if it actually exists) passes on to the bishop of Rome. Take away Tradition, and there is no doctrine of Papal supremacy.


Let's remember that when the Apostles wanted to make a point, they used almost exclusively the Old Testament if they needed a text... is it not possible to understand something more of how they would have seen the issues in that light?
It might be, it might not be. But let us not forget that any NT understanding supercedes the OT understanding.

Perhaps it would not be best if we didn't pursue this issue further just yet. We should stick to the issues that Rusty wants to discuss - because it's his thread. If you can't wait until he gets around to your topic, then you can start your own thread.

[Rusty T]

Keir,

If you want to discuss the issues that concern you, I would recommend starting your own thread. I wanted to focus specifically on the opinions of the Holy Fathers (who assuredly considered the question in context) and the history of the early Church. I did not want the thread to develop into our own interpretation of scripture. If someone wants to bring in the Fathers' view of the Old Testament in their understanding of Church government, then I would not be opposed.

I do not "own" a set of the complete Church Fathers, but there are great online resources. I get most of my material from www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org)

rusty

[Jomby]

Hi Tizzidale :smile:

I was wondering if I coud get a clarification about the nature of this thread. What are you trying to accomplish here?



(If you are looking to really challenge the papal claims, then my own opinion is that each portion would require a lot more time to discuss than is currently being given. I still think that our discussion of St. John of Chrysostum is not finished/solved. But even apart from that, your approach to the fathers doesn't even deal with the more difficult ones from your perspective-- not even considering the western saints that you might hold to be biased, but the eastern saints who explicitly aknowledge the primacy, not only of Peter, but of Rome-- St. Maximus the Confessor, for example. What do you do with him? Especially since the only one who has explicitly argued against the papacy has been St. Cyprian (and his cohort, Firmilian).)

[Rusty T]

Jomby,

I made it clear that I wanted both perspectives to be given. I also made it clear that my knowledge of the Fathers is not exhaustive, and I'm willing to discuss any Father that you would like to bring up - as I did with St. John Chrysostom. We had been trading posts pretty regularly, and when you didn't respond after a while I thought I would move on to a post I had promised days before. If you want to continue the St. John Chysostom discussion, let's do that. As for as St. Maximus or any of the other Fathers you feel support the Papal claims, I am relying on you to bring them up for the simple reason I do not know what you want to talk about.

I do not want this to be you addressing all my points - I'm more than willing to listen to anything you have to say. I'm not going to bring up points I'm not familiar with, and that's why I'm interested in the different perspectives.

rusty

[Rusty T]

I did want to say that St. Maximus the Confessor lived in the 6th century - and I was trying to address the earlier Fathers first. Can anyone link to any online resources for St. Maximus? I can't find him in the CCEL library.

rusty

[Jomby]

Hi Tizzidale. :smile:

I'm sorry that I haven't been quick to reply. I've been through some job interviews this week, and there will be a few more at weeks end. (Please pray for our family that the right thing happens according to God's will. :smile:) And-- I gave myself a crash course in St. John Chrysostum, reading in my spare time. So I'm doing my best to keep up.

But I appreciate your reply. As this is your thread, I didn't want to take it away from where you wanted it to go. (and I know that if I have an issue with any other thread that is off topic, then I can always start my own.)

I don't know if we're going to reach an agreement about St. Chrysostum. It's not in my plan to introduce anymore quotes in reference to him. But at this point I'm not sure that any argumentation is going to work. But I'm also afraid that if we really get into it, it will stale things out on both sides (as I've already noticed on the RC side. :smile:) Maybe we can continue in PM?

And, unfortunately, I cannot find any resources that carry the complete works of St. Maximus online. So, perhaps it's not fair for me to bring him up. I will continue to search, but in the meantime I'll leave you with a quotation that I found (and I know that without access to his sources, it will be difficult to respond to):

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

And

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

[Rusty T]

Jomby,

Thanks for your response. I went looking around the internet and found many Catholic sites that post those two quotes (and one more I think), but I can't find any place online that carries his complete works :( That really stinks. Until I find some context for those quotes, I'm at a loss as to how to respond to them. Maybe someone else would help us out who has more familiarity with St. Maximus the Confessor.

I do want to clarify the purpose of this thread. I'm not here to be convinced or to convince anyone. I've made my decision for the Orthodox Church (or rather I feel it was made for me). I really wanted to examine the Papal claims in a systematic fashion - giving the Orthodox perspective and allowing Roman Catholics to present their perspective. The only thing I hoped for (and still am) was a discussion that started from scipture and progressed through the history of the Church. Perhaps it's all fruitless, but there were others who expressed interest in the topic and I welcome their input at any time.

I am already benefiting greatly from the discussion. I'm learning how devastating the schism between east and west has been for the Church, and I see the role of Peter differently than before. I've also learned a great deal about early Church government.

In Christ,

Rusty

[Jezz]

Hey Jomby - thanks for making this a discussion rather than a lecture! :smile:

Firstly, let me say that I am immediately suspicious of the fact that this has appeared in a Latin volume. There is a precedent in the Patristic works for the Roman Church forging documents or adding canons to the Ecumenical Council decrees in order to bolster their authority. I can provide an example upon request.

But anyway, on to actually addressing the quotes from St Maximos. First, some historical context:

St Maximos the Confessor was writing in the East, and in the 6th century. By this time, the East had endured the Arian heresy, the monophysite heresy, the monothelite heresy and the Nestorian heresy. These were the biggest heresies in the history of the early Church. The West had managed to remain largely Orthodox throughout this period, without being much affected by any of these schisms. Which is not to say that they didn't have heresies of their own - eg, the Donatist schism at Carthage, and the Novatianist schism at Rome, the Montanists, Pelagians, etc... but rather that these schisms were not as fresh in the memory of Maximos as the later schisms in the East.

Also remember that the way of speaking in those times was to pile on the adjectives and exaggerate (one only need read Eusebius' description of Constantine to see this in action). When someone uses superlatives like this, one always needs to be careful to assume that it's not merely a way of "sucking up".


The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
Ok, I think the two keys to understanding this passage are:

1. "...from the descent of the Incarnate word among us...".
2. the meaning of "the greatest Church".

Let us first consider the interpretation of the phrase "the greatest Church". What is the referent of this phrase?

1. Does it refer specifically to the Roman Church herself, by virtue of her being the Roman Church? or
2. Is it simply a title? An title which the Roman Church held at that time by virtue of the purity of faith and preeminence in the Empire?

If it is the former, then this is indeed a quote that supports the Papal claims. However, one does not have to look hard to see that it cannot be the former, because St Maximos claims that since the descent of the Incarnate Word, churches everywhere have looked to "the greatest Church". If we substitute "the Roman Church" for "the greatest Church", we arrive at an absurdity - because (as I noted above) the Roman Church did not even exist from the time of the descent of the Incarnate Word. Thus, either St Maximos is exaggerating, or he is using "the greatest Church" simply as a title - an title that was held in the beginning by the Church in Jerusalem (as Acts 15), and only later to the Church in Rome (and perhaps even by the Church in Antioch at some point in-between).

And if St Maximos is seen to be using the title of "the greatest Church" (which hopefully by now I have shown that he must be), then the above statement is entirely Orthodox. It is completely Orthodox to say, as St Maximos does, that the churches have always looked to the greatest Church as the measuring stick of their faith. In the beginning, this title belonged to the Church in Jerusalem. Later, the title moved to Rome - though as the testimony of emporers Gratian, Theodosius I and Valentinian II shows, it was also at times shared with Alexandria (and the canons of the councils show it was also shared with Antioch to a lesser degree). And then, when Rome finally apostasised through its inclusion of the filioque, under pressure from Frankish emporers, the title moved from Rome to Consantinople.

This continues to be the case amongst Orthodoxy today - Orthodox Churches still look to Constantinople (and, since Constantinople's fall, to Moscow as well) for their guidance. But should either of these churches compromise the purity of the faith, they will lose the title of "the greatest Church", and it will pass to a different church (Alexandria, or Antioch, or Greece...).

In short, I do not find support for the papacy here.


How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
This is one of the clearest passages supporting the idea of Papal supremacy (indeed, IMO, it is the only one that I've seen so far that clearly supports it). However, note that there are several logical inconsistencies in the above:

Look at the argument that St Maximos uses:

1. Founded by Peter and Paul. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Church of Antioch was founded by Peter and Paul as well.
2. It received this authority from councils and canon law. Yet, he later claims that the Church in Rome is not subject to councils or canon law! Why would the Roman Church need to receive

And to be honest, I can't find any council or canon law that actually attributes these powers to the Roman Church. If you can find one, then please quote it. Besides which, actual early Church practice contradicts the claim made here by St Maximos - which (as Rusty showed) didn't see the word of the pope as final.

The existence of antipopes (of which St Maximos was probably aware, and even the Roman Church acknowledges as such) also indicates that the popes are not "firm and immovable rocks", as he claims.

Given all of the above, it seems clear to me that this is a piece of rhetoric - exaggeration aimed at praising the Roman Church for maintaining the purity of her faith throughout the recent heresies endured by the East. It is not meant to be taken too literally, as the papists later did. And even if it were - it is one relatively late witness against the rest which are early.

[Jomby]

Hey Jomby - thanks for making this a discussion rather than a lecture! :smile: Hi Jezz- thanks for the kind words. :smile:


Firstly, let me say that I am immediately suspicious of the fact that this has appeared in a Latin volume. There is a precedent in the Patristic works for the Roman Church forging documents or adding canons to the Ecumenical Council decrees in order to bolster their authority. I can provide an example upon request. My concern in you stating this as a preliminary is that you are "poisoning the well," so to speak, for any impartial listener. Whether or not you believe the "Roman Church" to have conspired to forge documents should have no direct bearing on the text in question. It would be more appropriate for us in the discussion of St. Maximus if someone could go to a library and check this source and see if these particular passages are of questionable authenticity. If you want to discuss the "Roman Church's" tendency to forge apart from St. Maximus, I'd be happy to discuss it with you in another thread.


Also remember that the way of speaking in those times was to pile on the adjectives and exaggerate (one only need read Eusebius' description of Constantine to see this in action). When someone uses superlatives like this, one always needs to be careful to assume that it's not merely a way of "sucking up". This remains to be seen. There are those who do exaggerate in any time period and those who don't. We still need to establish whether St. Maximus was one who was apt to exagerate. (But furthermore, we need to see whether exaggerations imply "white-lies," and whether lying is a tendency in Maximus's corpus.



The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

Let us first consider the interpretation of the phrase "the greatest Church". What is the referent of this phrase?

1. Does it refer specifically to the Roman Church herself, by virtue of her being the Roman Church? or
2. Is it simply a title? An title which the Roman Church held at that time by virtue of the purity of faith and preeminence in the Empire?

If it is the former, then this is indeed a quote that supports the Papal claims. However, one does not have to look hard to see that it cannot be the former, because St Maximos claims that since the descent of the Incarnate Word, churches everywhere have looked to "the greatest Church".If we substitute "the Roman Church" for "the greatest Church", we arrive at an absurdity - because (as I noted above) the Roman Church did not even exist from the time of the descent of the Incarnate Word. Thus, either St Maximos is exaggerating, or he is using "the greatest Church" simply as a title - an title that was held in the beginning by the Church in Jerusalem (as Acts 15), and only later to the Church in Rome (and perhaps even by the Church in Antioch at some point in-between). Jezz, I'm not following you. The absurdity you think is there is not explained away by changing "the greatest church" to a temporary title. I don't see why you are changing "from the descent" to "since the descent." If it is truly "since the descent," then it's ridiculous to talk about any church, let alone churches in the plural.

Also, as for any author, the meaning of some term, such as "the greatest church," when there seems to be the possibility of ambiguity, should be determined according to some other statement, quote, writing, that tells us either way-- and not according to conjecture. And that is why I cite the second quote, which would make "the greatest church" not refer, in fact, to whatever church happens to be the greatest at that time (by whose opinion is that determined, by the way?) but to which church is absolutely.



And if St Maximos is seen to be using the title of "the greatest Church" (which hopefully by now I have shown that he must be). You've conjectured a possibility, but not shown its necessity.




This is one of the clearest passages supporting the idea of Papal supremacy (indeed, IMO, it is the only one that I've seen so far that clearly supports it). However, note that there are several logical inconsistencies in the above:

Look at the argument that St Maximos uses:How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

1. Founded by Peter and Paul. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Church of Antioch was founded by Peter and Paul as well.
2. It received this authority from councils and canon law. Yet, he later claims that the Church in Rome is not subject to councils or canon law! Why would the Roman Church need to receive.... Our biggest problem here is that we don't have context. So when he says, "Having surely received this canonically," we have no idea what what the antecedent of this is. Is it supreme authority? Particular authority? Is it some particular doctrine? What makes me pause now is the elipsis between "pontificate" and "even." Again, we might be missing context for a demonstrative-- in this case "these" in "even as in all these things all are equally subject to her." What does these refer to? In other words, to bolster your side of the argument, he might even be saying that all churches are not subject to particular, local synodical documents.

Jezz, I honestly think we can't figure out what he's saying until we get ahold of his complete works. And this is why I was hesitant to bring up these particular quotes.



The existence of antipopes (of which St Maximos was probably aware, and even the Roman Church acknowledges as such) also indicates that the popes are not "firm and immovable rocks", as he claims. Well, this is an aside and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. But still your statement makes no sense-- the existence of anti-popes indicates that the popes are not firm and immovable rocks. This I don't understand--why? I could claim to be Jezz-- but my illicit claim has no bearing on the fact whether you are Jezz or not. Besides, watch how careful St. Cyprian is recognizing whether Novatian or Cornelius was the true pope.


Given all of the above, it seems clear to me that this is a piece of rhetoric - exaggeration aimed at praising the Roman Church for maintaining the purity of her faith throughout the recent heresies endured by the East. It is not meant to be taken too literally, as the papists later did. Well, I still think we have a lot of research here to do before we can make any definitive claims. But I certainly would not be too quick to say that he used "rhetoric" and "exaggerations" that clearly put the Roman Church in a place of supremacy. Especially when it comes to Saints, we must be very careful in attributing to them "white lies." We must first establish a consistency in their works to exaggerate before we can make this claim. (Otherwise, as I'm sure you know, any claim either way-- whether pro-papacy or anti-papacy-- can be explained away rhetorically.)


And even if it were - it is one relatively late witness against the rest which are early. Well, if it turns out that Maximus the Confessor--- that Saint who is honored primarily for his adherence to orthodoxy despite extreme duress-- then we still need to ask ourselves, at least from a historical perspective, why he thought this way.

But he is not the only supporter. I turn now to the Western Fathers.

St. Optatus:
Opatatus: "In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock]—of all the Apostles, the one chair is which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner….Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church." (Opatatus,The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)


(BTW, considering what we've discussed so far, if we are to approach this question validly, then we cannot rely upon mere arguments from silence. So far, the only positive argument I've seen against the papacy from the church fathers have been from St. Cyprian and his epistlian cohort, Firmillian.)

(And a secondary question, after a "headship"-- merely titular, impermanent, or accidental-- is conceded from the Orthodox side, I ask why should there be a "head" in the first place? My assumption is that you would not agree with St. Jerome, who says "yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed.(C. Jovin. PL 23, vol II, 279[258])")

(SPL_cadet, your turn!:wink:)

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Jomby,
Thanks for your response. I went looking around the internet and found many Catholic sites that post those two quotes (and one more I think), but I can't find any place online that carries his complete works :( That really stinks. Until I find some context for those quotes, I'm at a loss as to how to respond to them. Maybe someone else would help us out who has more familiarity with St. Maximus the Confessor.
Rusty


One of the things to remember is that St. Maximus wrote in Greek, so that the translation may be somewhat askew, both in that it was doubtless first translated into Latin, and then into English... And the dates of both translations might prove illuminating, for if the translations were apart of the post schism debate, then moving back to the original texts might help.

I was warned about using Roman Catholic sites for quotations from the Fathers, because of post-schism translation issues... Greek has never been a hotly pursued subject in post-schism Roman Catholic seminaries... The only language needed in these is Latin, although that may be changing somewhat these days...

So that citing the exact source in Maximus of the quotes might itself help... In that the original Greek text might then be located. Context as well might prove very helpful...

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

I will get to the quotes you provided from the Wester Fathers, Jomby, but I will point out that no one has addressed the issue of the Council of Carthage or the incidents surrounding the date of Pascha (Easter) from Eusebius that I provided. I would rather not move on until someone at least addresses them.

rusty

[Jomby]

Hi Tizzidale. :smile:

I'm afraid that I won't have the time to respond anymore- and this will probably be my last post for a little while. So I urge any other Catholic to continue where we leave off.


I appreciate everyone’s participation in this thread. I want to review where we’ve been, and then I hope to discuss the role of the Roman papacy in the first three centuries of the Church.

We began our discussion by focusing on Matthew 16’s “thou art Peter. . . “. It was an interesting discussion, which I tried to keep focused more on the Father’s of the Church and their understanding of these verses than on our 21st century re-hashing of old arguments. I hope that everyone learned something.

Jomby and I also had an interesting discussion on St. John Chysostom’s understanding of Peter’s role in the early Church’s government. I now want to move away from the Church’s understanding of Peter’s role specifically, and into the Church’s understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome.


The Bishop of Rome:


Did the Church give the Bishop of Rome universal authority during its first three centuries? Or was this authority assumed at a later date. These are the questions I will try to answer in my next few posts.

The Question of Pascha

In Eusebius’ history of the Early Church (The Church History of Eusebius, ed.Philip Schaff), we’re told that at the close of the 2nd century the question of when to celebrate Easter (Pascha) was one of great contention. There are several passages in Eusebius’ work that I want to reference. Let us start with a portion of chapter 23:

Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account,and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only.

We must not neglect to understand that this was a very important question. Eusebius continues:

There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus,bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor;also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas,as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëneand the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus,bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

Let us note that the Bishop of Rome is listed along with others, and in fact listed after the Bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem. If we continue reading in Eusebius, more interesting facts emerge about this controversy that will hopefully shed light on our questions.

There are some who think that all of the councils mentioned above were called at the request of the Bishop of Rome. Others contest this. I do not know for sure, and we can examine the issue if some wish. I do want to look at the response however of Polycrates to the Bishop of Rome, as quoted by Eusebius. I will also look at the actions of the Bishop of Rome, Victor, in his attempts to excommunicate the churches of Asia; as well as the response he received from certain others.

”. . . .those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: “I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire;whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.”

Eusebius, now writes:

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

There is some debate over whether or not Victor attempted to excommunicate these churches, or actually did, but this isn’t the issue. What transpired after these letters by Victor is important. Eusebius:

But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

Quoting from a letter from Irenaeus to Victor, Eusebius writes:

And when the blessed Polycarp was at Romein the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.

So, concludes Eusebius:

Irenæus, who truly was well named,became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

It is clear from these passages that Victor, the Bishop of Rome, did not have the authority to settle the matter. Instead it had to be settled by the conciliar decision of the Bishops.

It is not clear at all. What I see transpiring here is that 1. Polycrates rejects the authority of the other churches in favor of his own interpretation and local traditions. 2. Victor gets mad and excommunicates him and others who follow him. 3. The bishops think this is a bad move and write to him to persuade/rebuke him to change his mind. (Notice how no one questions his authority to do so-- instead they write letters to him) 4. Irenaeus, in particular, cites the previous popes and how they handled this situation-- that Anicetus attempted to persuade Polycarp, and Polycarp attempted to persuade Anicetus. But Anicetus nor Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, nor Sixtus thought this was a matter that was of grave importance, or one that merited excommunication upon non-conformity. You leave out a very important part at the end of Irenaeus's letter:

But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.

He conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp.
It was by the pope's concession-- from the very pen of St. Irenaeus.

Anicetus exercised his authority with wisdom, while Victor initially did not. But whether he did it with wisdom or not, it was still his authority. But we gather from the passage that Irenaeus was able to persuade him-- hence the moniker "peacemaker."

Everything you've hi-lighted is consistent with Roman Catholicism. Polycrates rejects the authority of the pope-- nothing new there; he's not the first or the last to do so. The bishops rebuked the pope-- again nothing new. Paul did it to Peter, St. Catherine of Siena did to Gregory XI in Avignon. Being a pope doesn't guarantee perfection, and even though one does have authority, one can still be rebuked. Anicetus couldn't persuade Polycarp to change-- no problem here. The pope doesn't just issue edicts. There are matters that call for persuasion rather than decree. Irenaeus sent letters to other rulers of the churches-- again no problem here. Are bishops not rulers of their churches in Roman Catholicism?

[Rusty T]

He conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp.
It was by the pope's concession-- from the very pen of St. Irenaeus.

Perhaps I'll respond in depth, but in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Most would say that this is a reference to the Pope allowing Polycarp to administer the Eucharist while on his visit to Rome. If it would have been an issue that separated these two Bishops, this would not have happened. It was (and is) courtesy to allow visiting Bishops serve in the altar.

my .02,

rusty

[Jomby]

Perhaps I'll respond in depth, but in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Most would say that this is a reference to the Pope allowing Polycarp to administer the Eucharist while on his visit to Rome. If it would have been an issue that separated these two Bishops, this would not have happened. It was (and is) courtesy to allow visiting Bishops serve in the altar.

my .02,

rusty
You are most probably correct there. My mistake. :smile:

[Jezz]

My concern in you stating this as a preliminary is that you are "poisoning the well," so to speak, for any impartial listener. Whether or not you believe the "Roman Church" to have conspired to forge documents should have no direct bearing on the text in question.
I disagree. In providing that quote, supplied by the Roman Church, you are implicitly making an "argument by authority". If we are to accept the passages as given, we are trust the authenticity of the document based on the Roman Church's authority. It is therefore valid to point out that perhaps this trust is not appropriate.

I'm not saying that the passage isn't authentic. However, if I can find a Greek volume that is worded differently, then I will trust the Greek volume over the Latin one.


It would be more appropriate for us in the discussion of St. Maximus if someone could go to a library and check this source and see if these particular passages are of questionable authenticity.
Indeed. I plan to do that next week (can't do it this week as I'll be too busy).


If you want to discuss the "Roman Church's" tendency to forge apart from St. Maximus, I'd be happy to discuss it with you in another thread.
Not really at this stage. Besides the fact it seems you're too busy to participate now, I am too...


This remains to be seen. There are those who do exaggerate in any time period and those who don't. We still need to establish whether St. Maximus was one who was apt to exagerate. (But furthermore, we need to see whether exaggerations imply "white-lies," and whether lying is a tendency in Maximus's corpus.


[quote]Jezz, I'm not following you. The absurdity you think is there is not explained away by changing "the greatest church" to a temporary title.
?? Why not? Since the descent of the Word, there was always a Church, because Christ is the head of the Church, and while Christ was here it was to Him that the church looked. After His ascension, the greatest church (the one that churches everywhere looked to) was originally Jerusalem, then later Antioch, and only later was it Rome. It is now Constantinople/Moscow.


I don't see why you are changing "from the descent" to "since the descent."
I don't see how to make sense of the passage otherwise. A recourse to the original Greek may help here.


If it is truly "since the descent," then it's ridiculous to talk about any church, let alone churches in the plural.
No it's not ridiculous at all. Christ is the head of the Church - from the time of His incarnation, there was always a church.


Also, as for any author, the meaning of some term, such as "the greatest church," when there seems to be the possibility of ambiguity, should be determined according to some other statement, quote, writing, that tells us either way-- and not according to conjecture. And that is why I cite the second quote, which would make "the greatest church" not refer, in fact, to whatever church happens to be the greatest at that time (by whose opinion is that determined, by the way?) but to which church is absolutely.
This is a valid point.

As for: "by whose opinion is that determined, by the way" - well, I'd have thought that was obvious. That opinion was determined in the same way that the Church determines all of her opinions - by the consensus of its members. When churches keep looking to a particular church for the norm of their faith more so than any other church, then that church is "the greatest church".


Our biggest problem here is that we don't have context. So when he says, "Having surely received this canonically," we have no idea what what the antecedent of this is. Is it supreme authority? Particular authority? Is it some particular doctrine? What makes me pause now is the elipsis between "pontificate" and "even." Again, we might be missing context for a demonstrative-- in this case "these" in "even as in all these things all are equally subject to her." What does these refer to? In other words, to bolster your side of the argument, he might even be saying that all churches are not subject to particular, local synodical documents.

Jezz, I honestly think we can't figure out what he's saying until we get ahold of his complete works. And this is why I was hesitant to bring up these particular quotes.
I disagree with you about some of the particulars above, but I agree with you in general. We need to read more of St Maximos to understand his thoughts better.


Well, this is an aside and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. But still your statement makes no sense-- the existence of anti-popes indicates that the popes are not firm and immovable rocks. This I don't understand--why? I could claim to be Jezz-- but my illicit claim has no bearing on the fact whether you are Jezz or not. Besides, watch how careful St. Cyprian is recognizing whether Novatian or Cornelius was the true pope.
The question of anti-popes is very relevant to what we are talking about, and the fact that St Cyprian had to acknowledge the true pope is revealing and supports the Orthodox view - because it means that the papacy is not the true papacy unless it is acknowledged by the rest of the Church.

This is a fundamental problem with the concept of a supreme papacy. If the pope is in reality the supreme authority, then there is no way to depose a pope or to declare him anti-pope. Because the pope can simply declare himself to be in the right, and then anyone who thinks he is an anti-pope is in the wrong by definition. But of course, this is not the way even the Roman Church works today in practice - if John Paul II were to suddenly start claiming that Christ did not raise from the dead, the RCC would scream out for (and be granted) his deposition, no? This shows that the ultimate authority lies not with the pope, but with the Church as a whole. If the Church does not approve of the pope, then he is not the pope. The Church, in effect, decides who the pope is - and it is only as long as the Church decides that he is not an anti-pope that the pope is allowed to continue as pope.


Well, I still think we have a lot of research here to do before we can make any definitive claims. But I certainly would not be too quick to say that he used "rhetoric" and "exaggerations" that clearly put the Roman Church in a place of supremacy. Especially when it comes to Saints, we must be very careful in attributing to them "white lies." We must first establish a consistency in their works to exaggerate before we can make this claim. (Otherwise, as I'm sure you know, any claim either way-- whether pro-papacy or anti-papacy-- can be explained away rhetorically.)
Well, even if St Maximos was exaggerating, that doesn't mean that he was lying (even a "white lie"). It is only lying if deceit is the intention, and to know if deceit was the intention we must also take into account how the writings would be received by their intended audience. I suggest that the style in which he wrote would probably indicate to readers of his time that he was writing in a way in which they would expect him to be exaggerating, and hence it wouldn't be deceitful.


Well, if it turns out that Maximus the Confessor--- that Saint who is honored primarily for his adherence to orthodoxy despite extreme duress-- then we still need to ask ourselves, at least from a historical perspective, why he thought this way.
Valid point.


But he is not the only supporter. I turn now to the Western Fathers.

St. Optatus:

Opatatus: "In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock]—of all the Apostles, the one chair is which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner….Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church." (Opatatus,The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)

(BTW, considering what we've discussed so far, if we are to approach this question validly, then we cannot rely upon mere arguments from silence. So far, the only positive argument I've seen against the papacy from the church fathers have been from St. Cyprian and his epistlian cohort, Firmillian.)
We can't rely on arguments from silence? Why not? Silence is exactly what we'd expect to see if papal primacy was not a practical issue. It was the same with all heresies - we don't hear arguments aimed specifically at rebutting those heresies until the heresies first appear. Why do we not see arguments for the use of icons until the 8th century? Because it was not until around this time that people decided to destroy them.

Likewise, as long as Rome was Orthodox and did not attempt to exercise absolute authority over the other churches, then it would not be necessary for someone to attempt to rebut it. ECFs generally did not expend effort rebutting non-existent heresies. :smile:

Besides which, what about Antioch? Antioch has never sought to exercise absolute power, despite also being founded by Peter and Paul. Should I argue, as you seem to be doing for Rome, that "This is an argument from silence - just because the patriarch of Antioch didn't exercise absolute authority, doesn't mean that he couldn't." :smile:


(And a secondary question, after a "headship"-- merely titular, impermanent, or accidental-- is conceded from the Orthodox side, I ask why should there be a "head" in the first place? My assumption is that you would not agree with St. Jerome, who says "yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed.(C. Jovin. PL 23, vol II, 279[258])[i]")
Why do we need a head? So that the body has a mouth! So that it has a voice! Peter was the spokesperson for the apostles, as Pope was (or still is, from the RCC POV) the spokesperson for the Church.

Note well that the fact that the head was elected. This means that the authority did not lay with an individual, but in the collective. It was the collective who had the authority to give headship to one of their number - therefore, the collective has the authority to take it away or confer it on someone else.