Peter the Rock and his keys

[prodromos]

What is to argue....it is not where Peter founded, but where the Chair resides as was given by the ECF's, and one of them an Eastern Father.Do any of them say the chair of Peter is not in Antioch or Alexandria? Do any of them deny what Pope Gregory the Great said to Bishop Eulogius about the See being in three places?
Ignatius wrote to each Church..
If you look at them all, you will find only one which is to Rome, as being the Teacher, and envying none.
In other words...the Roman chair of Peter was teacher, and didnt envy anyone else this position.Ignatius said nothing about Peter in his letter to the Romans though, did he.. He writes what he does because the Church in Rome had proved to be steadfastly orthodox at this time when other Churches has proven less so. Too bad the Church in Rome did not continue in this way.
Gregory the Great lived in the East for 4 years, i believe, but returned to Rome and became Pope.

And why would he bother taking a chair that didnt exist, one would wonder.One would wonder how you imagine this to be a response to my post?
What you are ignoring on that very situation is the fact St Augustine HAD to make a defense to the Pope.
See?
If the Pope was not important, then why bother defending Cyrpian?
Would you seek someone across the world if they had no authority to excommunicate?Augustine was preventing the Pope from falling into the very serious error of causing division in the Church. The Pope was in the wrong and willing to go into schism over it.
Of course you will deny this. You are blinded by Papal vision .
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. Irenaeus states plainly that what he is about to demonstrate with regards to Rome can be demonstrated in Churches throughout the whole world. He does not set Rome apart from the others, for the truth he is about to demonstrate through Rome is true of all of them.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, [b]inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhereNote that Rome's pre-eminent authority is due to the tradition being preserved by those who exist everywhere, it is not in and of itself.

Irenaeus then goes on to enumerate the succession of bishops in Rome, but just as he stated at the beginning, he could have just as easily used Antioch as an example, or Jerusalem, or Ephesus, or Berea. Any one of them would be proof against the claims of the heretics.

John

[prodromos]

St. Chrysostom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm):

He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. You have been told before that "prostasia" means "protection", not "rule". But as is evidenced by this and other threads, you pay absolutely no attention to what we have to say. And as you have already been shown before, Chrysostom says that John also has charge of the whole world”And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.”

Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2

[Philothei]

You have been told before that "prostasia" means "protection", not "rule". But as is evidenced by this and other threads, you pay absolutely no attention to what we have to say. And as you have already been shown before, Chrysostom says that John also has charge of the whole world”And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.”

Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2
I will second that that Prostasia mean "protection" being a native Greek.

[Vasileios]

I third it, since I was the first to point it out in the first place ;)

[Philothei]

It is not going to matter since WA has soooo many more "sources" to manipulate and present them as supporting the Petrine man made dogma.... that ALL the EF believed it ... right?

I am still waiting on some answers .... hope you come up with them soon WA....

Philothei

[WarriorAngel]

You have been told before that "prostasia" means "protection", not "rule". But as is evidenced by this and other threads, you pay absolutely no attention to what we have to say. And as you have already been shown before, Chrysostom says that John also has charge of the whole world”And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together.”


Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2
Whether or not [and you know i c&p but] you persist on worrying about one word vs the PART about James being the See of Jerusalem, but Peter being the SEE OF the WHOLE world.

THAT is the importance of that issue.

But you continue to post to me...that James was just as important, but i keep responding to you that St John said no he wasnt.

Now i cannot see whether rule or protect is different....since protect still means he has charge over them.

Nevertheless;
http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
προστασία= aegis, patronage, protection, safeguardprostasiaπροστασία του περιβάλλοντος= conservationprostasia tou periballontos

Quick definitions (patronage)

noun: (politics) granting favors or giving contracts or making appointments to office in return for political support

noun: the act of providing approval and support

Can we stop with the single word and look at the bigger picture of the SEE of Peter?

His See is of the whole world.

St John also made notes on the Pope [in place of Peter's position] which i have already given previously.



It is not going to matter since WA has soooo many more "sources" to manipulate and present them as supporting the Petrine man made dogma.... that ALL the EF believed it ... right?

I am still waiting on some answers .... hope you come up with them soon WA....

Philothei
Which ones?

St Ireneaus gave the line of Peter's See..his successors.

We both believe in succession.
The ancient Church believed in succession, i cannot help any more than to give what they said.

I apologise, but i see the writings to be succint.

Clearly had the early Church ever held contention on Peter's role and his successors, an ecf who wasnt excommunicated would not have written such profound letters of hope in his auythority. Nor would it be spoken of in their homilies or adversus heresies. And without one ecf denying in all of the earliest history, the Church is led by the Pope aka successor of Peter....then i cannot see it another way.

It would behoove your pov to submit denial from several ecf's in good standing with the Church.

[WarriorAngel]

Do any of them say the chair of Peter is not in Antioch or Alexandria? Do any of them deny what Pope Gregory the Great said to Bishop Eulogius about the See being in three places?
Ignatius said nothing about Peter in his letter to the Romans though, did he.. He writes what he does because the Church in Rome had proved to be steadfastly orthodox at this time when other Churches has proven less so. Too bad the Church in Rome did not continue in this way.
One would wonder how you imagine this to be a response to my post?
Augustine was preventing the Pope from falling into the very serious error of causing division in the Church. The Pope was in the wrong and willing to go into schism over it.
Of course you will deny this. You are blinded by Papal vision .
Irenaeus states plainly that what he is about to demonstrate with regards to Rome can be demonstrated in Churches throughout the whole world. He does not set Rome apart from the others, for the truth he is about to demonstrate through Rome is true of all of them.
Note that Rome's pre-eminent authority is due to the tradition being preserved by those who exist everywhere, it is not in and of itself.

Irenaeus then goes on to enumerate the succession of bishops in Rome, but just as he stated at the beginning, he could have just as easily used Antioch as an example, or Jerusalem, or Ephesus, or Berea. Any one of them would be proof against the claims of the heretics.

John
St Ireneaus stated that all the Churches could be shown succession, but then he went on to only submit the See of Rome..
Because apparently it held importance to know.

Curiously... are there any ecf writings on the other Churches successors?
I just had that cross my mind and would be interested, because i have been hunting for them.


HERE is what he says regarding the Roman Church...which you pulled out of my quotes.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere

This tells me there was not one dispute about the Church of Rome being pre eminent...and has been preserved continuously by all the Church, the faithful who are everywhere....by this Apostolic Tradition.

[Xpycoctomos]

WA,

Why did Paul seem to matter in the quotes you gave as much as Peter did? Please do not talk to me about Peter's pre-eminence and all of that. I have no quarrel either way with that. My question is that it seems that in the Earliest quotes the See of Rome is seen as central to the Church because of Peter and Paul equally. It is interesting that as time went on, it became simply the See of Peter. What happened to Paul? Nothing in those quotes show him as secondary to Peter in the reason of extolling Rome to a place of Primacy (Primacy: a word in and of itself that could start a whole new TAW/OBOB thread).

What I want are very early quotes (first 2 centuries) referring to Rome as the See of Peter alone and not Paul. Because what the modern RCC claims is that Rome holds the priorities She does because PETER was pre-eminent among the apostles.

However, regardless of Peter's place among the Apostles (remember, I AM NOT arguing that with you at this point. So far, it's non-issue for me, so, for the sake of argument, I will give it to you for now that St Peter was pre-eminent among the Apostles), it seems evident in the quotes you give me that the reason for Rome's honor was due to Peter and Paul's place there and quite equally I might add. But I don't see any reasoning in the first two centuries that "Since Peter was pre-eminent, therefore Rome must be" but rather that "since Peter and Paul were most glorious" Rome deserves distinction among the sees. Yes, they both had different roles in the Church, but this fact doesn't seem to be mentioned in the earliest reasonings for Rome's distinction.

Also, I think it is prudent to point out here that the Apostles instituted Bishops. They weren't bishops... they instituted bishops. St Peter was not the first bishop of anywhere. He have may have founded Sees and Rome may very well be one of them... at the very least he played a powerful role in Rome's extolled position among the other Sees for his and PAUL's martyrdom on Appian Way. But your own quotes do not suggest that St Peter was the first Bishop... anywhere. he was an Apostle. And I don't see anywhere in anything that St peter or St Paul or St Andrew was replaced. They had a distinct calling as Apostles.

Xpy.

[WarriorAngel]

WA,

Why did Paul seem to matter in the quotes you gave as much as Peter did? Please do not talk to me about Peter's pre-eminence and all of that. I have no quarrel either way with that. My question is that it seems that in the Earliest quotes the See of Rome is seen as central to the Church because of Peter and Paul equally. It is interesting that as time went on, it became simply the See of Peter. What happened to Paul? Nothing in those quotes show him as secondary to Peter in the reason of extolling Rome to a place of Primacy (Primacy: a word in and of itself that could start a whole new TAW/OBOB thread).

What I want are very early quotes (first 2 centuries) referring to Rome as the See of Peter alone and not Paul. Because what the modern RCC claims is that Rome holds the priorities She does because PETER was pre-eminent among the apostles.

However, regardless of Peter's place among the Apostles (remember, I AM NOT arguing that with you at this point. So far, it's non-issue for me, so, for the sake of argument, I will give it to you for now that St Peter was pre-eminent among the Apostles), it seems evident in the quotes you give me that the reason for Rome's honor was due to Peter and Paul's place there and quite equally I might add. But I don't see any reasoning in the first two centuries that "Since Peter was pre-eminent, therefore Rome must be" but rather that "since Peter and Paul were most glorious" Rome deserves distinction among the sees. Yes, they both had different roles in the Church, but this fact doesn't seem to be mentioned in the earliest reasonings for Rome's distinction.

Also, I think it is prudent to point out here that the Apostles instituted Bishops. They weren't bishops... they instituted bishops. St Peter was not the first bishop of anywhere. He have may have founded Sees and Rome may very well be one of them... at the very least he played a powerful role in Rome's extolled position among the other Sees for his and PAUL's martyrdom on Appian Way. But your own quotes do not suggest that St Peter was the first Bishop... anywhere. he was an Apostle. And I don't see anywhere in anything that St peter or St Paul or St Andrew was replaced. They had a distinct calling as Apostles.

Xpy.

According to the scholars in recent years who went thru the earliest writers...here is their conclusion.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

I just found it of interest.

As per Paul, i agree, but yet no one mentions a successor to Paul. But i believe St Ireneaus was not only suggesting Rome had pre eminence and authority by Peter, but the Apostle Paul too helped to build the foundation in Rome...both of them dying for the Church there.

I dont think Ireneaus was stating Paul was equal, but because of two main Apostles laying the foundation in Rome, it was to be recognised for its importance in history of the Apostles.



Anyway, here are some discussion on the writings still around.

St. Cyprian


In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) expressly terms the Roman See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm) the Chair of St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm), saying that Cornelius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04375c.htm) has succeeded to "the place of Fabian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05742d.htm) which is the place of Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)" (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14).


Firmilian of Caesarea


Firmilian of Caesarea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06080b.htm) notices that Stephen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288a.htm) claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm) from Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) episcopate of Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) was admitted by those best able to know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) the truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), not merely at Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm)but in the churches (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of Africa (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01191a.htm) and of Asia Minor (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01782a.htm).


Tertullian


In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm) (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03183d.htm) claim that Peter's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) power to forgive (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm)sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm) been merely founded by Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) and not reckoned him as its first bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm), like Firmilian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06080b.htm), had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm), and would have been well aware if the idea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm) of a Roman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) episcopate of Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) according to which Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) were co-founders, and Linus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm) first bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm).


Hippolytus


About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) in the list of Roman bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272a.htm).



"Adversus Marcionem"


We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) is said to have passed on to Linus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm) "the chair (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm) on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077).



St. Irenaeus


These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm), Polycarp (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm), and Clement of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm), all the writers whose works we possess are apologists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm) against either Jews (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm) or pagans (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm). In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)Roman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) episcopate.

Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm), however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv. haer. 1:27:1, and 3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07593a.htm) as ninth Bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm), thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) as first bishop (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm) as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. In 3:4:3, the Latin version, it is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) reads enatos.
Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm) we know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) visited Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm), he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm). The tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm). Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), that it had its origin in the Clementine romance (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04039b.htm), has proved (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm), 3:3:3, implies that Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) enjoyed a divided episcopate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) at Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) -- an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) at any period. He does, it is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm), speak of the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) as together handing on the episcopate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) to Linus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm). But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the Gnostics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm) the validity of the doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) taught in the Roman Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm). Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). Epiphanius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm) ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm); but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

[Philothei]

In the press of the button .... voula....

Roman apologists historically have often resorted to the use of selected statements of major Church fathers, interpreting them as supportive of papal primacy. An example of this type of argumentation can be seen in the following references to the writings of Cyprian, Ambrose and Augustine by a Roman Catholic apologist:
St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258 A.D.) in his letter to Cornelius of Rome (c. 251 A.D.) speaks of the Church of Rome as the ‘chair of Peter (cathedra Petri)’ and ‘the principle Church in which sacerdotal unity has its source’ (Ep. 59, 14). St Ambrose (d. 397 A.D.) states that ‘where Peter is, there is the Church’ (Commen.. on the Psalms 40, 30)...St. Augustine’s recognition of the authority of the Pope is manifested by the famous words with which he welcomes the decision made by the Pope: Roma locuta est; causa finita est—Rome has spoken the case is concluded (Sermon 131, 6:10). Why does Augustine believe the Bishop of Rome has the final word? The answer is because the Pope is the successor of St. Peter—a fact clearly recognized by Augustine in his Letter to Generosus (c. 400 A.D.) in which he names all 34 of the bishops of Rome from Peter to Anastasius (Letter 53, 1,2).
The above arguments are very common. They are precisely the same citations found in The Faith of the Early Fathers by the Roman Catholic patristics scholar William Jurgens as proof for the purported belief in papal primacy in the early Church. And Karl Keating uses the same reference to Augustine in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. But do the statements of these fathers actually support the claims of papal primacy? Is this what they meant by these statements? The facts do not support this contention. These statements are given completely out of context of the rest of the writings of these fathers thereby distorting the true meaning of their words. And in the case of Augustine, as we will see, his words are actually misquoted. All too frequently statements from the fathers are isolated and quoted without any proper interpretation, often giving the impression that a father taught a particular point of view when, in fact, he did not. But for those unfamiliar with the writings of the Church fathers such arguments can seem fairly convincing. An example of this kind of methodology is seen in a recent Roman Catholic work entitled Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This work is being touted by Roman Catholics as providing definitive evidence of the teaching of the Church fathers on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16 and of Peter’s role. But the actual references from the fathers cited in this work are very selective, often omitting important citations of their overall works that demonstrate a view contrary to that which is being proposed. What we will discover, if we give the statements of the fathers in context and in correlation with their overall writings, is that their actual perspective is often the opposite of that claimed by Vatican I and these Roman apologists.

[Philothei]

These quotes also of Cyprian are omitted or not sited..... as he also wrote:


Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133).

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

All of the bishops together constitute the Church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co–equals. If Cyprian meant to say that the Church was built upon Peter and he who resists the bishop of Rome resists the Church (cutting himself off from the Church), then he completely contradicts himself, for, as we will see in Part II, he opposed Stephen, the bishop of Rome in his interpretation of Matthew 16 as well as on theological and jurisdictional issues. His actions prove that his comments about Peter could not coincide with the Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. To do so is a distortion of his true meaning.


(*it is a looong article by Webster as I said before ...and had posted before but it is okay I am patient I can post it again one point at a time....)



Philothei

[Philothei]

Clearly had the early Church ever held contention on Peter's role and his successors, an ecf who wasnt excommunicated would not have written such profound letters of hope in his auythority. Nor would it be spoken of in their homilies or adversus heresies. And without one ecf denying in all of the earliest history, the Church is led by the Pope aka successor of Peter....then i cannot see it another way.


Dear you are making assumptions again... You have not established anything that the
WHOLE church did Rome is one see ....with no exclusive preveleges... rather the only see that went astray.... on its own...

As far as succesion if you are up to talk about it ....all Bishops had it .... no one had more that the next guy... We, at the EO do not see succession as "oppression" rather historically proving we are in "communion" ....
Apostolic succession is not the "magic" that makes someone Christian ....rather ... it ensures "continuity" and we have that too. Claiming tht we are true Apostolic if we do not bow to the "Roman claims" is a cheap trick that unfortunately historically is false.... Because, all sees of the Ecumene had successors and they claim Apostolicity.... that has absolutely nothing to do with primacy...and if you are trying to establish ... a point against the apostolic succesion through this you are driving yourself to a dead end....


Philothei

[Philothei]

Can we stop with the single word and look at the bigger picture of the SEE of Peter?


We have been doing this for you for the last 26 pages with no avail.... so it was time for the words... and you have them wrong too....

Prostasia means protection and it depends how you use it .... and it does not have anything to do with Government you put a different link and you post another interpretation how missleading.... with tricks you cannot win an argument ... You are getting us frustrated but.... we forgive your mistakes ...it is truly hard to pin point something where ther ins't .....it will only get harder if you do not come with something concrete..

Philothei

[Montalban]

Ignatius wrote to each Church..
If you look at them all, you will find only one which is to Rome, as being the Teacher, and envying none.
In other words...the Roman chair of Peter was teacher, and didnt envy anyone else this position.
So what? He also said that the Church of Ephesus was pre-ordained never to fail

Epistle to the Ephesians
Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.


Saying to Rome "You are a teacher" is not the same as sayign "You are the only teacher".

You're very good at taking one piece of praise to the exclusion of all others. You’ve offered up no reason for doing this, other than you just do.

Gregory the Great lived in the East for 4 years, i believe, but returned to Rome and became Pope.

And why would he bother taking a chair that didnt exist, one would wonder.
Who says it didn’t exist, it shows that three different churchs are the chair of Peter. Not one.


:thumbsup:
Why do you support this when it undermines your position on Rome?


What you are ignoring on that very situation is the fact St Augustine HAD to make a defense to the Pope.
Not at all. I cited where he supported the Pope’s position on re-baptism, and believed that had a general council met Cyprian would also support this position, but he noted that none had taken place and as a result Cyprian was within his rights to lead the local church, despite the fact that the Pope had made a ruling.


If the Pope was not important, then why bother defending Cyrpian?
You’re kidding, right? He’s showing clear evidence that the Pope was over-stepping his bounds. He was dressing down the Pope. How does putting one bishop in his place mean that he supports the Papacy?
You magically apply non-evidence as support based on a priori. It’s like if no one, including Ignatius mentions the Pope then he just must be a supporter

Would you seek someone across the world if they had no authority to excommunicate?
In the interest of Christian unity people would seek support throughout Chrisitanity.

[Montalban]

St. Chrysostom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm):

He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)? He was the chosen one of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), the mouth of the disciples (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm), the head of the choir. For this reason Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm) who received the See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm) of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm)?", I should reply that He made Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) the teacher not of that see (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm) but of the whole world.
["Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.", 1. Cf. Origen (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm), "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", 1:95; Leo I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm), "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].


Everyone recognises James stayed put in Jerusalem. Peter moved throughout 'the world' and preached.

How does this mean Peter is Pope, given that he likewise praises Paul or says John had the keys? We've already demonstrated that Peter was not the only head of the choir.

[Montalban]

Ooops, i am sorry, i completely forgot to add in all of St Ignatius' writings. :sorry:

Ignatius of Antioch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm) [SAINT]
- Epistle to the Ephesians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm)
- Epistle to the Magnesians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm)
- Epistle to the Trallians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm)
- Epistle to the Romans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm)
- Epistle to the Philadelphians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm)
- Epistle to the Smyraeans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm)
- Epistle to Polycarp (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm)

(about 107 AD) St. Ignatius of Antioch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm), in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm), refers to its presiding over all other Churches (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) writers, "pre-eminent in works of love (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm)".

No he does not! You simply re-invent his words

He says to the church that is the head of churches in the region of Rome.

Your own site shows this...
"...which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans"

Not "that which is in Rome that is the head of all churches".

That is, to Rome, the head of the local church.

[Montalban]

What is to argue....it is not where Peter founded , [B]but where the Chair resides as was given by the ECF's, and one of them an Eastern Father.

As noted, Peter's chair, according to a Pope is in three Sees, not one.

I quoted this and WarriorAngel's only response was to...

:thumbsup:

Obviously she agrees that three Sees are equally Peter's chair.

[Montalban]

Whether or not [and you know i c&p but] you persist on worrying about one word vs the PART about James being the See of Jerusalem, but Peter being the SEE OF the WHOLE world.

the quote you cited said teacher to the world, not See of the world.

You're reading in way too much to your own quotes ;)

[Philothei]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:CEq_lnlWBbXKPM:http://www.clipartguide.com/_small/0511-0703-1212-5856.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.clipartguide.com/_small/0511-0703-1212-5856.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.clipartguide.com/_pages/0511-0703-1212-5856.html&h=258&w=350&sz=70&hl=en&start=24&tbnid=CEq_lnlWBbXKPM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2Baround%2Bin%2Bcircles%26start%3D21%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)


lol ... that ought describe it....

[Montalban]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:CEq_lnlWBbXKPM:http://www.clipartguide.com/_small/0511-0703-1212-5856.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.clipartguide.com/_small/0511-0703-1212-5856.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.clipartguide.com/_pages/0511-0703-1212-5856.html&h=258&w=350&sz=70&hl=en&start=24&tbnid=CEq_lnlWBbXKPM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2Baround%2Bin%2Bcircles%26start%3D21%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)


lol ... that ought describe it....


Indeed. WarriorAngel is not here to discuss, but to spam the thread with quotes.

For example, John Chrystosomon calling Peter a choirmaster. When I note that this praise was given to others she ploughs on ahead with more quotes, even going so far as to citing a quote-mine, which she's previously cited to Catholics on a Catholic deabte about Orthodoxy

And she keeps on doing so.

Peter is praised; quote it.

Others are praised; ignore it.


Augustine supports Cyprian... well by some weird mangling this means he supports the Pope, because the Pope must be important! Because he is, because he is, because he is.

Her own quote from Romans says to the church that's in charge of the area around Rome she reads as the church that's in Rome that's head everywhere. Remarkable given Thomas was away in India with no knowledge Peter had moved the Papacy to Rome.;)

[WarriorAngel]

Can we stop with the single word and look at the bigger picture of the SEE of Peter?


We have been doing this for you for the last 26 pages with no avail.... so it was time for the words... and you have them wrong too....

Prostasia means protection and it depends how you use it .... and it does not have anything to do with Government you put a different link and you post another interpretation how missleading.... with tricks you cannot win an argument ... You are getting us frustrated but.... we forgive your mistakes ...it is truly hard to pin point something where ther ins't .....it will only get harder if you do not come with something concrete..

Philothei

Look, I am not the one dismissing all the ecf's...
So this is tiring to me, and i am leaving. :)

Jesus in Syria said to Myrna, pray for the East...
And I shall.:crossrc:

Only I dont think i will discuss anything with the East.

Read our own ECF's to see...they are always seeking approval from Rome.
Giving Rome and the Pope honors ABOVE the other Churches.
It is in succint and plain writing.

I get enough of this sort of 'discussion' in GT...i thot perhaps a Traditional Church member would be different.

If you dont see the higher position of the Roman Bishop, then evidently all my 'quotes' which you dislike and call spam, apparently were ignored.
o well.



As noted, Peter's chair, according to a Pope is in three Sees, not one.

I quoted this and WarriorAngel's only response was to...

:thumbsup:

Obviously she agrees that three Sees are equally Peter's chair.
Actually i give thumbsup to there being Sees other than Rome...
I never disagreed with the number of Sees...
St James had one, St Peter had one...
And St Andrew had one.

You miss the point tho...
It is not the number of Sees, nor who founded them...
But it was the general concensus of the early Church, without waver, who all gave highest honor to Rome...where Peter died and laid the foundation of the universal Church.
[So say the ecfs']

You can sit here and nit pick with small things like words, or 'general area' of Romans...
But in truth you simply cannot deny Rome was the Leader.

You're reading in way too much to your own quotes ;)

And you arent reading enough into them.;)

Nevertheless...carry on.

Since i am leaving, it wont do much good to quote me.

God Bless.

[prodromos]

Look, I am not the one dismissing all the ecf's...Unfortunately that is exactly what you are doing. It is plain to everyone here that you dismiss, ignore or 'explain away' any ECF who does not support your views.
So this is tiring to me, and i am leaving. :) Have a nice rest. Come back any time you are actually willing to listen.
Read our own ECF's to see...they are always seeking approval from Rome.
Giving Rome and the Pope honors ABOVE the other Churches.
It is in succint and plain writing.It is in anything but plain writing, the language used is exalted and lofty, and you obviously haven't read much of the ECF's.
I get enough of this sort of 'discussion' in GT...i thot perhaps a Traditional Church member would be different.What? People aren't impressed by context free quote mines in GT either?
If you dont see the higher position of the Roman Bishop, then evidently all my 'quotes' which you dislike and call spam, apparently were ignored.
o well.We recognise the honor given
to the bishop of Rome, but we also recognise that is what it is. It does not make the Pope greater than the other bishops.

Anyway, enjoy your rest.

John

[Montalban]

Look, I am not the one dismissing all the ecf's...
Who's dismissing them? For you to accuse others of doing that you'd be straw-man. No one has done so. We support the ECFs. In their right context. The fact you would do this speaks volumes about the amount of 'proof' you have for your case

So this is tiring to me, and i am leaving.
How can you be tired? Posting quotes out of context and avoiding discussion doesn't take up any energy.

You've avoided now for days any real discussion about the historical facts behind John Chrysostomon's life.

If this is the best 'case' you can present for your church then I for one welcome the fact I can expose it here to the public.
Read our own ECF's to see...they are always seeking approval from Rome.
Now the appeal to go research for you!

Giving Rome and the Pope honors ABOVE the other Churches.
It is in succint and plain writing.
Show how this proves Papal claims to power

I get enough of this sort of 'discussion' in GT...i thot perhaps a Traditional Church member would be different.
Now you're trying another emotive tact

If you dont see the higher position of the Roman Bishop, then evidently all my 'quotes' which you dislike and call spam, apparently were ignored.
o well.
That's more re-working. I've addressed many of your quotes. But when I put them in context, you just offer more quotes. Obviously you call this 'discussion'

Actually i give thumbsup to there being Sees other than Rome...
I never disagreed with the number of Sees...
St James had one, St Peter had one...
And St Andrew had one.
That wasn't the point! But it's consistant with you re-working argument. The point was that three Sees were at once said to be Sees of Peter

You miss the point tho...
It is not the number of Sees, nor who founded them...
But it was the general concensus of the early Church, without waver, who all gave highest honor to Rome...where Peter died and laid the foundation of the universal Church.Which is to simply fall back on you assumption that it is so.
[So say the ecfs'
SO you claim

You can sit here and nit pick with small things like words, or 'general area' of Romans...
I'm sorry that the text doesn't agree with you, and that you call this nit-picking. It's to say that although the text doesn't support you, it just must have meant what you want, based on your assumptions about the Papacy
But in truth you simply cannot deny Rome was the Leader.
There are different levels of leadership.
This is not uncommon.
The Queen is the 'leader' of CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting). She acts as the symbol of unity of the Commonwealth of nations. Yet she has no jurisdictional power over many member states; many are republics.

And you arent reading enough into them.
Guilty as charged
Nevertheless...carry on.
Thank you for your permission.

Since i am leaving, it wont do much good to quote me.


My point is not to convince you, you've demonstrated what lengths you wish to manipulate text. It's to show the others reading this, many who don't even comment that your church has to resort to such quote-mines; torturing the text to make it support what it doesn't say.

:wave:

[Montalban]

Unfortunately that is exactly what you are doing. It is plain to everyone here that you dismiss, ignore or 'explain away' any ECF who does not support your views.

The charge that we're ignoring them is of course false. It's sad that she would fall back on such arguments.

[prodromos]

HERE is what he says regarding the Roman Church...which you pulled out of my quotes.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Here is the proof that you don't actually read what we post.
This is what was in the post which you quoted and claimed the above:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, [b]inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhereGood grief, I even had part of the text bolded and you still didn't see it. Apparently if it isn't full of different colors, hyperlinks, bolding and italics, it isn't the same text to you.

John

[Montalban]

Here is the proof that you don't actually read what we post.
This is what was in the post which you quoted and claimed the above:
Good grief, I even had part of the text bolded and you still didn't see it. Apparently if it isn't full of different colors, hyperlinks, bolding and italics, it isn't the same text to you.

John

She said she was tired. I think it was more from show, than substance

[Philothei]

She said she was tired. I think it was more from show, than substance
Well, whatever that was....and WA ....for what ever it was worth ... I know I learnt a lot... more than what I started with .... and praise the Lord.

I pray that this time will be useful to you and God enlightens your mind and heart into doing His will.

God bless,
Philothei

[Montalban]

Well, whatever that was.... and for what ever it was worth ... I know I learnt a lot... more than what I started with .... and praise the Lord.

I pray that this time will be useful to you and God enlightens your mind and heart into doing His will.

God bless,
Philothei

Indeed, some few extra John Chrysostomon quotes were raised and I got to read them in context.

But unfortunately most of this thread merely confirmed the lack of argument in support of the Pope.

Most of its based on the start-point that their position is true, so naturally enough any praise of Peter seems to confirm that position.

I've been directed to the 'bumblebee' quote mine site so many times by Catholics as if that simply trying to over-whelm me with quotes is enough.

I don't see any evidence of any having actually investigated this for themselves

[Philothei]

Indeed, some few extra John Chrysostomon quotes were raised and I got to read them in context.

But unfortunately most of this thread merely confirmed the lack of argument in support of the Pope.

Most of its based on the start-point that their position is true, so naturally enough any praise of Peter seems to confirm that position.

I've been directed to the 'bumblebee' quote mine site so many times by Catholics as if that simply trying to over-whelm me with quotes is enough.

I don't see any evidence of any having actually investigated this for themselves
actually I misquoted your post Montalban....it was meant for WA.... (*what a goof I am....*)

But agree witht he comments...

Philothei

[Montalban]

actually I misquoted your post Montalban....it was meant for WA.... (*what a goof I am....*)

But agree witht he comments...

Philothei

I'm not fussed. As long as you don't call me Monty

[Montalban]

Here is the proof that you don't actually read what we post.
This is what was in the post which you quoted and claimed the above:
Good grief, I even had part of the text bolded and you still didn't see it. Apparently if it isn't full of different colors, hyperlinks, bolding and italics, it isn't the same text to you.

John

Indeed, the text is in fact saying "I could account for all churches, but I'll use this one by way of example" That is, they're all the same.

[Xpycoctomos]

This thread, even though it didn't always go the way I wanted, was great, I think. I think both sides did a pretty good job. Montalban, I think you had the most well thought out responses on the board (although there were some great posts here and there by others who didn't stick around as much). I learned a lot.

But in the end, to be fair, I think that both sides (namely, TAWers and WA since she was the only OBOBer representing here... which was definitely a handicap for her I think) left here not understanding why the other side couldn't see their point. I think for WA she left thinking just as sincerely as you and I are "Why don't they get it. It's clear as day?" And perhaps thinking "It's a pride thing and they are just trying to proive things with an agenda in mind". And many of us are thinking the same things about her in all sincerity. But I think that WA truly and sincerely sees her position and it makes total sense to her and ours just doesn't hold water for her.

It's a sensitive issue upon which both of our Church's rest. It's about as sensitive as Sola Scriptura is to a protestant. So yes, there may be close-mindedness, but not intentional or conscious. And I think that we perhaps aren't as open-minded as we may think. The only difference I would point out is that many of us are converts and after throwing out Sola Scriptura, anything was kind of game, including the Pope, so I would say that many of us have had an opportunity to honestly visit this issue and consider it. I don't know if WA is a convert or not. If so, then we have to recognize that she was once in our shoes too and, for reasons of her own, chose the path to the Pope.

I guess I am just trying to add perspective. I completely agree with you guys that in the end, the argument for the Pope just doesn't hold enough water.

However, I don't think it is in and of itself an absurd proposition... anymore than saying that the Holy Spirit guides a bunch of fallible people who, without His divine guidance, would jsut be a bunch of fools in the dust. The Catholics would say the same about the Pope.

For me, it's purely a historical question, not one of seeing which is more democratic or if I prefer the one fallible man being lead infallibly by the Holy SPirit or a bunch of fallible men being lead by the Holy Spirit. Both are, from human logic, absurd propositions that will, in the long run, lead to corruption and lies, but by the grace of God, this is not so. By the grace of God.

So, for me it isn't about human logic... it's just 1) was this how the hisotirc Church viewed it and 2) is there anything to tell us that this was to remain as such for all time no matter what.

To 1) I say probably in certain areas although I do not see this universally in the very early Church and to 2) certainly not.

Xpy

[Philothei]

I'll use this one by way of example" ....


That's it... so many heresies started because of one letter was altered....(homousios, vs. homeousios -Arius contra) ....in this case it was ....a sentence..

[Montalban]

Are there any other Catholics wishing to present any evidence?

[prodromos]

Are there any other Catholics wishing to present any evidence?[Montalban gets crushed under an avalanche of quote mines] ;)

[Montalban]

[Montalban gets crushed under an avalanche of quote mines] ;)

So far, not.

Though I've seen pretty much the same lists over and over again, since 2002/2003.

But I do hope that some Catholic might pick up the gauntlet.

I'm still waiting for a Church Father's commentary linking the single key of the OT to the keys of the NT.

I've yet to see this. But Catholics like this too; ironic given it was a Protestant who came up with it.

[Montalban]

I've invited Catholics such as terryobrien80 from this thread (http://christianforums.com/t6814752-martin-luther-identifies-the-antichrist-over-500-years-ago.html&page=17) to come here to discuss this, but am still waiting for them to do so.

[Philothei]

bump....

[Xpycoctomos]

What's the point? We're not going to agree with them and they aren't going to agree with us. I think this might just become a debate for debate's sake if we aren't careful.

[Montalban]

bump....

Oh... well...:sigh: