Proof of the Papacy's authority over the Church. One Church. [Archive]

WarriorAngel

23rd July 2007, 11:53 AM

III The nature and extent of Papal power.

(1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction

Not only did Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) constitute St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) head of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), but in the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm); and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm)," He indicated the scope of this headship.
The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12617b.htm)schools (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13554b.htm). A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm) was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) on the conscience (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm). He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) to St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) of legislative authority within the kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) accompaniment judicial authority.

Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose"; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13720b.htm) which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm). They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) of the keys (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm) which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) is governor and head of Christ's kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm), the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) and his successors (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm) have power to impose laws (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm) from these laws (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm), and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm), to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm)sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). For sin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) is a breach of the laws (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) of the supernatural kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm), and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges. The gift of this particular power, however, is not expressed with full clearness in this passage. It needed Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) words (John 20:23 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/joh020.htm#23)) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is the kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) of the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), so that an essential note in all her members is the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) carries with it a supreme magisterium (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) -- authority to declare that doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) and to prescribe a rule of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm)obligatory (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) on all. Here, too, Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) is subordinated to none save his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers thus conferred are limited in their scope by their reference to the ends of the kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) and to them only. The authority of Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) and his successors (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm) does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters that are altogether extrinsic to the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) they are not concerned.

Protestant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) controversialists contend strenuously that the words, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.", confer no special prerogative on Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm), since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) (Matthew 18:18 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat018.htm#18)). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). Yet there is a manifest difference between the gift to Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) and that bestowed on the others. In his case the gift is connected with the power of the keys (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm), and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm). That gift was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the gift Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was received by them as members of the kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm), and as subject to the authority of him who should be Christ's vicegerent on earth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm). There is in fact a striking parallelism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11473a.htm) between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) Himself in Apocalypse (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm) 3:7: "He that hath the key (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm) of David (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04642b.htm); he that openeth, and no man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) shutteth; shutteth, and no man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) openeth." In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of the first, and the power (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm) signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the keys is supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) and His chosen vicegerent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm) does Holy Scripture (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm) attribute the power of the keys (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm).

etc etc

Secundulus

23rd July 2007, 12:02 PM

If Peter was the original Pope with the authority claimed, then why did he defer to James in the Jerusalem Council?

James spoke last and spoke the judgement of the council, not Peter.

WarriorAngel

23rd July 2007, 12:25 PM

If Peter was the original Pope with the authority claimed, then why did he defer to James in the Jerusalem Council?

James spoke last and spoke the judgement of the council, not Peter.

He didnt defer to James. James waited his turn.
Acts Of Apostles 2 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=2&l=14&f=s#x)
14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words.

DID James also speak up on Pentecost?
It was Peter who converted 3000 that day.

Another interesting instance is when all the Apostles did something..it was Peter who was mentioned.
Usually saying something like, the eleven with Peter....
Or Peter and the eleven...
Or the others...

Why is it always Peter mentioned most or first?

Acts Of Apostles 15 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=15&l=7&f=s#x)
6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
......
12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me

It would seem that others also got their turn after Peter first spoke.

Secundulus

23rd July 2007, 07:50 PM

Aymn27

23rd July 2007, 09:46 PM

He didnt defer to James. James waited his turn.
Acts Of Apostles 2 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=2&l=14&f=s#x)
14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words.

DID James also speak up on Pentecost?
It was Peter who converted 3000 that day.

Another interesting instance is when all the Apostles did something..it was Peter who was mentioned.
Usually saying something like, the eleven with Peter....
Or Peter and the eleven...
Or the others...

Why is it always Peter mentioned most or first?

Acts Of Apostles 15 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=15&l=7&f=s#x)
6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
......
12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me

It would seem that others also got their turn after Peter first spoke.

When it was time to replace Judas, Peter was not given the authority to do so. No where does Peter "make bishops" and send them out. Also, what says that after the death of Peter such primacy remains? AND - isn't in Galatians (maybe not..just operating on memory) that says Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews - how do we know Peter was in Rome as the bishop of Rome - was there more than one bishop in each city? What exactly was a "bishop" because the term seems to be used interchangeably with presbyter...

Just some thoughts :)

BigNorsk

24th July 2007, 02:46 AM

I don't think Catholics accept what they try to teach others about the Pope. If he says something they like they declare it true if he says something they don't like they pretty much ignore it.

For instance read the Syllabus of Errors put out by Pope Pius IX. http://www.dailycatholic.org/syllabus.htm

Today the church goes directly against much of what he declared an anathema against.

Marv

xristos.anesti

24th July 2007, 04:39 AM

jckstraw72

24th July 2007, 03:05 PM

rather than asking why he deferred to James, we could ask why there were ecumenical councils at all, if the modern understanding of the Papacy is to be accepted. Rather than calling all bishops together, why not just have the Pope speak ex-cathedra and have it a done deal in a day?

zhilan

24th July 2007, 03:46 PM

Rome in the first 1000 years never had the prerogatives that she took for herself since the schism.

Warrior Angel if you wish to continue this rape of our minds with Roman Catholic Supremacy you are welcome - but I would suggest that you stop - as soon enough this will be another OBOB - the only difference is that we can not vote to close OBOB - we can to do so with this one.

I am not here to be Romanised by Latin apologetics - maybe I am weird, but fellowship of Apostolic Churches to me does not mean to be clubbed over head with Roman Curia style proclamations every bloody day.

Many years.
Nicely put. Was your idea for this forum as a way to try and evangelize the rest of us "lost sheep" or for discussion? Your frantic threads about proving the Pope make me think that either you yourself are insecure in your faith and feel that you must "prove" it to us or that you started this with the sole purpose of proselytizing.

Sothron

24th July 2007, 04:03 PM

I also have to question why so much effort is being put on these claims of papal authority. Is this board just a RCC Apologetics forum? Honest question.

E.C.

24th July 2007, 04:36 PM

I also have to question why so much effort is being put on these claims of papal authority. Is this board just a RCC Apologetics forum? Honest question.
I have the same question.

jckstraw72

24th July 2007, 04:41 PM

well lets be honest, what else could various churches with such great differences get together and talk about? -- perhaps thered be a thread or two where we talk about our similarities but that would run dry pretty quickly. if we dont debate something then there's not much point to the forum methinks.

jckstraw72

24th July 2007, 04:52 PM

yo Big Norsk ill be honest, i dont feel like analyzing each point on the syllabus -- which ones are you referring to?

nestoj

25th July 2007, 07:48 AM

Sothron

25th July 2007, 08:53 AM

Albion

25th July 2007, 09:50 AM

Did we ever get an answer as to why the see of Antioch isn't consider infallible as well? They trace their AS back to St. Peter as well as in Rome. Why aren't they afforded the same respect? :scratch:

I agree that posts which are intended to "prove" the superiority of one of the communions on this forum over the others is not an appropriate topic for posting. I'm also relieved to see that others share that view. Maybe it's better that an answer to your otherwise reasonable question above not be pursued.

WarriorAngel

25th July 2007, 12:02 PM

When it was time to replace Judas, Peter was not given the authority to do so. No where does Peter "make bishops" and send them out. Also, what says that after the death of Peter such primacy remains? AND - isn't in Galatians (maybe not..just operating on memory) that says Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews - how do we know Peter was in Rome as the bishop of Rome - was there more than one bishop in each city? What exactly was a "bishop" because the term seems to be used interchangeably with presbyter...

Just some thoughts :)
ACTS 1
13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)
...[edit out whole speech by Peter...] Thus he continues....
21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

It seems that Peter did lead them to this conclusion to do this...
Just saying....

Rome in the first 1000 years never had the prerogatives that she took for herself since the schism.

Warrior Angel if you wish to continue this rape of our minds with Roman Catholic Supremacy you are welcome - but I would suggest that you stop - as soon enough this will be another OBOB - the only difference is that we can not vote to close OBOB - we can to do so with this one.

I am not here to be Romanised by Latin apologetics - maybe I am weird, but fellowship of Apostolic Churches to me does not mean to be clubbed over head with Roman Curia style proclamations every bloody day.

Many years.

WHY is it if the CC asserts why they believe the Pope has jurisdiction over the Church...does it mean we are pushing our views?
Maybe if we cut to the history that prooves these things...we can better come to a reunification.

Why is it we are arrogant, and no one desires to speak of these things. WE cannot hide them under a rug, but face them...with charity and open mindedness.

If this is NOT your sort of thread, I am not forcing you to post.

rather than asking why he deferred to James, we could ask why there were ecumenical councils at all, if the modern understanding of the Papacy is to be accepted. Rather than calling all bishops together, why not just have the Pope speak ex-cathedra and have it a done deal in a day?

Although the Pope does speak ex cathedra...doesnt mean councils are moot point.
Even Peter had the others with him when making statements.
It is a group thing...a united front.
They stood behind him...that was part of the unity.

well lets be honest, what else could various churches with such great differences get together and talk about? -- perhaps thered be a thread or two where we talk about our similarities but that would run dry pretty quickly. if we dont debate something then there's not much point to the forum methinks.

:hug: Thank you.
I think we need to hash through history together.
And see where it leads us.

Did we ever get an answer as to why the see of Antioch isn't consider infallible as well? They trace their AS back to St. Peter as well as in Rome. Why aren't they afforded the same respect? :scratch:

AS I think I stated this before....
The Eastern Chruches that stand behind Tradition also are infallible.
You would not follow a Church that taught errors, would you.

SO the Pope leads the Church without error...thus he is infallible, only because the ship he steers is TRULY infallible and cannot be succumbed by evil.

I agree that posts which are intended to "prove" the superiority of one of the communions on this forum over the others is not an appropriate topic for posting. I'm also relieved to see that others share that view. Maybe it's better that an answer to your otherwise reasonable question above not be pursued.

That's not what was ever done....
What is being attempted is to disclose the whole ugly, dirty, gritty state of affairs...relook at history and NOT make the same mistakes.

Look at it as though we are seeking to find absolute answers.
Doing it together and not taking offense when points are presented.

I dont take offense to posts that proove someone's conclusion...I look at points that may counter them.
That's what a debate does.

A discussion where ppl gather to give points of reference.

Why does that mean the CC is being the bully on the block?

Should we renounce our faith?

Besides for unity to occur, we have to look at why we broke up anyway.

Kind of like a divorced marriage...if you want to get back together, you have to look at what led to the break up and seek counseling together so you can talk things through.

Albion

25th July 2007, 12:18 PM

That's not what was ever done....

I didn't have any single person in mind, if that's what it seemed like or sounded like to you. It was just directed at the forum in reaction to what seems a general and possibly growing problem that it will take all of us to keep from getting out of hand and ruining what we have here.

WarriorAngel

25th July 2007, 12:25 PM

Well, in the spirit of this thread...proof.
I am open to counter discussions that show me there is no proof.

But I think this forum is the only place to do that without those who despise Tradition.
The only place we can openly talk without being preached to that the whole history of Tradition is erroneous and we only need the Bible.

Ya know?

Sothron

25th July 2007, 01:56 PM

AS I think I stated this before....
The Eastern Chruches that stand behind Tradition also are infallible.
You would not follow a Church that taught errors, would you.

SO the Pope leads the Church without error...thus he is infallible, only because the ship he steers is TRULY infallible and cannot be succumbed by evil.

This does not make sense, I am sorry. If you are saying the bishop of Rome gets to be top dog and always be right simply because Peter started that local church in Rome then why don't the other churches Peter started given the same leeway? Or is the physical location of Rome somehow more holy or sanctified than that in Antioch or the dozens if not hundreds of small churches scattered around that Peter started?

The Patriarch of Rome and the Patriarch of Antioch under your RCC belief system should be co-vicars in Christ. And if other bishops can trace their AS back to Peter then they should be in the same elite club as well.

zhilan

25th July 2007, 02:46 PM

And I still have yet to see where the idea of infallibility comes from?

WarriorAngel

25th July 2007, 03:03 PM

This does not make sense, I am sorry. If you are saying the bishop of Rome gets to be top dog and always be right simply because Peter started that local church in Rome then why don't the other churches Peter started given the same leeway? Or is the physical location of Rome somehow more holy or sanctified than that in Antioch or the dozens if not hundreds of small churches scattered around that Peter started?

The Patriarch of Rome and the Patriarch of Antioch under your RCC belief system should be co-vicars in Christ. And if other bishops can trace their AS back to Peter then they should be in the same elite club as well.

The fact Christ said...
'The gates of hell shall not prevail...'
Means that erroneous theology and such will not be taught and infiltrate the Church. THUS we can be completely assured that the Churches will not be overcome by evil or heresy.
Infallible Church...the leader cannot otherwise then teach error. Can he?

Peter was in Antioch, and while still living, he left other Bishops there who were not taking his Chair, but leading their Church [local] according to the theology of the Church.

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of Corinth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm). The Roman Bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04363b.htm). Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm) addresses the Roman Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm) as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenæus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm) (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) unity as follows: With this Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) [of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm)] because of its more powerful principality, every Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with the Roman Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm)] the tradition of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III) The heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) Marcion (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm), the Montanists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm) from Phrygia, Praxeas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12344a.htm) from Asia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01777b.htm), come to Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) to gain the countenance of its bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm); St. Victor (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm), Bishop of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), threatens to excommunicate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm) the Asian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01777b.htm) Churches; St. Stephen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14287a.htm) refuses to receive St. Cyprian's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04737b.htm) by Cyprian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm), have recourse to Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm); Basilides (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02326a.htm), deposed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04737b.htm) in Spain (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14169b.htm), betakes himself to Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm); the presbyters (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) of Dionysius, Bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01302a.htm), complain of his doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm); the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The Roman Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm) before Constantine", Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm).

Curiously;
Antioch, once the see (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm) and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm) patriarchs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm) under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01300b.htm) in Egypt (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05329b.htm) was founded by St. Mark (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674a.htm) the Evangelist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05645a.htm), the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm) and Monophysite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm) heresies (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm) is that of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344x.htm). In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344x.htm) fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm) (325). The Greek Schism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm) now claims its allegiance.

If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know. :)

Sothron

25th July 2007, 03:17 PM

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church.

So because Peter died in Rome and not in Antioch then Rome gets the cookie? :confused: If Peter had the "keys" in Antioch and passed it down to the bishop who took over after he left (they have AS from Peter remember) then why doesn't the Patriarch of Antioch have the "keys" now that Peter is long since gone?

You are not really answering my question. What is so special about Rome versus any other city or physical area that it alone retained the "keys"? Why didn't any of the other places Peter started get the same consideration?

Of course I will also admit I do not think Peter had any such authority nor was any authority ever given as anything other than an honorofic. ;)

jckstraw72

25th July 2007, 03:31 PM

Although the Pope does speak ex cathedra...doesnt mean councils are moot point.
Even Peter had the others with him when making statements.
It is a group thing...a united front.
They stood behind him...that was part of the unity.

but if the Pope can speak ex-cathedra then the time and money and energy and what not spent in calling a Council is unnecessary. just speak ex-cathedra, and the rest of the bishops will unify around this infallible statement.

nestoj

25th July 2007, 03:43 PM

Peter was in Antioch, and while still living, he left other Bishops there who were not taking his Chair, but leading their Church [local] according to the theology of the Church.

Honestly,
what do RCs consider The Chair to be? Is that a position as the head of Church? I've never ecountered this term before coming to CF.

nestoj
God helps

Uphill Battle

25th July 2007, 03:52 PM

He didnt defer to James. James waited his turn.
Acts Of Apostles 2 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=2&l=14&f=s#x)
14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words.

DID James also speak up on Pentecost?
It was Peter who converted 3000 that day.

Another interesting instance is when all the Apostles did something..it was Peter who was mentioned.
Usually saying something like, the eleven with Peter....
Or Peter and the eleven...
Or the others...

Why is it always Peter mentioned most or first?

Acts Of Apostles 15 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=15&l=7&f=s#x)
6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
......
12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me

It would seem that others also got their turn after Peter first spoke.

Acts 15:13When they finished, James spoke up: snipped speech, cut to end..

19"It is my judgment, therefore,

apparantly James made the judgement call, not Peter.

just throwing it out there for ya.

zhilan

25th July 2007, 03:52 PM

I think the problem is that you're trying to argue with us as if we were Protestants. You keep throwing these quotes about feeding the sheep and the keys as if we think that Peter was just some man down the street.

We believe Peter was special! We believe he had primacy. We believe that the other Patriarchs and (during the early church) the Apostles looked to Peter (or Rome) for advice and strength. We know that Rome, set apart from the East, was often a pillar of strength during times of trouble and chaos and that often the Eastern Patriarchs looked to Rome for guidance and help during this times.

What we do not get from that is where infallibility and supremacy comes from. You are arguing with us as you argue with Protestants who think Rome has no special place, which allows you to skirt the issue and not answer our arguments.

You say Peter was a leader, Rome was a pillar of strength, ERGO the Pope is infallible and has supremacy over the whole Church and all other Patriarchs. What we are saying is there is a logical leap happening there. You are going from point A to point C without explaining point B.

Can you show us how we go from Peter having primacy and a place of honor to infallibility and supremacy?

E.C.

25th July 2007, 04:28 PM

but if the Pope can speak ex-cathedra then the time and money and energy and what not spent in calling a Council is unnecessary. just speak ex-cathedra, and the rest of the bishops will unify around this infallible statement.

And then we will have another Mt. Athos issue, if you get my meaning.

There are about three reasons why Rome is "special". Just the fact that St. Peter was bishop there is not it, yet he does have a part in it but not just the mere fact that he was in Rome.

a_ntv

25th July 2007, 04:48 PM

Albion

25th July 2007, 05:04 PM

See at instance the Council Vatican II...

It is clear that you statment is false

Here on the RC vs. EO forum, a few of the rest of us get to watch. So, as one of those incidental members, my opinion is that both sides are speaking rather impolitely to each other ("Rome gets the cookie" vs. "you statement is false.") I hope we didn't get the Apostolic Churches forum only to be mean to each other.

That aside, it does appear to me that the question about Peter's lineage through Rome as opposed to successor bishops from him in Antioch is a reasonable one. Jesus certainly never associated anything he told Peter with the city of Rome or, for that matter, any geographical location.

So....

what would the explanation for that be?

Don5925

25th July 2007, 05:25 PM

Sothron

25th July 2007, 08:06 PM

If folks in the EO could get their hands and heads around the idea of papal primacy, they would be Catholic. If Catholics could our minds around the independence of bishops, then we would be Orthodox.

One side will never bend to the other. If unity is to be achieved, it will not come from acquiescence from either side.

Then there will never be unity, which is sad.

I also apologize if my posts are contributing to the "EO vs RCC Battle of Sole Claim of Apostolic Chuches" feeling.

Just out of curiosity, what are the differences between the Anglican and EO? If all it would take would be the change either way in papal primacy for the RCC and EO to unify, what would it take for the Anglicans?

Secundulus

25th July 2007, 08:31 PM

nestoj

25th July 2007, 08:35 PM

Here on the RC vs. EO forum, a few of the rest of us get to watch. So, as one of those incidental members, my opinion is that both sides are speaking rather impolitely to each other ("Rome gets the cookie" vs. "you statement is false.") I hope we didn't get the Apostolic Churches forum only to be mean to each other.

That aside, it does appear to me that the question about Peter's lineage through Rome as opposed to successor bishops from him in Antioch is a reasonable one. Jesus certainly never associated anything he told Peter with the city of Rome or, for that matter, any geographical location.

So....

what would the explanation for that be?
Sorry for that - it does looks like usurpation, realy.

nestoj
God helps

Albion

25th July 2007, 08:36 PM

Then there will never be unity, which is sad.

I also apologize if my posts are contributing to the "EO vs RCC Battle of Sole Claim of Apostolic Chuches" feeling.

Just out of curiosity, what are the differences between the Anglican and EO? If all it would take would be the change either way in papal primacy for the RCC and EO to unify, what would it take for the Anglicans?

Interesting question. More than that, it's the kind of question I had hoped would be common around here, the fact that this one involves Anglicans aside.

First, and as we have to remind members of the other Apostolic Churches, Anglicans are both Protestant and Catholic depending upon which historic characteristics one is talking about. Then also, and as important, more freedom of belief and worship practices is true of Anglicanism than, I'd think, any of the other main Apostolic communions.

However, and not to delay in getting to your question, we do think we have more in common with the EO than with the RC. At least that seems to be the more common view among us. The structure is similar with churches in communion but autonomous and with no Pope figure; the Eastern tendency not to overdefine things of the faith would strike a resonant chord with many Anglicans; and we approach the "only true church" idea in a similar way. But although there has been a rise in Anglicans calling themselves Anglo-Catholics recently, many Anglicans hold to the original Reformation concepts built into our Prayerbook and Articles of Religion, that is, salvation by faith, that nothing can be demanded of the faithful that is not in accord with scripture, and that scripture is our ultimate guide, after accounting for tradition and reason. We do not consider the bread and wine to become flesh and blood although we do consider Christ to be really present. And most Anglicans do not consider there to be seven sacraments instituted by Christ. Often that takes the form of calling them "two dominical sacraments and five minor ones" (or sacramentals). Something like that.

This is a "stab" at answering your question, but the range of belief and practice within Anglicanism makes describing any particular belief or practice as a norm for us very problematic, and despite the care I took above not to omit any POV or suggest unanimity where there is not unanimity among us, I am sure that some Anglican readers would want to describe things somewhat differently.

zhilan

25th July 2007, 09:10 PM

Interesting question. More than that, it's the kind of question I had hoped would be common around here, the fact that this one involves Anglicans aside.

First, and as we have to remind members of the other Apostolic Churches, Anglicans are both Protestant and Catholic depending upon which historic characteristics one is talking about. Then also, and as important, more freedom of belief and worship practices is true of Anglicanism than, I'd think, any of the other main Apostolic communions.

However, and not to delay in getting to your question, we do think we have more in common with the EO than with the RC. At least that seems to be the more common view among us. The structure is similar with churches in communion but autonomous and with no Pope figure; the Eastern tendency not to overdefine things of the faith would strike a resonant chord with many Anglicans; and we approach the "only true church" idea in a similar way. But although there has been a rise in Anglicans calling themselves Anglo-Catholics recently, many Anglicans hold to the original Reformation concepts built into our Prayerbook and Articles of Religion, that is, salvation by faith, that nothing can be demanded of the faithful that is not in accord with scripture, and that scripture is our ultimate guide, after accounting for tradition and reason. We do not consider the bread and wine to become flesh and blood although we do consider Christ to be really present. And most Anglicans do not consider there to be seven sacraments instituted by Christ. Often that takes the form of calling them "two dominical sacraments and five minor ones" (or sacramentals). Something like that.

I don't mean this in any way to be offensive, but why would the Anglicans not believe in the 7 sacraments when Henry 8, who founded the Church famously wrote, "In Defense of the Seven Sacraments" attacking Luther?

Albion

25th July 2007, 09:29 PM

I don't mean this in any way to be offensive, but why would the Anglicans not believe in the 7 sacraments when Henry 8, who founded the Church famously wrote, "In Defense of the Seven Sacraments" attacking Luther?

Now there's something every Anglican can agree upon!

Henry was not the founder of a new church like Luther or Calvin were. The church had been in Britain since probably the first century, possibly even before Peter made his way to Rome. He merely occasioned, by legal and jurisdictional maneuverings, the resumption of the historic autonomy of the Church in England.

He was indeed a doctrinal Catholic up to his death, despite the breach with Rome. The RCC never decreed that he was a heretic although I don't know anyone who even comes close to approving of or excusing his marriage record.

The church under Henry did not allow reformed ideas, and it was only during the generation after him that they were adopted. The reason the church did not believe in the seven sacraments, as stated in the Articles of Religion, would be: 1) Christ only instituted two of them, and 2) the others have not the character of a sacrament, being without a clear visible sign (physical element).

jckstraw72

26th July 2007, 07:47 AM

i assume you mean Christ instituted baptism and the Eucharist ... but He also breathed the Holy Spirit onto the disciples and said they could retain or remit sins -- there's the sacrament of confession (since they must obviously hear your sins before retaining or remitting). as for the others, such as Unction in the book of James, do you think the apostles made them up on their own? They may not be recorded in the Gospels, but I'm sure they come from Jesus in some way.

Albion

26th July 2007, 09:49 PM

i assume you mean Christ instituted baptism and the Eucharist .

That's right.

as for the others, such as Unction in the book of James, do you think the apostles made them up on their own? They may not be recorded in the Gospels, but I'm sure they come from Jesus in some way.

As you said, the Bible doesn't tell us that this is so which, if they were sacraments, it would.

Not only that, but these practices would meet the definition of a sacrament in having physical properties as well as the conferring of grace. They don't. That's our view, at any rate. We understand that other communions believe in the seven.

The seven were decided upon not until about 12 centuries after Christ, by the way, so that is why it is difficult to even use tradition to argue for the 5 "lesser sacraments."

Mary of Bethany

26th July 2007, 10:23 PM

As usual, Orthodoxy has never defined the Sacraments as being limited to 7. That has only been heard in Orthodoxy under western church influence.

In Orthodoxy, the sacraments are properly called "Mysteries", and though we certainly accept the 7 that have been mentioned, we don't limit our understanding of Holy Mysteries to those.

Mary

Albion

26th July 2007, 10:27 PM

As usual, Orthodoxy has never defined the Sacraments as being limited to 7. That has only been heard in Orthodoxy under western church influence.

I recognize that this is true in principle, which is why I didn't say that Orthodoxy believes in 7.

Mary of Bethany

26th July 2007, 10:30 PM

I know - that was just meant for general educational purposes. :)

Mary

WarriorAngel

26th July 2007, 11:04 PM

So because Peter died in Rome and not in Antioch then Rome gets the cookie? :confused: If Peter had the "keys" in Antioch and passed it down to the bishop who took over after he left (they have AS from Peter remember) then why doesn't the Patriarch of Antioch have the "keys" now that Peter is long since gone?

You are not really answering my question. What is so special about Rome versus any other city or physical area that it alone retained the "keys"? Why didn't any of the other places Peter started get the same consideration?

Of course I will also admit I do not think Peter had any such authority nor was any authority ever given as anything other than an honorofic. ;)

It is not about the city...but where the next guy and the next guy that took his succession ended up staying...it so happens since Peter died in Rome and was buried there... that is where the successors stationed themselves. Ya know?

but if the Pope can speak ex-cathedra then the time and money and energy and what not spent in calling a Council is unnecessary. just speak ex-cathedra, and the rest of the bishops will unify around this infallible statement.

I believe that this is a two fold.
1st Peter did take up most of the ministry.
Paul wrote a lot of letters, but he spent alot of time in jail. Whereas Paul was jailed for quite some time..Peter was released by angels.

Nevertheless, after Peter, Tradition does show us the role of Peter's successor.
He had the authority to remove and excommunicate heretics.

He always spoke on matters regarding the Church.
He explained scriptures, and defended the faith.

Second, when the OO and then EO left..[well that's how we see it] then the Pope had no recourse but to be sole provider.

However; with or without the EO, he could not teach error...because the promise of Christ stands. ...
Gates of hell...etc

Honestly,
what do RCs consider The Chair to be? Is that a position as the head of Church? I've never ecountered this term before coming to CF.

nestoj
God helps

Interestingly the ECF's spoke about the Chair of Peter...which coincides with the Chair of Moses Christ spoke about.
Only the Chair of Peter was under the New Covenant. The Chair of Moses passed away with the Old Covenant.

Also, did you know the Apostles had a Chair made for them by the early Church...?

Peter's still exists to this day.
Fascinating, symbolic imagery.

Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).

Acts 15:13When they finished, James spoke up: snipped speech, cut to end..

19"It is my judgment, therefore,

apparantly James made the judgement call, not Peter.

just throwing it out there for ya.

The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bid Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).

So....

what would the explanation for that be?

Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

For the rest of the Anglicans, since they accept women priests and bishops, I think hell will freeze over before they will ever unify.

And indeed, the CC wouldnt unify with that branch if they did not remove these non Traditions.

First, and as we have to remind members of the other Apostolic Churches, Anglicans are both Protestant and Catholic depending upon which historic characteristics one is talking about. Then also, and as important, more freedom of belief and worship practices is true of Anglicanism than, I'd think, any of the other main Apostolic communions.

However, and not to delay in getting to your question, we do think we have more in common with the EO than with the RC. At least that seems to be the more common view among us. The structure is similar with churches in communion but autonomous and with no Pope figure; the Eastern tendency not to overdefine things of the faith would strike a resonant chord with many Anglicans; and we approach the "only true church" idea in a similar way. But although there has been a rise in Anglicans calling themselves Anglo-Catholics recently, many Anglicans hold to the original Reformation concepts built into our Prayerbook and Articles of Religion, that is, salvation by faith, that nothing can be demanded of the faithful that is not in accord with scripture, and that scripture is our ultimate guide, after accounting for tradition and reason. We do not consider the bread and wine to become flesh and blood although we do consider Christ to be really present. And most Anglicans do not consider there to be seven sacraments instituted by Christ. Often that takes the form of calling them "two dominical sacraments and five minor ones" (or sacramentals). Something like that.

This is a "stab" at answering your question, but the range of belief and practice within Anglicanism makes describing any particular belief or practice as a norm for us very problematic, and despite the care I took above not to omit any POV or suggest unanimity where there is not unanimity among us, I am sure that some Anglican readers would want to describe things somewhat differently.
:scratch: hmm. I thought the Eucharist was completely the Body and Blood to the East as well.

Albion

26th July 2007, 11:37 PM

"Jesus certainly never associated anything he told Peter with the city of Rome or, for that matter, any geographical location.

So....

what would the explanation for that be?"

Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

How does that answer my question? I asked about Jesus, not Tertullian.

Albion

26th July 2007, 11:45 PM

:scratch: hmm. I thought the Eucharist was completely the Body and Blood to the East as well.

I was saying that Anglicans do not accept the idea of transubstantiation. My understanding is that the EO view is not exactly that of the RC on this matter either, since transubstantiation is a particular and almost technical explanation of the Real Presence.

Aymn27

26th July 2007, 11:52 PM

xristos.anesti

27th July 2007, 05:32 AM

so there's not a formal "seven sacrments that Christ instituted" like the RCC teaches? what would be examples of other "mysteries"??

Everything is a mystery -

Apostle says:

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, with the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known through the church the much-manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He hath purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of Him. (Eph. 3, 8-12.)

Everything we have, we need, we wasted, we earned, we were given, we will be given is a mystery of God. We can not count those for how can you count the amount of your heart beats, of your breaths, of your thoughts.

Everything God is – is a mystery. To know God is to know mystery – even for angels, for see -thought the Church the manifold wisdom of God is declared to heavenly powers but not just to them, but us too. We count not the secrets of God nor mysteries of the faith for how can we know what is unknown, how can we see what is invisible – for even those who were there before us have not known but waited to see through the Church –

St. Chrysostom says (Homily VII on Ephesians)

For it was "hid in God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)," even "in God who created all things." And do you venture to utter this? I do, says he. But whence has this been made manifest to the Angels? By the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Again he says, not merely the manifold (ποικίλος ) but the much-manifold (πολυποίκιλος ) wisdom, that is, "the multiplied and varied." What then is this? Did not Angels know it? No, nothing of it; for if Principalities knew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) it not, much less could Angels ever have known (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) it. What then? Did not even Archangels know it? No, nor even they. But whence were they going to know it? Who was to reveal it? When we were taught it, then were they also by us.

So if it was all a mystery to Angels who knew how much is more a mystery to us who have faith and not know?

So, our faith is a mystery – for we know not – but we believe – I have no knowledge but have faith – for now is the time of not knowing – but of believing, for the Jews knew and they gave the Son of God to be killed, we know not – we believe and steadfast is our faith –

So having faith, we see not – we believe, and you can not believe in what you see, for you see it – therefore you need not believing in what you see – for I do not believe that I am looking into this screen, for I know that I am – but I believe that there is God and that He is Agape – for I see not.

That is why it is all a mystery, for mystery begets faith – for faith is not according to knowledge but according to revelation, not according to empirical self but through believing (spiritual) self.

What would other examples of mysteries be:

Well, look at a Christian – there is nothing there that it is not a mystery – everything is.

For we were dead and sold unto slavery and death was our nature, we have received the salary – and the world was dead with us – and we – being a little bit smaller than angels were enemy of God – in so many years of our living on this planet we did nothing good – we lied and killed and burned and raped and done worse things than demons – and He – chose not to die for those heavenly sons of God - the powers of noetic, but decided to incarnate into ours – of the Virgin and become a Man – and to live among us – in His human nature same as we are in all - but the sin, and to teach, preach, heal and make new and all we saw is the most simplest among men – no beauty nor glory and He took what was ours onto His and in our own gave us His own – for the glory of the Father and salvation of all – and after all that - we betrayed Him and spat on Him and crucified Him and He died for us an our salvation. And there was darkness upon Earth – and mute cosmos stood flabbergasted – for we have killed the immortal and destroyed the indestructible – and He descended into Hades and with His death He destroyed death – the last weapon of the evil one – and to those in grave He gave life – and on the third day according to the Scripture He rose from the dead.

And the Apostle will sing:

"O death, where is thy sting?
O grave, where is thy victory?"

O’ Mystery of Mysteries!

Everything since that day is like that day – a mystery.

Uphill Battle

27th July 2007, 07:40 AM

The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bid Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).

huh? Don't understand the relevance to that passage.

WarriorAngel

27th July 2007, 09:59 AM

"Jesus certainly never associated anything he told Peter with the city of Rome or, for that matter, any geographical location.

So....

what would the explanation for that be?"

[/color][/font]

How does that answer my question? I asked about Jesus, not Tertullian.

Because we do not know everything Jesus said and we rely on Tradition.

Tradition is understanding that succession continued, and Tertullian is showing us that which happened.

Apostolic Succession means knowing Tradition was equal as with scriptures....are you denying Apostolic successions?

Why are you asking where Christ said this...when YOU surely know we do not follow sola scriptura...?

Evidently the teachings of all things were not mentioned in exactness.

Heck...Paul says Christ said 'it is more blessed to give than receive'...and we do not see Jesus saying that..do we?

It was Paul using the orally taught.

Albion

27th July 2007, 10:32 AM

Because we do not know everything Jesus said and we rely on Tradition.

I understand,. We do not rely upon Tradition in that way although we take account of the continuity of belief. But it still is a question whether SOME, but not ALL, of the ECFs saying something about the honorary or titular status of the bishop of Rome has anything to do with Papal Supremacy. IOW, even if Tradition were followed, it requires that the testimony be relevant.

Tradition is understanding that succession continued, and Tertullian is showing us that which happened.

Except that Tertullian didn't say that in the quoted excerpt. I am pretty sure also that he was one who placed the emphasis upon Peter and Paul equally as leaders in Rome. This issue has come up before, and the last time I found at least a half dozen of the ECFs who explicitly denied that Peter was the head of the church in any sense; Tertullian was one of those, as I recall, but I'd have to look again for the material if it matters.

WarriorAngel

27th July 2007, 11:21 AM

I can quote and quote and quote other fathers...you want?

WarriorAngel

27th July 2007, 11:23 AM

Everything is a mystery -

Apostle says:

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, with the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known through the church the much-manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He hath purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of Him. (Eph. 3, 8-12.)

Everything we have, we need, we wasted, we earned, we were given, we will be given is a mystery of God. We can not count those for how can you count the amount of your heart beats, of your breaths, of your thoughts.

Everything God is – is a mystery. To know God is to know mystery – even for angels, for see -thought the Church the manifold wisdom of God is declared to heavenly powers but not just to them, but us too. We count not the secrets of God nor mysteries of the faith for how can we know what is unknown, how can we see what is invisible – for even those who were there before us have not known but waited to see through the Church –

St. Chrysostom says (Homily VII on Ephesians)

For it was "hid in God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)," even "in God who created all things." And do you venture to utter this? I do, says he. But whence has this been made manifest to the Angels? By the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Again he says, not merely the manifold (ποικίλος ) but the much-manifold (πολυποίκιλος ) wisdom, that is, "the multiplied and varied." What then is this? Did not Angels know it? No, nothing of it; for if Principalities knew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) it not, much less could Angels ever have known (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) it. What then? Did not even Archangels know it? No, nor even they. But whence were they going to know it? Who was to reveal it? When we were taught it, then were they also by us.

So if it was all a mystery to Angels who knew how much is more a mystery to us who have faith and not know?

So, our faith is a mystery – for we know not – but we believe – I have no knowledge but have faith – for now is the time of not knowing – but of believing, for the Jews knew and they gave the Son of God to be killed, we know not – we believe and steadfast is our faith –

So having faith, we see not – we believe, and you can not believe in what you see, for you see it – therefore you need not believing in what you see – for I do not believe that I am looking into this screen, for I know that I am – but I believe that there is God and that He is Agape – for I see not.

That is why it is all a mystery, for mystery begets faith – for faith is not according to knowledge but according to revelation, not according to empirical self but through believing (spiritual) self.

What would other examples of mysteries be:

Well, look at a Christian – there is nothing there that it is not a mystery – everything is.

For we were dead and sold unto slavery and death was our nature, we have received the salary – and the world was dead with us – and we – being a little bit smaller than angels were enemy of God – in so many years of our living on this planet we did nothing good – we lied and killed and burned and raped and done worse things than demons – and He – chose not to die for those heavenly sons of God - the powers of noetic, but decided to incarnate into ours – of the Virgin and become a Man – and to live among us – in His human nature same as we are in all - but the sin, and to teach, preach, heal and make new and all we saw is the most simplest among men – no beauty nor glory and He took what was ours onto His and in our own gave us His own – for the glory of the Father and salvation of all – and after all that - we betrayed Him and spat on Him and crucified Him and He died for us an our salvation. And there was darkness upon Earth – and mute cosmos stood flabbergasted – for we have killed the immortal and destroyed the indestructible – and He descended into Hades and with His death He destroyed death – the last weapon of the evil one – and to those in grave He gave life – and on the third day according to the Scripture He rose from the dead.

And the Apostle will sing:

"O death, where is thy sting?
O grave, where is thy victory?"

O’ Mystery of Mysteries!

Everything since that day is like that day – a mystery.

Yes He is a mystery. Thank goodness we have what the Church gave us for understandings.
Incarnation, Hypostatic Union, Trinity...etc.
:hug:

Albion

27th July 2007, 11:26 AM

I can quote and quote and quote other fathers...you want?

Very good. I think that would be a great way to get to the bottom of the matter. It's the only way, actually.

Quote every Church Father speaking on the subject.

And quote everything each of them had to say about the bishop of Rome as the leader of the universal church.

Only then can a case be made from Tradition.

WarriorAngel

27th July 2007, 11:43 AM

WarriorAngel

27th July 2007, 11:46 AM

Very good. I think that would be a great way to get to the bottom of the matter. It's the only way, actually.

Quote every Church Father speaking on the subject.

And quote everything each of them had to say about the bishop of Rome as the leader of the universal church.

Only then can a case be made from Tradition.

First and foremost....the Universal Church means world wide.
But we know Peter is Rock where Christ built the Church..
so all Churches stem from that Rock.

That is the first quote, which is from Christ.

For now the dark clouds are almost over my house...so for now, I will have to get off here. :o

But I will return.

Albion

27th July 2007, 12:34 PM

First and foremost....the Universal Church means world wide.

No, it means wherever Christianity is. Obviously, the Church was not actually worldwide for many centuries, including all the period that we have been discussing.

But we know Peter is Rock where Christ built the Church..
so all Churches stem from that Rock.

Excuse me, but "we" do not "know" that. It is just the RCC view of things. And as a historical statement about how and by whom the various churches of the Roman world got founded, it's absolutely indefensible. You know that Thomas went East, James stayed in Jerusalem and headed the church there, etc.

It will not be decided here who is right merely by repeating one side's opinion.

In my last post, I touched upon the fact that there is considerable disagreement over what "Rock" means in that verse. But even if we say that it means Peter, that doesn't tell us anything about any Papal claims such as developed several centuries later. We know, for example, that although this is your 'go-to', argument, the bishops of Rome had not cited that verse in their promotion of themselves as being the leaders of the Church until four centuries after Christ. Obviously, if they saw it as you do, they would not have overlooked the possibiltiies.

I look forward to reading the statements of all the ECFs when you finish your research. But let's not begin by making partisan claims before we have the evidence in. Let's have that, since you volunteered to get it, without rehasing any of the old give and take in the meanwhile.

Albion

27th July 2007, 12:42 PM

Here is something I considered on WHY Rome was where the Successors of Peter stayed...

Because Peter said...'It was my mouth that the Gentiles would hear the word.'

Rome was completely pagan Gentile....
And some historians say Peter was there for 25 years before dying.

That was where he converted the Gentiles...by the Lord's desire.

Just a thought, for those who ask why Rome.

Kind of a stretch, don't you agree? There were many other cities as pagan as Rome and there were plenty of Gentiles in every city in the Roman world with the exception of Jerusalem and vicinity. If Rome had been uniquely pagan, maybe, but it wasn't.

Secundulus

27th July 2007, 01:25 PM

Just a thought, for those who ask why Rome.

Or maybe it was because it was the Capitol of the Empire and the grandest city on earth (at the time).

WarriorAngel

27th July 2007, 08:42 PM

YAHOO...my dog is home! :clap:

Ok, sorry...had to clap about that.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 16 (Jerome) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001016.htm)

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 15 (Jerome) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm)

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 33 (Leo the Great) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604033.htm)

CHURCH FATHERS: Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, Letter 40 ... (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm)

CHURCH FATHERS: Recognitions, Book I (Clement of Rome) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0804.htm)
But now let us see how Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, begins his narrative.
Interesting...Clement was writing to James.

This shows the importance of Peter over the others...
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 88 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Hugh the Great (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07524a.htm)
More about Clement.

CHURCH FATHERS: Concerning Repentance, Book I (Ambrose) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34061.htm) Ambrose (340-397) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01383c.htm)

33. And this confession is indeed rightly made by them, for they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) schism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm); and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) can be forgiven even in the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), whereas it was said to Peter: "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm), and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." Matthew 16:19 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm#19) And the vessel of divine election himself said: "If you have forgiven anything to any one, I forgive also, for what I have forgiven I have done it for your sakes in the person of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm)." 2 Corinthians 2:10 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co002.htm#10) Why, then, do they read Paul's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) writings, if they think that he has erred so wickedly as to claim for himself the right of his Lord? But he claimed what he had received, he did not usurp that which was not due to him.

CHURCH FATHERS: Prefaces (Rufinus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2712.htm)
Linus and Cletus were, no doubt (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm), Bishops in the city of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) before Clement, but this was in Peter's life-time; that is, they took charge of the episcopal work, while he discharged the duties of the apostolate. He is known (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) to have done the same thing at Cæsarea; for there, though he was himself on the spot, yet he had at his side Zacchæus whom he had ordained as Bishop. Thus we may see how both things may be true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm); namely how they stand as predecessors of Clement in the list of Bishops, and yet how Clement after the death of Peter became his successor in the teacher's chair.
Rufinus made, soon after his accession, to Anastasius, who held the Roman see from 498 to 503.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 97 (Jerome) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001097.htm)

CHURCH FATHERS: Fragments (Caius) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0510.htm)
And how are they not ashamed to utter these calumnies (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03190c.htm) against Victor, knowing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) well that Victor excommunicated (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm) Theodotus the tanner, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm), who first affirmed that Christ was a mere man?

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 209 (St. Augustine) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102209.htm)
1. First of all I congratulate you that our Lord God has, as we have heard, established you in the illustrious chair which you occupy without any division among His people. In the next place, I lay before your Holiness the state of affairs with us, that not only by your prayers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm), but with your council and aid you may help us.

CHURCH FATHERS: Recognitions, Book X (Clement of Rome) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080410.htm)

"But I should like that one of you, and not Peter, should answer what I have said; for it is not fitting to take words and instruction at his hand, with questions; but when he gives a deliverance on any subject, that should be held without answering again. And therefore let us keep him as an umpire; so that if at any time our discussion does not come to an issue, he may declare what seems good to him, and so give an undoubted end to doubtful matters. And now therefore I could believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm), content with his sole opinion, if he expressed any opinion; and this is what I shall do at last. Yet I wish first to see if it is possible by discussion to find what is sought. My wish therefore is, that Clement should begin first, and should show if there is any good or evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) in substance or in actions."
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm"]CHURCH FATHERS: De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11262b.htm)
LOTS of good read on this one. This one basically shows the position and such of all the early fathers. Pretty cool I thot.

ETC...........Cont.

WarriorAngel

27th July 2007, 10:07 PM

CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Nicaea (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm)
The Divine Sacra Sent by the Emperors Constantine and Irene to the Most Holy and Most Blessed Hadrian, Pope of Old Rome.

They who receive the dignity of the empire, or the honour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) of the principal priesthood (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm) from our Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), ought to provide and to care for those things which please him, and rule and govern the people committed to their care according to his will and good pleasure.
Therefore, O most holy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) Head (Caput), it is incumbent upon us and you, that irreprehensibly we know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the things which be his, and that in these we exercise ourselves, since from him we have received the imperatorial dignity, and you the dignity of the chief priesthood (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm).

It is, indeed, incumbent on your holiness (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) to do this, since you know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) how it is written—"Comfort, comfort my people, you priests (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm), says the Lord," and "the lips of the priest (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) shall keep knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm), and the law shall go forth out of his mouth, for he is the angel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) of the Lord of Hosts." And again, the divine Apostle, the preacher of the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), who, "from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm), preached the Gospel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm)," has thus commanded— "Feed with discipline the flock of Christ which he purchased with his own blood." As then you are the veritable chief priest (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) (primus sacerdos) who presides in the place and in the see of the holy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) and superlaudable Apostle Peter

ETC..

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 14 (Leo the Great) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm)

If with true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) reasoning you perceived all that has been committed to you, brother, by the blessed apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm)Peter's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) authority, and what has also been entrusted to you by our favour, and would weigh it fairly, we should be able greatly to rejoice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07131b.htm) at your zealous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15753a.htm) discharge of the responsibility imposed on you.

From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head.

CHURCH FATHERS: Ecclesiastical History, Book V (Theodoret) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27025.htm)[/URL]

Letter of Damasus [URL="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm"]bishop of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0322.htm).
"Most honourable (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) sons: Inasmuch as your love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) renders to the apostolic see the reverence which is its due, accept the same in no niggard measure for yourselves. For even though in the holy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) church in which the holy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) apostle sat, and taught us how it becomes us to manage the rudder which has been committed to us, we nevertheless confess ourselves to be unworthy of the honour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm), we yet on this very account strive by every means within our power if haply we may be able to achieve the glory (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm) of that blessedness. Know then that we have condemned Timotheus, the unhallowed, the disciple (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm) of Apollinarius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm) the heretic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm), together with his impious doctrine,

...
"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm), who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) hope which is in Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). May God keep you sound, most honoured sons."

Well......
I am getting kinda pooped reading all of this. :)

But maybe in a day or so...I will continue.
Busy weekend coming.
Hope yours is wonderful.

xristos.anesti

28th July 2007, 03:21 AM

And WA - which one of these speaks of INFALLIBILITY and Primacy of POWER of the Bishop of Rome?!

We (Orthodox) never said that the St. Peter was not the chief of the Apostles - but St. Peter was not infallible ruler and the king who speaks by himself from some chair -

We (Orthodox) never said that Bishop of Rome (when in communion) is not the president of the communion and leader of the flock.

What you are posting is what we have said from the day one.

Also, what you are posting means nothing because your premise is wrong - your premise is that those posted words speak of infallible Vatican I - type pope - they do not.

Your premise is wrong because no-one, ever - through out the history of the Church spoke of Rome being infallible ruler - until the west went into heresy and schism and Rome became the only apostolic see in the west and thus had the power beyond the honour that it had among the five (pentarchy).

Yes, the Bishop of Rome is (was) the MOST HONOURABLE bishop of the Church - leader in honour.
Yes, he is (was) the chief Episkope.
Yes, the Rome is the Prima Sede.

But NO - Rome is not infallible ruler who on the wink of his eye gets everyone else to kneel and kiss his little red shoes (or whatever the colour they are).

No - he is not the only source of the teaching - in chair, out of chair, with chair or with sofa - it just is not.
No - he is not infallible - the Church is.
No - he is not the king of the episkopes - for kingship denotes absolute power.

Re-check your premises.

Also - maybe it is just me - but it seems that you - WA - are not reading anything that anyone is saying - it is like that you have 347 pages of some apologetic book that you need to get out there and all you are doing is smashing lines from this book - if anyone reads your posts - that are to be assumed that are answers to other posts they make no sense nor in actuality relate to the posts you are "answering" - it is really weird - I met people like you but none of them ever came from RCC - actually, if anyone ever argued with a JW - they can vouch that there is a rather large similarity between the way they and you make the argumentation.

Are you, seriously, even reading what the rest of us are saying?

It is not a sin that you are not - the fact is - your character's eyes ARE CLOSED - maybe it is the time for you to open your eyes - it does help with reading... just an idea.

Many years.

Dorothea

28th July 2007, 05:20 PM

xristos.anesti

28th July 2007, 06:03 PM

Hello all. I have been reading over this thread, learning a bit about the history of the Church. I am still in ignorance and am still learning and trying to learn about the beginnings of the Church and all that came afterwards. I have bought Eusebius' History of the Church, I believe it's called, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I just have a few questions, and I think all you very intelligent folks could probably help me out.

1. So, St. Peter is above all the other Apostles?

2. Did St. Peter go to all the other Churches and build them too, i.e., in Constantinople, Alexandria, etc.

3. Didn't some other Apostles establish Churches in the other areas, not St. Peter???

4. So Rome was considered higher than the other bishops and their respective established churches and cities???

TIA for your help.

Many years -

first of all - it is good that you are interested in these things.

St. Peter is not above all of the other Apostles - not in a sense that they had to do what he said and or that he was the boss - they were all equal - there was not to be leader among them in a sense of the leader by prerogative of power. It is clearly visible that the Lord did not want them to be considering which one among them was the greatest or most important. It is also clearly visible that they all were equal and that they all received all the prerogatives of the Apostolic office - whether by Word or by Spirit.

However, due to some reasons - their relationship to Christ or the Mother of God - all and ever pure Virgin Theotokos some came to prominence among the Apostolic synod - St. James, St. Peter,and St John (exactly in that order according to St. Paul - Gal 2.) became with time the leaders - not in power but in love. They were not bossing anyone around and were themselves corrected by other Apostles when required.

St. Peters primacy comes from his utter love for Christ and the pain of Petrine triple denunciation - and triple affirmation - for St. Peter is all of us - every day.

St. Peter surely found the Holy Churches of Antioch and in the end with his glorious death - crucified upside down - he founded in blood the Holy Church of Rome - together with our sweetest Apostle - through whom untiring work - we, the gentiles - received the Logos, St. Paul.

Many of the Apostles formed Churches. St. James the Just was the leader of the Mother of all Churches - Jerusalem. St. Andrew the firstcalled - founded Holy Churches of Byzant (Constantinople). St. Mark founded the Holy Churches of Alexandria and as said above - St. Peter founded Holy Church of Antioch and together with St. Paul he founded the Holy Church of Rome - the capital city of the empire, first among equals. Also, St. Paul founded many of the Churches in Asia Minor and Europe, whilst other Apostles traveled to far lands to the East - St. Thomas went as far as India.

Rome was the capital of the empire, thus according to patriarchal customs - as they developed - Rome became foremost and primate see - leader in love, ruler in honour and defendant of the Holy Orthodoxy. The status of Rome was not such due to the fact that St. Peter founded this see - this was used a reason later and exclusively in the West. Rome was the capital of the empire and according to the canons of the Ecumenical councils and following the customs of the Holy Churches fathers considered Rome to be the primate.

Later when St. Constantine the Great - defender of the faith - transferred the capital onto the shores of the black see - into Byzant, that we to God and him greatful people started calling Constantinopolis - this see became ranked second only to old Capital - Rome and above all others.

This order of primacy in those days is known as holy pentarchy and is listed in this order - according to primacy of love and as given to us from those who strugled before;

Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

However, due to many political and theological reasons the Easter Patriarchal sees stopped communion with Rome - thus the great schism was generated and is continuing ever since.

We hope and pray that in the future this will be healed.

Many years and God helps.

salida

28th July 2007, 07:49 PM

No denomination is supreme - this is legalism mentality.

WarriorAngel

28th July 2007, 08:12 PM

xristos.anesti

28th July 2007, 08:50 PM

IF you read the quotes, then you will see that the Pope has a certain jurisdiction over the Whole Church.
Even tho all the Patriarchs enjoyed control of their respective Churches, they deferred and conferred to the Pope.
Which is why we should be reunifying.

We can not re-unify due to infallibility clause of Vatican I - the clause that has nothing to do with Apostolic Christianity and it has all to do with later developments of the Only Western Apostolic See.

Yes, he was involved. Especially Jerusalem, Antioch and I think I read Constantinople.
In fact given his position, he probably oversaw much of the early Church.

This is not true - if anyone oversaw much of the early Church would have been St. Paul - but, St. Paul is clear on the divisions among people according to the overseer as being wrong. St. Peter was not the overseer of the Church in a way that RCC is teaching today - he was not infallible king who can on a whim excommunicate anyone who disagrees with him. This is Roman introduction and has nothing to do with Apostolic Christianity.

I believe the other Apostles were builders of the Churches in certain areas. Respective to where their successors currently reside.

Obviously they were, unlike RCC the Apostolic Christianity did not wait for St. Peter to sit ex cathedra and declare faith - they went and did it themselves with the help of Holy Spirit.

Yes.
Peter called Prince of the Apostles, his successors were called The holy See of the Church, The Primacy, the teacher...etc etc
I gave a number of quotes above, and out of fatigue I will continue more later.
Read the links.

And none of those quotes will prove that he was infallible nor that any of the popes were as such - again, you assume that because they honoured St. Peter and Roman Popes it means infallibility - it does not -

It means what the Orthodox have been, are and will be teaching since Pentecost.

St. Peter was not, is not and will never be infallible - neither is the Pope of Rome - no man is but the Godman Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, Logos of God and the Second Divine Person of the Mostholy Three and may He be with the Father and the Holy Spirit worshipped now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

IN NO WAY am I suggesting that you convert...but that you prayer for reunification. :crossrc: :crosseo: Let us be a voice together again.

As soon as you denounce the teaching of the Vatican I declaring the infallibility and absolute power of the bishop of Rome.

Then let us come back together...reunite, and BTW this thread is not about infallibility.

I am praying... :crossrc:

This thread is about infallibility - every thread about bishop of Rome IS about infallibility.

Also, the name of this thread is:

Proof of the Papacy's authority over the Church. One Church. (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37149204#post37149204)

If this thread is not about infallibility I do not know which one is.

Also, RCC does not have to pray for re-unification - all she has to do is denounce her incorrect teachings and it will all be good.

Many years.

Dorothea

28th July 2007, 09:00 PM

Many years -

first of all - it is good that you are interested in these things.

St. Peter is not above all of the other Apostles - not in a sense that they had to do what he said and or that he was the boss - they were all equal - there was not to be leader among them in a sense of the leader by prerogative of power. It is clearly visible that the Lord did not want them to be considering which one among them was the greatest or most important. It is also clearly visible that they all were equal and that they all received all the prerogatives of the Apostolic office - whether by Word or by Spirit.

However, due to some reasons - their relationship to Christ or the Mother of God - all and ever pure Virgin Theotokos some came to prominence among the Apostolic synod - St. James, St. Peter,and St John (exactly in that order according to St. Paul - Gal 2.) became with time the leaders - not in power but in love. They were not bossing anyone around and were themselves corrected by other Apostles when required.

St. Peters primacy comes from his utter love for Christ and the pain of Petrine triple denunciation - and triple affirmation - for St. Peter is all of us - every day.

St. Peter surely found the Holy Churches of Antioch and in the end with his glorious death - crucified upside down - he founded in blood the Holy Church of Rome - together with our sweetest Apostle - through whom untiring work - we, the gentiles - received the Logos, St. Paul.

Many of the Apostles formed Churches. St. James the Just was the leader of the Mother of all Churches - Jerusalem. St. Andrew the firstcalled - founded Holy Churches of Byzant (Constantinople). St. Mark founded the Holy Churches of Alexandria and as said above - St. Peter founded Holy Church of Antioch and together with St. Paul he founded the Holy Church of Rome - the capital city of the empire, first among equals. Also, St. Paul founded many of the Churches in Asia Minor and Europe, whilst other Apostles traveled to far lands to the East - St. Thomas went as far as India.

Rome was the capital of the empire, thus according to patriarchal customs - as they developed - Rome became foremost and primate see - leader in love, ruler in honour and defendant of the Holy Orthodoxy. The status of Rome was not such due to the fact that St. Peter founded this see - this was used a reason later and exclusively in the West. Rome was the capital of the empire and according to the canons of the Ecumenical councils and following the customs of the Holy Churches fathers considered Rome to be the primate.

Later when St. Constantine the Great - defender of the faith - transferred the capital onto the shores of the black see - into Byzant, that we to God and him greatful people started calling Constantinopolis - this see became ranked second only to old Capital - Rome and above all others.

This order of primacy in those days is known as holy pentarchy and is listed in this order - according to primacy of love and as given to us from those who strugled before;

Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

However, due to many political and theological reasons the Easter Patriarchal sees stopped communion with Rome - thus the great schism was generated and is continuing ever since.

We hope and pray that in the future this will be healed.

Many years and God helps.
Thank you so much, xristos! You explained everything so clearly and easily for me to understand. I truly appreciate it! God bless. :)

xristos.anesti

28th July 2007, 09:07 PM

Thank you so much, xristos! You explained everything so clearly and easily for me to understand. I truly appreciate it! God bless. :)

You are more than welcome dear sister.

God helps and many years.

Dorothea

28th July 2007, 09:13 PM

Even tho all the Patriarchs enjoyed control of their respective Churches, they deferred and conferred to the Pope.
Which is why we should be reunifying.
Oh. I thought the Pope had authority over Rome, his jurisdiction? Like a Patriach has over their jurisdictions in Constantinople, Antioch and such??? :confused:

Yes, he was involved. Especially Jerusalem, Antioch and I think I read Constantinople.
In fact given his position, he probably oversaw much of the early Church.

I believe the other Apostles were builders of the Churches in certain areas. Respective to where their successors currently reside.

Yes.
Peter called Prince of the Apostles, his successors were called The holy See of the Church, The Primacy, the teacher...etc etc
I gave a number of quotes above, and out of fatigue I will continue more later.

Wow. Ok. I just thought St. Peter, great Apostle that he was was equal to all the others. It wasn't until recently reading these threads that it sounded as if he was deemed greater or more special or something. :confused:

eta: sorry for the mess up with quotes. my responses are in orange. :blush:

WarriorAngel

28th July 2007, 10:14 PM

We can not re-unify due to infallibility clause of Vatican I - the clause that has nothing to do with Apostolic Christianity and it has all to do with later developments of the Only Western Apostolic See.

This is not true - if anyone oversaw much of the early Church would have been St. Paul - but, St. Paul is clear on the divisions among people according to the overseer as being wrong. St. Peter was not the overseer of the Church in a way that RCC is teaching today - he was not infallible king who can on a whim excommunicate anyone who disagrees with him. This is Roman introduction and has nothing to do with Apostolic Christianity.

Obviously they were, unlike RCC the Apostolic Christianity did not wait for St. Peter to sit ex cathedra and declare faith - they went and did it themselves with the help of Holy Spirit.

And none of those quotes will prove that he was infallible nor that any of the popes were as such - again, you assume that because they honoured St. Peter and Roman Popes it means infallibility - it does not -

It means what the Orthodox have been, are and will be teaching since Pentecost.

St. Peter was not, is not and will never be infallible - neither is the Pope of Rome - no man is but the Godman Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, Logos of God and the Second Divine Person of the Mostholy Three and may He be with the Father and the Holy Spirit worshipped now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

As soon as you denounce the teaching of the Vatican I declaring the infallibility and absolute power of the bishop of Rome.

This thread is about infallibility - every thread about bishop of Rome IS about infallibility.

Also, the name of this thread is:

Proof of the Papacy's authority over the Church. One Church. (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37149204#post37149204)

If this thread is not about infallibility I do not know which one is.

Also, RCC does not have to pray for re-unification - all she has to do is denounce her incorrect teachings and it will all be good.

Many years.

The term was not used, but it was clear that the Pope would not teach erroneously...which is why he is infallible. Not perfect.
The two are distinct..I made a thread for you...because you keep mentioning it.

Many years -

first of all - it is good that you are interested in these things.

St. Peter is not above all of the other Apostles - not in a sense that they had to do what he said and or that he was the boss - they were all equal - there was not to be leader among them in a sense of the leader by prerogative of power. It is clearly visible that the Lord did not want them to be considering which one among them was the greatest or most important. It is also clearly visible that they all were equal and that they all received all the prerogatives of the Apostolic office - whether by Word or by Spirit.

SHOW ME one pre schism father who says that.
Back this up by proof.

Later when St. Constantine the Great - defender of the faith - transferred the capital onto the shores of the black see - into Byzant, that we to God and him greatful people started calling Constantinopolis - this see became ranked second only to old Capital - Rome and above all others.

This order of primacy in those days is known as holy pentarchy and is listed in this order - according to primacy of love and as given to us from those who strugled before;

Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

However, due to many political and theological reasons the Easter Patriarchal sees stopped communion with Rome - thus the great schism was generated and is continuing ever since.

We hope and pray that in the future this will be healed.

Many years and God helps.

I also pray for healing, but it is of deep interest to me how you will immediately throw away the Chair of Peter, but still cling to a Prime Patriarch of Constantinope...who was never handed the keys...
How does that work?
HOW did Constantinople usurp the role of the Chair of Peter....and it is acceptable?

Oh. I thought the Pope had authority over Rome, his jurisdiction? Like a Patriach has over their jurisdictions in Constantinople, Antioch and such??? :confused:

Yes, he was involved. Especially Jerusalem, Antioch and I think I read Constantinople.
In fact given his position, he probably oversaw much of the early Church.

I believe the other Apostles were builders of the Churches in certain areas. Respective to where their successors currently reside.

Yes.
Peter called Prince of the Apostles, his successors were called The holy See of the Church, The Primacy, the teacher...etc etc
I gave a number of quotes above, and out of fatigue I will continue more later.

Wow. Ok. I just thought St. Peter, great Apostle that he was was equal to all the others. It wasn't until recently reading these threads that it sounded as if he was deemed greater or more special or something. :confused:

eta: sorry for the mess up with quotes. my responses are in orange. :blush:

No problem.

The Chair of Peter as the Leader of the Apostles, was to feed the sheep [teach] and to strengthen the others...as Christ prayed for him to do.

Jesus gave Peter the keys to Heaven. Repeating that to ourselves...to Heaven...His Kingdom...His Home.
Keys open and close...so they open and close Heaven.
That in itself could be the 'key' in the reason the Pope explained infallibility.

Keys are held by his successors as they are passed down, and only ONE Apostle was handed those keys, and only ONE was called the Rock to which the CHURCH was built on. Singular in that it was to be in all nations...Universal. ONE Church.

AS Christ said to preach to the ends of the earth.

Again, I am trying to clarify these things so we reunite.

I am not trying to discredit any Patriarch. I see the beauty of the EO... and in the spirit of charity and love I would love for the humility of all of us to bow to what the Lord wants...
Which is a reunification.

'Let them be as one, as We Are One..'
IF that is Christ's desire...it is mine too. :crossrc:

xristos.anesti

29th July 2007, 12:07 AM

Oh. I thought the Pope had authority over Rome, his jurisdiction? Like a Patriach has over their jurisdictions in Constantinople, Antioch and such??? :confused:

Yes, he was involved. Especially Jerusalem, Antioch and I think I read Constantinople.
In fact given his position, he probably oversaw much of the early Church.

I believe the other Apostles were builders of the Churches in certain areas. Respective to where their successors currently reside.

Yes.
Peter called Prince of the Apostles, his successors were called The holy See of the Church, The Primacy, the teacher...etc etc
I gave a number of quotes above, and out of fatigue I will continue more later.

Wow. Ok. I just thought St. Peter, great Apostle that he was was equal to all the others. It wasn't until recently reading these threads that it sounded as if he was deemed greater or more special or something. :confused:

eta: sorry for the mess up with quotes. my responses are in orange. :blush:

Dorothea, my dearest sister, I would suggest, if I may - that you should decide for yourself and in agreement with you spiritual father - at the same time - I would recommend that you should take what Warrior angel is talking with a massive grain of salt -

Warrior Angel is spreading Latin propaganda and her statement are not based in fact but in some alternate reality that Rome has created around herself.

jckstraw72

29th July 2007, 12:13 AM

xristos -- i agree with you, but there's no reason to state it so harshly.

xristos.anesti

29th July 2007, 12:13 AM

SHOW ME one pre schism father who says that.
Back this up by proof.

St. Paul corrected St. Peter when he was wrong:

We read in Galatians 2, 11-21.

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

If St. Peter was infallible and pope-like leader St. Paul would have been burned on a stake for this, excommunicated or whatever else would have happened - that popes did to those that disagreed with them.

In Galatians same chapter only couple of verses before the ones quoted above St. Paul writes:

Galatians 2, 6-10.

But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

Oh what a great chance for St. Paul to tell us all -

"Look at St. Peter the infallible - the pillar of the Church and the prince of the Apostles - the king who speaks ex cathedra - let is listen to him for he is the infallible on matters of faith or moral..."

But St. Paul did