• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Papal Claims

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
This thread is a rebuttal to the Catholic teaching on Papal Supremacy. It is hoped to show that several claims made by the Catholic Church are erroneous on this matter. Their claim rests on a belief that St. Peter, of all the Apostles received a special commission from Jesus; and that following this assumption, all those who are descendant from him, in power; the Bishops of Rome, are eligible to the same status and power. This is opposed by the Orthodox position which states that all the Apostles received the fullness of Jesus’ teachings and commission. In this I deal first briefly with a general case in dispute of Papal power, and then address some specific claims currently circulating the internet.

On this Rock

St. Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
The Catholic Church maintains a belief that of all the Apostles of Jesus, Peter was the leader. That, because he was in this unique position, the office of Papacy is also the leader of all the churches.

This claim stems in part from Jesus saying “On this rock, I will build my Church”; Catholics assuming that ‘rock’ here refers to the Apostle Peter himself. And as a result of this, Peter’s successors are to inherit some special power over the whole church. But what in fact did the early church make of this statement?

A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

One Father, Augustine of Hippo wrote “See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church. What meaneth, ’Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build My Church” (Homily X on John V. 1-3).[2]

St. Cyprian stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5).[3]

Turning again to Augustine: “Therefore Peter is so called from the
rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the
Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art
Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which
thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living
God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself
upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and
I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the
Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.

“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that
Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
(Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25).[4]

Thus, St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held
primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
(Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics). [5]

Another claim deals with the belief that the power of loosing and binding was given to Peter alone. However Matthew 18:18 shows that all the Apostles received the same powers. Thus to turn to St. Augustine once more.

“He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen
among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul).[6]

Footnotes...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998 ), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27. On the issue of ‘the Rock’ and ‘the Keys’ we can look to other great thinkers… to determine how they interpreted these words. Also

http://www.tecmalta.org/tft305.htm

[2] Ibid, pp27-8. also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-141.htm#P4618_2490251

[3] Ibid, p28. Note that St. Cyprian re-occurs a number of times as one of the so-called ‘champions’ of Papal Primacy – we shall visit him again as well.

And at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664

[4] Ibid, pp31-32 quoted also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-43.htm#P4186_1789723

[5] Whelton, p34.

[6] Ibid, p-33.
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

In the foregoing passages:

1. Christ established His Church.
2. Christ said His Church would last for all time.
3. Christ appointed Peter as his Vicar on earth.
4. Christ invested Peter with the enumerated authority, which is infallibility in matters of faith or morals.
5. Christ knew that Peter would have to have a line of successors for all time.
6. Christ intended that successors to Peter would similarly be His Vicar on earth, similarly invested with the powers invested in Peter.

Benedict XVI is the two hundred sixty-fourth successor to Peter and is infallible when he teaches a matter of faith or morals.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
The false Catholic claim is worth repeating…

Fantasea, you are not the only one to ignore scripture that is 'inconvenient' Thus you ignore the fact that Jesus gave ALL THE APOSTLES the same authority. Matthew 18:18
The false Catholic claim is worth repeating…

“In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18 ), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).”[1]

This is just simply not true. Looking at the verses just preceding it,
Luke 22
24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest.
25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.
26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.
27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
28You are those who have stood by me in my trials.
29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[2]

We can see that Jesus had an opportunity to name Peter as the leader, and he does the very opposite. He says that they all should be equal. He speaks to them all when he says that they are to be appointed to the Kingdom. THEN he turns to speak to Simon Peter to tell him that he will betray Him.
St. Jerome
What did other people understand the ‘rock’ to mean? “Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named. (6th Book on Matthew)[3]

Origen
11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall
prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," hold
in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Are the keys of the kingdom of
heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven," be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking
away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" they may
speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,78 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "Thou art Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it." But what is the "it"? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs, cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.”[4]


Footnotes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=luke+22&version=NIV
[3] Whelton, p32.
[4] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Evidence from the First Church Council

We can see how the Apostles viewed each other in the book of Acts.
“This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2).
That a) they were in dispute, and b) they sought the elders, not Peter alone.

When we look at the first council, that of Jerusalem (in Acts 15) it was
presided over by James, who also rendered the final judgment, even as
Peter was present.

”When they finished, St. James spoke up: ”It is my judgment, therefore, that we
should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”
Eusebius wrote of this in his church history (note he also quotes Clement – a supposed Papal prince). “This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: “Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.”[1]

Looking at Acts 15:22 we see “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers” That is, the council in session decided, not a pontiff, Peter.

There are a few important things to note about this council. St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem, therefore the meeting was held in his See, and thus he presided, not Peter, because Jerusalem was then the most important Christian centre.

Some Roman Catholics claim that when St. Peter spoke, all were silent. When someone spoke, whomever it was, no one else spoke over them. That's called politeness
Thus...
"When they finished, St. James spoke up:..."
That is, St. James waited his turn.
Earlier...
Acts 15:12
"The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and St. Paul
telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the
Gentiles through them. "
They too had the floor, and everyone was silent.
c) MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL James clearly made the decision
Acts 15:19
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for
the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Note also...
Acts 15:23
"With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your
brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and
disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
25
So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear
friends Barnabas and Paul-- 26 men who have risked their lives for the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ
That is, 'we' decided this, 'we' voted on this. Not "Peter" decided this.
Thus
"But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing
imperiously."
St. John Chrysotomon, Homily III on Acts 1:12[2]

Conclusion. The Apostels did not view Peter as the supreme head of the church



Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] “The History of the Church” – II.I quoted in Ibid, pp38-9.

[2] Whelton, p33 and at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-10.htm#P272_117779
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Peter in the New Testament

Peter in the New Testament
What of 'the Rock'


St. Jerome in his 6th Book of Matthew said..."
What did other people understand the ‘rock’ to mean? “Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named."

Augustine of Hippo wrote “See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church. What meaneth, ’Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build My Church” (Homily X on John V. 1-3)

St. Cyprian stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5)

Again, Augustine states “Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.
“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.” (Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25)
and recall, that the power of binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles (Mat 18:18).

All up, a Catholic Jean de Launoy did a survey of what the great fathers thought of this passage. His survey shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. We have about 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognise ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone.

And Acts
Acts 15 has an account of a meeting of the Apostles. Some sites seem to take it as significant that 'all were silent when Peter spoke'. However all were silent when James spoke too! That's called being polite.
Acts 15:12 "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and St. Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. "
James as bishop presided, not Peter. James made the final declaration.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

Thus to turn to Augustine once more “He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul)

Eusebius wrote of this in his church history (note he also quotes Clement – a supposed Papal prince). “This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: “Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.” (“The History of the Church” – II.I)

St. Cyprian states ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.” (Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics)

St. John Chrysotomon: "But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously." (Homily III on Acts 1:12)
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Just another person successfully blinded to the true faith and church established by the Holy Spirit by the snake oil Protestants. Interesting that you quote scripture that was preserved by the CATHOLICS for nearly two thousand years, scriptures that were altered by Protestants four hundred years ago.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Ten persons reading any chapter of the scriptures will arrive at ten different understandings. Ten more will do the same, and so on. It is for this reason that with every passing day, new religions with the word Christian in their names are being organized.

I claim no special understanding of theology and therefore hitch my wagon, as it were, to the teachings of the Vatican, which is able to trace a direct line to Christ.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Good try Montalban, but cult members prefer rhetoric over reason. No offense intended to any Catholics who can actually explain their position with something more than calling the opposition "blind."

"I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Binary_Digit said:
"I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
The problem faced by those tho refer to themselves as Christians is akin to the problem faced by used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians, and the like. The phoneys, crooks, con artists, hypocrites, and charletans among them get all the press and notariety.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
ludahai said:
Just another person successfully blinded to the true faith and church established by the Holy Spirit by the snake oil Protestants. Interesting that you quote scripture that was preserved by the CATHOLICS for nearly two thousand years, scriptures that were altered by Protestants four hundred years ago.
That's a statement of gross ignorance, because I am not Protestant. I am Orthodox. The Orthodox church has just as valid a claim to tradition (I believe a greater claim). (The previous Pope suggested that we two faiths were akin to two lungs; an analogy to this link to tradition).

You simply ignore this historical fact, make assumptions about my own faith, and attempt to go on from there.

Well done.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Fantasea said:
Ten persons reading any chapter of the scriptures will arrive at ten different understandings. Ten more will do the same, and so on. It is for this reason that with every passing day, new religions with the word Christian in their names are being organized.

I claim no special understanding of theology and therefore hitch my wagon, as it were, to the teachings of the Vatican, which is able to trace a direct line to Christ.
This first part is true. It makes a mockery of the Catholic claim that Scripture 'x' proves 'y'; because the very scriptures it claims support Petrine supremecy aren't interpreted by many; most Church Fathers did not think that 'the rock' referred to Peter (alone).

My church also, justifiably claims direct succession back to St. Peter. The church of Antioch was founded by him BEFORE he founded the church in Rome.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Another Catholic claim centres around the Council of Chalcedon

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]). [1]



How is this possible? Canon XXVIII shows up claims for papal power…



“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (<greek>isa</greek> <greek>presbeia</greek>) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.” [2]



That is, a council decided what honours should be attained by a particular bishopric, and they decided Constantinople, which was then as important a city as Rome, should receive THE SAME HONOURS as Rome.



The Catholic claim continues…

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’"[3]



This same Leo, it must be remembered, begged the Emperor to have the council meet in Italy, but the Emperor ignored him…

“And because this mystery is now being impiously opposed by a few ignorant persons, all the churches of our parts, and all the priests entreat your clemency, with groans and tears seeing that our delegates faithfully protested, and bishop Flavian gave them an appeal in writing, to order a general synod to be held in Italy, which shall either dismiss or appease all disputes in such a way that there be nothing any longer either doubtful in the Faith or divided in love, and to it, of course, the bishops of the Eastern provinces must come, and if any of them were overcome by threats and injury, and deviated from the path of truth, they may be fully restored by health-giving measures, and they themselves, whose case is harder, if they acquiesce in wiser counsels, may not fall from the unity of the Church.[4]



But what about the actual text as put forward by the Catholics? Well let’s look at the text and how it reads in context “After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo’s), the most reverend bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”[5]

That is, they welcome the teachings of Leo, because they are the truth, as are the teachings of Cyril. They are not saying ‘these are the teachings of our leader’, otherwise they wouldn’t have put Cyril on the same footing as Leo.



Ironically, in light of the history of Papal parsimony, canon II states… “IF any Bishop should ordain for money, and put to sale a grace which cannot be sold, and for money ordain a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyters, or deacons, or any other of those who are counted among the clergy; or if through lust of gain he should nominate for money a steward, or advocate, or prosmonarius, or any one whatever who is on the roll of the Church, let him who is convicted of this forfeit his own rank; and let him who is ordained be nothing profited by the purchased ordination or promotion; but let him be removed from the dignity or charge he has obtained for money. And if any one should be found negotiating such shameful and unlawful transactions, let him also, if he is a clergyman, be deposed from his rank, and if he is a layman or monk, let him be anathematized.”[6]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

[2] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4chalcedon/canons.htm

[3] Ibid., session 2 http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

[4] Letter XLIV. To Theodosius Augustus. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-49.htm#P1334_326773)

[5] quoted in Whelton, p64 and at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-95.htm#P4844_991182

[6] http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4chalcedon/canons.htm
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Pope John Paul II did emphatically state during his papal reign that both the Western Church and the Eastern Orthodoxy are the two lungs of our Christian faith and origins. For if one collapses, the other cannot provide full measure; therefore, the body will decay and ultimately die.

JPII has stated that the faithful are an equal to him, for as long as their faith is as strong; and that he is an equal to the faithful, for as long as his faith remains true as well. Second Vatican Council has certainly moderated some of the Church's teachings, and there will always be debate even within the Catholic faith, about certain teachings of Christ. But I believe the late Pope, in his way, has made a judgement that implies The Rock is the Church, the people, the faithful, to which St. Peter was the first Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

Not all Catholics think alike. Nor do Popes, as history indicates. Ultimately, it is the reigning Pope who dictates and preserves, in his judgement, the teachings of Jesus Christ.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
flip2 said:
Pope John Paul II did emphatically state during his papal reign that both the Western Church and the Eastern Orthodoxy are the two lungs of our Christian faith and origins. For if one collapses, the other cannot provide full measure; therefore, the body will decay and ultimately die.
Unfortunately, at the same time he said this he believed that the Catholic Church needs to mission to the Orthodox nations.

flip2 said:
JPII has stated that the faithful are an equal to him, for as long as their faith is as strong; and that he is an equal to the faithful, for as long as his faith remains true as well. Second Vatican Council has certainly moderated some of the Church's teachings, and there will always be debate even within the Catholic faith, about certain teachings of Christ. But I believe the late Pope, in his way, has made a judgement that implies The Rock is the Church, the people, the faithful, to which St. Peter was the first Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.
St. Peter was NEVER supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church. Some early writers didn't count him as bishop - because the Apostles tended to have a different function - as travelling ministers, helping establish churches. Rome's church was founded by Peter & Paul. Peter established my church earlier (in Antioch)
I stated this earlier...
The claim too of Peter’s succession falls down in light of the fact that
he founded many churches, not just Rome. My own church is Antiochian, a
See established by Peter before he went to Rome. Yet this church was lower in honour than Alexandria founded by St. Mark. Why is it that a church founded by the ‘primary Apostle’ be accorded lower honour than that of St. Mark?
Rome became first in honour because it was the political centre of the
Roman world. Thus it was because of politics, not spirituality that saw
Rome’s place established.



In fact, St. Peter is not seen as the sole founder of Rome’s Christian church, nor is he seen as its first bishop! Irenaeus wrote that Peter was not alone… "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."[1]



In a much larger exerpt … "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 [by pointing out] 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, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."[2] That is, Linus is the first Bishop, NOT St. Peter If you read on, he counts St. Clement as third from Linus (not St. Peter)... "Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric."[3]



That St. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome is because his role was that of an Apostle – that is, to travel about establishing Christian communities. St. James was not an Apostle, seemingly having resigned from that when he became bishop of Jerusalem (see Appendix B regarding his role in the church council there). However Rome has a special position in honour because it was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul, and it was the most important city in the Empire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1 (quoted at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859)
[2] Ibid. Book III.3.2-3
[3] Ibid. Book III.3.3


(Catholic, by the way used to mean 'complete' - each church of the faithful headed by a Bishop is 'complete' and 'catholic')
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Montalban said:
(Catholic, by the way used to mean 'complete' - each church of the faithful headed by a Bishop is 'complete' and 'catholic')
Catholic means "universal", NOT complete and refers to the universality of the Catholic faith. If you can't get such a basic fact right, how can anyone take seriously the rest of the garbage you are spewing out?
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
I respect Montalban's views and in awe with the extensive research he has done.

All religions and sects within each religion all claim some sort of "firsts" and dominance over all religions, especially the Christian faiths. For example, the Mormons believe redemption is with the Church of Latter Day Saints; otherwise, damnation is upon those who are of other Christian faiths. I'm afraid we're starting to get tangled into that debate over which religion is dominant and right and true.

But I am encouraged by the inter-faiths dialogue began by John Paul II, being continued by Benedict XVI, and on this thread.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
ludahai said:
Catholic means "universal", NOT complete and refers to the universality of the Catholic faith. If you can't get such a basic fact right, how can anyone take seriously the rest of the garbage you are spewing out?
Please read before ranting. I stated that Catholic used to mean 'complete'. It wasn't until the time of Augustine that it took on the meaning of 'universal'.

[Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou(from neuter genitive of holos, whole. See sol- in Indo-European Roots).]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=catholic
It thus means 'from the whole' or 'complete'. This is more easily recognised when we look to see where the term was first used...It first appears in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
"Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

Thus the bishop is seen as making the church 'catholic'. Note it doesn't specify A PARTICULAR BISHOP (such as that in Rome). We each are 'catholic'. Each church headed by a bishop is catholic, and all the churches in communion are catholic. This diversity within unity is a reflection of that of the Holy Trinity. It is why the Orthodox church has never changed the structure of the church to recognise one bishop over all others; because it would tantamount to changing our idea on the Trinity (which is in fact what the Roman church has done (see the Filioque controversy)).

So, thanks for both not reading it, and also for that amazing retort to my researched posts... that you so devastatingly refute with ?

If you have actually any particular points you wish to discuss, bring them on
:2wave:


I wrote this on another forum, and it covers this topic...

The Catholic Church.



What does it mean, by the term ‘catholic’? Prior to Augustine, it used to mean ‘complete’ or ‘whole’. Each person is completely ‘catholic’. Each church, headed by a bishop is completely ‘catholic’ and the whole church is ‘catholic’. This unity in diversity reflects the triune nature of God. St. Cyprian wrote on this, but is oft misused.



In his work on the unity of the Catholic Church, St. Cyprian wrote…

“And although Her assigns a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church’s] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one cflock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”[1] This text is much quoted by Romans as proof of Petrine supremecy.



However the Jesuit scholar Bévnot says…

“The whole context is against restricting the meaning to ‘the see of Rome.’ Cyrprian’s argument is based on the unicity of the origin (in Peter) of Church and authority alike. The one authority was perpetuated in the legitimate successions of the bishops, and to break with one’s bishop was to break with the one, Christ-established, authority, that is, the ‘Chair of Peter.’ Thus his argument was pertinent not only for Rome, where Novatian had broken with Cornelius (who’s ‘chair’ was Peter’s in a double sense), but also nearer home, where Feliccissimus and his faction were in revolt against himself.

However, for those who recognised the true primacy of the see of Rome, Cyrpian’s words (taken out of their context) would naturally express the necessity of communion with Rome. It is not unreasonable to suppose (until proof of the contrary is forthcoming) that such an interpretation, put upon his words at the time of the baptismal controversy, led Cyprian to revise this chapter of its final addition.”[2] (see Addendum to see St. Cyprian’s revised text)



This is reflected in Tertullian’s work…

Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile![3]

That is to say, for Rome, the very authority of ALL the apostles is held. Each church with is bishop holds the full teachings of Jesus Christ; there is a complete Catholic church.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] St. Cyprian “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”, 4, quoted in Carlton, C., (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press), pp123-4.

[2] De Unitate 4, Bevenot, quoted in Cartlton, pp124-5.

[3] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics - Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith quoted at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3125_1133921



ADDENDUM – The Revised text of St. Cyprian

“It is on one man that He builds the Church, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, saying: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you ....Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man's, they shall be retained," yet in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the Church is figured in the Canticle of Canticles when the Holy Spirit, speaking in Our Lord's name, says: "One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darling of her womb." If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the Church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, has he still confidence that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of Oneness saying: "One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God"?[1]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] English text taken from St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, tr. M. Bévenot, Ancient Christian Writers, v. 25 (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1957), pp. 46-47. (Hereinafter referred to as Unity.) For the Latin text, see Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera: De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, ed. M. Bévenot, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, v. 3 (Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Ponificii, 1972), pp. 251-52. (Hereinafter referred to as De Unitate.) Bévenot seems to have a corner on Cyprian interpretation. Besides the English and Latin editions cited above, he has done the definitive work on the manuscripts: M. Bévenot, The Tradition of Manuscripts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) and the article for the New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Cyprian, St.," 4:564-66. The last person who challenged his judgment, apparently, was J. Le Moyne in "Saint Cyprien est-il bien l'auteur de la re'daction breve du 'De Unitate' chapitre 4?", Revue Benedictine 63:70-115 (1953). This is effectively answered in M. Bévenot, " 'Primatus Petro Datur': St. Cyprian on the Papacy," Journal of Theological Studies 5:19-35 (1954). (Hereinafter referred to as "Primatus Petro Datur.") For bibliography on Cyprian n general, see M. Bévenot, De Unitate, pp. xii-xiv; on the work De Unitate in particular, pp. xvii-xxi. Quoted at http://www.nds.edu/lonergan/papal.htm
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
ludahai said:
Catholic means "universal", NOT complete and refers to the universality of the Catholic faith. If you can't get such a basic fact right, how can anyone take seriously the rest of the garbage you are spewing out?
Please read before ranting. I stated that Catholic used to mean 'complete'. It wasn't until the time of Augustine that it took on the meaning of 'universal'.

[Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou(from neuter genitive of holos, whole. See sol- in Indo-European Roots).]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=catholic
It thus means 'from the whole' or 'complete'. This is more easily recognised when we look to see where the term was first used...It first appears in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
"Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

Thus the bishop is seen as making the church 'catholic'. Note it doesn't specify A PARTICULAR BISHOP (such as that in Rome). We each are 'catholic'. Each church headed by a bishop is catholic, and all the churches in communion are catholic. This diversity within unity is a reflection of that of the Holy Trinity. It is why the Orthodox church has never changed the structure of the church to recognise one bishop over all others; because it would tantamount to changing our idea on the Trinity (which is in fact what the Roman church has done (see the Filioque controversy)).

So, thanks for both not reading it, and also for that amazing retort to my researched posts... that you so devastatingly refute with ?

If you have actually any particular points you wish to discuss, bring them on
:2wave:


I wrote this on another forum, and it covers this topic...

The Catholic Church.
What does it mean, by the term ‘catholic’? Prior to Augustine, it used to mean ‘complete’ or ‘whole’. Each person is completely ‘catholic’. Each church, headed by a bishop is completely ‘catholic’ and the whole church is ‘catholic’. This unity in diversity reflects the triune nature of God. St. Cyprian wrote on this, but is oft misused.

In his work on the unity of the Catholic Church, St. Cyprian wrote…

“And although Her assigns a like power to all the Apostles yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the [Church’s] oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is [thus] made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one cflock which is to be fed by all the Apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”[1] This text is much quoted by Romans as proof of Petrine supremecy.

However the Jesuit scholar Bévnot says…
“The whole context is against restricting the meaning to ‘the see of Rome.’ Cyrprian’s argument is based on the unicity of the origin (in Peter) of Church and authority alike. The one authority was perpetuated in the legitimate successions of the bishops, and to break with one’s bishop was to break with the one, Christ-established, authority, that is, the ‘Chair of Peter.’ Thus his argument was pertinent not only for Rome, where Novatian had broken with Cornelius (who’s ‘chair’ was Peter’s in a double sense), but also nearer home, where Feliccissimus and his faction were in revolt against himself.

However, for those who recognised the true primacy of the see of Rome, Cyrpian’s words (taken out of their context) would naturally express the necessity of communion with Rome. It is not unreasonable to suppose (until proof of the contrary is forthcoming) that such an interpretation, put upon his words at the time of the baptismal controversy, led Cyprian to revise this chapter of its final addition.”[2] (see Addendum to see St. Cyprian’s revised text)

This is reflected in Tertullian’s work…

Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile![3]

That is to say, for Rome, the very authority of ALL the apostles is held. Each church with is bishop holds the full teachings of Jesus Christ; there is a complete Catholic church.
NOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] St. Cyprian “On the Unity of the Catholic Church”, 4, quoted in Carlton, C., (1999) “The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know about the Orthodox Church”, (Regina Orthodox Press), pp123-4.

[2] De Unitate 4, Bevenot, quoted in Cartlton, pp124-5.

[3] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics - Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith quoted at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3125_1133921

ADDENDUM – The Revised text of St. Cyprian
“It is on one man that He builds the Church, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, saying: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you ....Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; if you retain any man's, they shall be retained," yet in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the Church is figured in the Canticle of Canticles when the Holy Spirit, speaking in Our Lord's name, says: "One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darling of her womb." If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the Church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, has he still confidence that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of Oneness saying: "One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God"?[1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] English text taken from St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, tr. M. Bévenot, Ancient Christian Writers, v. 25 (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1957), pp. 46-47. (Hereinafter referred to as Unity.) For the Latin text, see Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera: De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, ed. M. Bévenot, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, v. 3 (Turnholti: Typographi Brepols Editores Ponificii, 1972), pp. 251-52. (Hereinafter referred to as De Unitate.) Bévenot seems to have a corner on Cyprian interpretation. Besides the English and Latin editions cited above, he has done the definitive work on the manuscripts: M. Bévenot, The Tradition of Manuscripts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) and the article for the New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Cyprian, St.," 4:564-66. The last person who challenged his judgment, apparently, was J. Le Moyne in "Saint Cyprien est-il bien l'auteur de la re'daction breve du 'De Unitate' chapitre 4?", Revue Benedictine 63:70-115 (1953). This is effectively answered in M. Bévenot, " 'Primatus Petro Datur': St. Cyprian on the Papacy," Journal of Theological Studies 5:19-35 (1954). (Hereinafter referred to as "Primatus Petro Datur.") For bibliography on Cyprian n general, see M. Bévenot, De Unitate, pp. xii-xiv; on the work De Unitate in particular, pp. xvii-xxi. Quoted at http://www.nds.edu/lonergan/papal.htm
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
flip2 said:
I respect Montalban's views and in awe with the extensive research he has done.
I was actually forced to research, by Catholics who foistered quote mines on me alleging support for the Pontiff from the Earch church fathers. When I researched these quotes I found several things.
i) I couldn't find a verifiable source to check some, so I ignored these
ii) the ones I could check were either massively misquoted, or simply didn't mean what the Catholic site supposed.
One of the most blatantly dodgy editing of a quote is this one, given to me by many Catholics...

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’"[1]

Let’s look at the text and how it reads in context “After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo’s), the most reverend bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”[2]

That is, they welcome the teachings of Leo, because they are the truth, as are the teachings of Cyril. They are not saying ‘these are the teachings of our leader’, otherwise they wouldn’t have put Cyril on the same footing as Leo. They are saying each of these bishops speaks with the faith of the Fathers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Ibid., session 2 http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
[2] quoted in Whelton, p64 and at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-95.htm#P4844_991182

flip2 said:
All religions and sects within each religion all claim some sort of "firsts" and dominance over all religions, especially the Christian faiths. For example, the Mormons believe redemption is with the Church of Latter Day Saints; otherwise, damnation is upon those who are of other Christian faiths. I'm afraid we're starting to get tangled into that debate over which religion is dominant and right and true.

But I am encouraged by the inter-faiths dialogue began by John Paul II, being continued by Benedict XVI, and on this thread.
As already stated, whilst the Pope (previous) held out an olive-branch with one hand he held a fist with the other; because he believed that Mary had (at Fatima) given the church a commission to minister to Russia AND even after the fall of communism, that mission is still valid. Thus the Roman church seeks to minister to Orthodox lands.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Addendum

ludahai said:
Catholic means "universal", NOT complete and refers to the universality of the Catholic faith. If you can't get such a basic fact right, how can anyone take seriously the rest of the garbage you are spewing out?
Another bit of evidence about the original meaning of the term "Catholic" can be found at
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/soborny.aspx
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
The Acacian Schism

The Acacian Schism is another thing plucked out of the context of history and given as proof of papal power.

The Emperor imposed upon the eastern churches an oath at behest of the Pope. He was playing politics. He was doing this at a time he needed help. Fifteen years earlier, he had been in a different position, and had ordered Pope Vigilius to Constantinople, and placed him under arrest for 10 years. This incident is however not noted by Catholics for it shows not the supremacy of the Pope, but the supremacy of the Emperor, who forced his will on the eastern church when he needed to, and on the western church likewise. The Emperor already had control over the east at the time of the ‘Acacian Schism’, and could more easily control affairs there.

Thus...

"The Emperors considered the Pope to be their subject as well as the Patriarch; and the Pope was more important because he was physically less easy to control and politically more useful owing to the influence he commanded in Italy (which Justinian was trying to regain). Thus if the Pope could only be placated by humiliating the Patriarch, the Emperor was usually prepared to order the patriarch to recognise papal superiority..." [1]

Likewise... "But the fear of compromising the autonomy of their churches prevented the Orientals from accepting the claims that were made by certain Popes, especially Gelasius, Symmacus and Nicholas I, the claim to direct and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church, including the east."[2]

The oath was "In following all these things the apostolic see and in professing all its constitutions, I hope that I will deserve to remain in the same communion with you which is professed by the apostolic see, in which persists the total and true strength of the Christian religion. Promising also not to recite in the liturgy the names of men who have been separated from communion with the Catholic Church which means, who do not agree with the apostolic see...."[3]

HOWEVER

"Before signing the document, John, Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: "I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of the Apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be the one see." In doing this, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Constantinople declared that the Sees of Roman and Constantinople were equal."[4]

Notes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Sir Steven Runciman, "The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XII Centuries," pp17-18, quoted in Whelton, p82.
[2] Francis Dvornik, “Byzantium and the Roman Primacy” (Roman Catholic scholar at Harvard University) , p165 quoted in Whelton, M., p83.
[3] Cambridge Medieval History - vol 2, pp246-247, quoted in Whelton, M., p81.
[4] Whelton, pp81-82.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
flip2 said:
But I am encouraged by the inter-faiths dialogue began by John Paul II, being continued by Benedict XVI, and on this thread.
Flip2 thanks for your words of peace however I'd like to raise another example similar to that in post#18 Where-by the Catholic church spreads false quotes concerning Orthodox fathers.. Eight different ones lead to claims that Orthodox Fathers supported the Papacy.

For instance this site[1] states that

""Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).



"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2)."



This would seem prima facie quite convincing. However they also left out a bit :)

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”[2]



Once again the case for papal supremecy is faulty, because they are not (when we read more of the text) claiming to follow the Bishop of Rome ALONE, but that as taught by all the Apostles through all the bishops... this is because each church, headed by a bishop, contains the fullness of the church, and is thus 'catholic'.

There can be little genuine progress when many Catholic sites continually (liberally) edit quotes.

Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
[2] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-95.htm#P4844_991182
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
More misrepresentation can be found at one site [1] which claims to give a list of New Testament quotes supporting Petrine supremacy.
Just a sample

Website: 1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
The Bible says...
1 Cor. 9:3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

I would think that two people are singled out here, James, and Peter.

Website: Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

And when Paul and Barnbas speak, everyone else is silent. This is called 'being polite'. It is James who sits in judgment, and he's the one who makes the ruling; because he is bishop of Jerusalem.

Website: Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

Bible: Romans 15: 19 by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.

This means Paul's been preaching in places where the church is already etablished; such as in Jerusalem. But he intends to go where it has not been established; his ambition - to go to Rome where he co-founded a church there; with Peter.

Notes
[1] http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
 

Nathan44

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church
a better translation would be

"And I tell you that you are Rock , and on this rock I will build my church "

Peter is derived from the greek "Petros" which is greek for rock. From the same word from which we get "Petrified", etc.

oh and don't forget:

"You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas"

John 1:42

Cephas is Aramaic for rock.

...

This is not to say i'm a fan of papal supremacy.

IMO, you guys are really looking way too much into this in terms of metaphors. Jesus never said anything specifically about papal supremacy so now everyone tries to twist his words to say that he did. That is not the way to find answers, this is the way to find answers:

"According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- the work of each builder will become visable, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire. "

The first letter of paul to the corinthians, 3:10-15.

The way i interpret this is nothing can be known about papal supremacy until the "Day discloses it" which depending on your interpretation can either happen at any time or is specifically refering to the end times.

I might mention that this is in the context of paul attempting to repair a break in an early division of the church. They are free to disagree, but regardless, the only church at fault in this is one that doesn't recognize the christianity of the other.

"And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not merely human? "

"What then is Appolos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, and the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. For we are God's servants, working together; you are God's field, God's building."

the previous passages, 3:1-9
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Not so clear-cut

Nathan44 said:
a better translation would be

"And I tell you that you are Rock , and on this rock I will build my church "

Peter is derived from the greek "Petros" which is greek for rock. From the same word from which we get "Petrified", etc.
The problem with the Catholic claim is that they assert that 'rock' must equal something in particular, when in fact the church fathers were not in agreement with what it meant.

I stated this in a previous post...

But what in fact did the early church make of this statement?

A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27. On the issue of ‘the Rock’ and ‘the Keys’ we can look to other great thinkers… (see also Appendix A) to determine how they interpreted these words. Also
http://www.tecmalta.org/tft305.htm


So one of their 'clear-cut' evidences is simply a matter that has been actually interpreted very differently. Also harking back to an earlier statement...
One Father, Augustine of Hippo wrote “See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church. What meaneth, ’Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build My Church” (Homily X on John V. 1-3).[1]

St. Cyprian stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5).[2]

Turning again to Augustine: “Therefore Peter is so called from the
rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the
Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art
Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which
thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living
God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself
upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and
I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the
Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.

“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that
Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
(Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25).[3]

Thus, St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held
primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
(Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics). [4]


Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ibid, pp27-8. also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-141.htm#P4618_2490251

[2] Ibid, p28. Note that St. Cyprian re-occurs a number of times as one of the so-called ‘champions’ of Papal Primacy – we shall visit him again as well.

And at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664

[3] Ibid, pp31-32 quoted also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-43.htm#P4186_1789723

[4] Whelton, p34.
 
Top Bottom