Author Topic: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.  (Read 1559 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,275
  • Faith: Christian.
The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« on: July 31, 2014, 09:43:09 PM »
Hi.

There are early Fathers writings, some say that the Church is build upon Peter himself and that he is the rock. Other writings say that the Church build upon Peter's faith confession.

From an Orthodox and from a Catholic perspective, Which one is true and how do we know so ?


Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Radical Revolutionary Nutbar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,817
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2014, 09:44:59 PM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,275
  • Faith: Christian.
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2014, 09:47:18 PM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Radical Revolutionary Nutbar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,817
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2014, 10:17:35 PM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2014, 10:20:26 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,275
  • Faith: Christian.
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2014, 10:47:44 PM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Online Sam G

  • The Thief
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 874
  • Tangled up in blue
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2014, 12:31:38 AM »
Hi.

There are early Fathers writings, some say that the Church is build upon Peter himself and that he is the rock. Other writings say that the Church build upon Peter's faith confession.

From an Orthodox and from a Catholic perspective, Which one is true and how do we know so ?


In Michael Welton's book "Two Paths", he gives the statistics on the percentage of patristic authors opinions on the rock of Matthew 16:18. Taken from Robin Phillips review (I have read the book myself and can confirm these numbers):

Quote
For example, a survey from Roman Catholic scholar Jean de Launoy found that only seventeen Church Fathers thought of the rock as Peter in the iconic Petrine text of Matthew 16:18-19, whereas a full forty-four believed the 'rock' referred to Peter's confession, while sixteen thought that Christ himself was the rock and eight thought that the rock represented all of the apostles. The significance of this should be obvious: 80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize that Peter was the rock on which Christ was building His church!

Source:http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2013/12/roman-catholicism-and-church-history.html
This user doesn't post here enough.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Radical Revolutionary Nutbar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,817
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2014, 12:41:28 AM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,275
  • Faith: Christian.
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2014, 12:47:24 AM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.

I think based on some Fathers writings. But I hope some of Catholics here might help us to understand that more.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,275
  • Faith: Christian.
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2014, 12:52:46 AM »
Hi.

There are early Fathers writings, some say that the Church is build upon Peter himself and that he is the rock. Other writings say that the Church build upon Peter's faith confession.

From an Orthodox and from a Catholic perspective, Which one is true and how do we know so ?


In Michael Welton's book "Two Paths", he gives the statistics on the percentage of patristic authors opinions on the rock of Matthew 16:18. Taken from Robin Phillips review (I have read the book myself and can confirm these numbers):

Quote
For example, a survey from Roman Catholic scholar Jean de Launoy found that only seventeen Church Fathers thought of the rock as Peter in the iconic Petrine text of Matthew 16:18-19, whereas a full forty-four believed the 'rock' referred to Peter's confession, while sixteen thought that Christ himself was the rock and eight thought that the rock represented all of the apostles. The significance of this should be obvious: 80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize that Peter was the rock on which Christ was building His church!

Source:http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2013/12/roman-catholicism-and-church-history.html

Then the question remain, why did Jesus Christ change the name of St Peter from ( Shimon, Simeon, Simon ) into ( Kepha, in Aramaic which means Rock ).

Throughout the Bible, God have changed people's names when He sent them to missions or wanted to use them for something. Here is God doing the same with Simon.

Why is that ?

Online Sam G

  • The Thief
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 874
  • Tangled up in blue
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2014, 12:57:18 AM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.

The earliest listing of the Bishops of Rome by St. Irenaeus of Lyons puts St. Linus as the first... who was ordained by St. Paul and not St. Peter none the less. What makes things really interesting is that St. Clement, who would not assume the episcopal chair at Rome until 92 AD, was ordained by St. Peter... meaning that not only was there a Bishop in Rome while St. Peter was still alive according to St. Irenaeus, but that the one actually ordained by St. Peter would have to wait over 25 to assume his See!
This user doesn't post here enough.

Online Sam G

  • The Thief
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 874
  • Tangled up in blue
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2014, 01:01:45 AM »
Hi.

There are early Fathers writings, some say that the Church is build upon Peter himself and that he is the rock. Other writings say that the Church build upon Peter's faith confession.

From an Orthodox and from a Catholic perspective, Which one is true and how do we know so ?


In Michael Welton's book "Two Paths", he gives the statistics on the percentage of patristic authors opinions on the rock of Matthew 16:18. Taken from Robin Phillips review (I have read the book myself and can confirm these numbers):

Quote
For example, a survey from Roman Catholic scholar Jean de Launoy found that only seventeen Church Fathers thought of the rock as Peter in the iconic Petrine text of Matthew 16:18-19, whereas a full forty-four believed the 'rock' referred to Peter's confession, while sixteen thought that Christ himself was the rock and eight thought that the rock represented all of the apostles. The significance of this should be obvious: 80% of the Church Fathers did not recognize that Peter was the rock on which Christ was building His church!

Source:http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2013/12/roman-catholicism-and-church-history.html

Then the question remain, why did Jesus Christ change the name of St Peter from ( Shimon, Simeon, Simon ) into ( Kepha, in Aramaic which means Rock ).

Throughout the Bible, God have changed people's names when He sent them to missions or wanted to use them for something. Here is God doing the same with Simon.

Why is that ?

Christ gave St. James and St. John a new name too. That being said, I don't think you have to deny that St. Peter was a special Apostle to deny that him and his successors were promised complete control over the Church.
This user doesn't post here enough.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,275
  • Faith: Christian.
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2014, 01:04:37 AM »
However, me believing that Peter is the Rock indeed, doesn't mean I believe in the Catholic Church understanding.

I think, I'm just saying I think and I might be wrong that Peter is indeed the rock, but that prophecy or mission started and ended in Jerusalem on the  Pentecost. We know that Peter was the one who lead the meeting then, the first one to talk and preach...etc and that is how it came to be Peter the Rock. and from there, the Church that continue from that day until today is build upon that rock.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • "Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,285
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2014, 01:10:27 AM »
I think, I'm just saying I think and I might be wrong that Peter is indeed the rock, but that prophecy or mission started and ended in Jerusalem on the  Pentecost.

What would the rest of the Acts, and all the epistles and the Revelation, be for then? Not to mention that, in practical terms, beginning an ending a worldwide mission in one day sounds improbable.

Quote
We know that Peter was the one who lead the meeting then, the first one to talk and preach...etc and that is how it came to be Peter the Rock.

No, he came to be Simon the Rock when Christ denominated him the Rock, long before Pentecost.

Quote
and from there, the Church that continue from that day until today is build upon that rock.

Can you expand? Do you mean something like, the church that occurred in Jerusalem on Pentecost, due directly to the Rock's preaching?

I think I see what you're getting at here, rhetorically, but there's just no way to make St. Peter sole source and sum of the Church.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 01:17:33 AM by Porter ODoran »
One hides amid pornography, angry music, television that shows the worst of mankind, misanthropic politics, an internet populace led by all the passions: and then one asks, "Where is God?"


This member is no longer active.

Online Sam G

  • The Thief
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 874
  • Tangled up in blue
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2014, 01:13:48 AM »
However, me believing that Peter is the Rock indeed, doesn't mean I believe in the Catholic Church understanding.

I think, I'm just saying I think and I might be wrong that Peter is indeed the rock, but that prophecy or mission started and ended in Jerusalem on the  Pentecost. We know that Peter was the one who lead the meeting then, the first one to talk and preach...etc and that is how it came to be Peter the Rock. and from there, the Church that continue from that day until today is build upon that rock.

St. Peter didn't "lead" the meeting on Pentecost, he was the simply the first to speak, representing the whole. Looking ahead in the history of the Apostolic Church at Acts 15, it was St. James, not St. Peter that lead the Apostolic council, which would make sense, considering they were meeting in Jerusalem, which was St. James's See.
This user doesn't post here enough.

Offline Ekdikos

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2014, 01:16:34 AM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?
Saint Cyprien of Carthage said each Orthodox bishop, confessing faith of Peter is successor of Peter. Also Encyclical of Eastern Patriarchs invokes same arguments.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,275
  • Faith: Christian.
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2014, 01:25:52 AM »
Then I admit that my idea was wrong, and I give it up. Because I already had doubts about it and the reply here supported these doubts.




Online Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,369
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2014, 10:01:23 AM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.
No. It's actually because Rome is where Peter died and ended his earthly ministry. I won't get into a debate that will necessarily turn ugly here, but I believe and acknowledge that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter, just not in the same sense that the Bishop of Rome is.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 10:02:51 AM by Papist »
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,321
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2014, 10:28:49 AM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.
No. It's actually because Rome is where Peter died and ended his earthly ministry. I won't get into a debate that will necessarily turn ugly here, but I believe and acknowledge that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter, just not in the same sense that the Bishop of Rome is.


Is there counter-proof for that?

Namely:

1) Other sees being considered more an inheritor of an apostle's charisma because he died there instead of those that he merely passed by or founded?

2) Actually, of any see, for any reason, inheriting the particular charisma of their founders or of the saints who died there?

3) Any theological ground for the blood of a martyr to convey automatic, "unloosable" charisma not to the local bishop, but to the local office of bishop?

4) Actually, of the charisma of a person, being transmitted to an office?

5) Anything in the promises of Christ to Peter that imply that, even if Peter's particular gift was that this charisma would be transmissable to whomsoever held a certain office, that it would be marked by the place where he died and not through normal apostolic succession of imposing hands?

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,718
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2014, 12:10:06 PM »
No. It's actually because Rome is where Peter died and ended his earthly ministry. I won't get into a debate that will necessarily turn ugly here, but I believe and acknowledge that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter, just not in the same sense that the Bishop of Rome is.

Not trying to be contentious, just honestly puzzled:surely you're not saying that the Bishop of Rome is a special case(infallible, universal head of the Church) because Peter died there? Where does that leave Paul?
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline Nathanael

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2014, 12:16:18 PM »
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/65138.htm

In this interview with Fr. Gabriel Bunge - a former catholic and a great ascetic - explains u.a. why he left the  rome catholic church.
"Orthodoxy is the very nature of man" - Father Rafail Noica

Online Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,369
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2014, 12:23:45 PM »
No. It's actually because Rome is where Peter died and ended his earthly ministry. I won't get into a debate that will necessarily turn ugly here, but I believe and acknowledge that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter, just not in the same sense that the Bishop of Rome is.

Not trying to be contentious, just honestly puzzled:surely you're not saying that the Bishop of Rome is a special case(infallible, universal head of the Church) because Peter died there? Where does that leave Paul?
I'm saying that it is Catholic belief that because St. Peter ended his ministry in Rome, that is where he handed on his ministry qua Pope. If his papacy hand been handed on in Antioch, then he would not have been Pope after he left that city. Thus, it is our view that he did serve as a bishop at Antioch, while at the same time serving as the Pope. But he did not hand on his Papacy in antioch, but in Rome, where he met his final resting place.

As for St. Paul, we do very much believe that his martyrdom in the Eternal City plays a very big role in the dignity of the Holy See.
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Radical Revolutionary Nutbar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,817
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2014, 12:34:03 PM »
No. It's actually because Rome is where Peter died and ended his earthly ministry. I won't get into a debate that will necessarily turn ugly here, but I believe and acknowledge that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter, just not in the same sense that the Bishop of Rome is.

Not trying to be contentious, just honestly puzzled:surely you're not saying that the Bishop of Rome is a special case(infallible, universal head of the Church) because Peter died there? Where does that leave Paul?
I'm saying that it is Catholic belief that because St. Peter ended his ministry in Rome, that is where he handed on his ministry qua Pope. If his papacy hand been handed on in Antioch, then he would not have been Pope after he left that city. Thus, it is our view that he did serve as a bishop at Antioch, while at the same time serving as the Pope. But he did not hand on his Papacy in antioch, but in Rome, where he met his final resting place.

As for St. Paul, we do very much believe that his martyrdom in the Eternal City plays a very big role in the dignity of the Holy See.

And if you can provide a good reason as to why the Papacy is based on where Peter dies, then you'd have made your case. Otherwise, dying doesn't really prove anything.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 12:35:59 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Online Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,369
  • An Ideal to Strive Towards
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2014, 12:48:10 PM »
No. It's actually because Rome is where Peter died and ended his earthly ministry. I won't get into a debate that will necessarily turn ugly here, but I believe and acknowledge that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter, just not in the same sense that the Bishop of Rome is.

Not trying to be contentious, just honestly puzzled:surely you're not saying that the Bishop of Rome is a special case(infallible, universal head of the Church) because Peter died there? Where does that leave Paul?
I'm saying that it is Catholic belief that because St. Peter ended his ministry in Rome, that is where he handed on his ministry qua Pope. If his papacy hand been handed on in Antioch, then he would not have been Pope after he left that city. Thus, it is our view that he did serve as a bishop at Antioch, while at the same time serving as the Pope. But he did not hand on his Papacy in antioch, but in Rome, where he met his final resting place.

As for St. Paul, we do very much believe that his martyrdom in the Eternal City plays a very big role in the dignity of the Holy See.

And if you can provide a good reason as to why the Papacy is based on where Peter dies, then you'd have made your case. Otherwise, dying doesn't really prove anything.
Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to prove any case here, but rather, provide description of Catholic belief. I understand that in order for a Catholic to prove his case, he would have to cite evidence, most likely textual evidence from the Patristic period.  

Given that this an EO website, I don't believe that there would be much good in engaging in debate and trying to demonstrate that Catholics are correct with regard to the Papacy. Pretty much every debate on this board relating to Catholic vs. Orthodox issues turns very ugly very quickly. In general, I prefer to correct misconceptions about what Catholics believe and provide clarity with regard to how we think about things.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 12:50:17 PM by Papist »
My posts no longer forum here.

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,153
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2014, 12:53:41 PM »
At the Gospel of St. Matthew Chap't. 16:

15. "He said to them, 'But who do you say I am?'
16. Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
17. Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18. And I also say to you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Footnote from "The Orthodox Study Bible:" 16:18 "Peter/rock is a play on the word for "rock" in both Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra). This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to "the faith of his confession" (JohnChr). The true Rock is Christ Himself (1Co 10:4), and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ."
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2014, 12:53:53 PM »
No. It's actually because Rome is where Peter died and ended his earthly ministry. I won't get into a debate that will necessarily turn ugly here, but I believe and acknowledge that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter, just not in the same sense that the Bishop of Rome is.

Not trying to be contentious, just honestly puzzled:surely you're not saying that the Bishop of Rome is a special case(infallible, universal head of the Church) because Peter died there? Where does that leave Paul?

The RC answer to "Where does that leave Paul" might be , well Christ didn't utter the same words to Paul as he did for the Apostles.  
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 12:55:20 PM by JoeS2 »

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,153
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2014, 12:58:24 PM »
Orthodox Church sources generally recognize St. Peter to be the founder of the Church of Rome, as it considers St. Andrew the First Called to be the founder of the Church of Constantinople (Byzantium), St. Mark to be the founder of the Church of Alexandria, St. Peter (some would add St. Paul too) to be the founder of the Church of Antioch, and St. James the Brother of the Lord as the founder of the Church of Jerusalem.
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαυμά!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Πρώτο ο Θεός
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOA - Direct Archdiocesan District
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2014, 12:59:43 PM »
Quote
as it considers St. Andrew the First Called to be the founder of the Church of Constantinople (Byzantium)
Well, at least Constantinople considers that a fact.  ;)
'Η ἐλπίς μου ὁ Πατήρ, καταφυγή μου ὁ Υἱός, σκέπη μου τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον· Τριὰς Ἁγία, δόξα Σοι.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,321
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2014, 01:26:12 PM »
At the Gospel of St. Matthew Chap't. 16:

15. "He said to them, 'But who do you say I am?'
16. Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
17. Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18. And I also say to you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Footnote from "The Orthodox Study Bible:" 16:18 "Peter/rock is a play on the word for "rock" in both Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra). This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to "the faith of his confession" (JohnChr). The true Rock is Christ Himself (1Co 10:4), and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ."

That happens to be Peter's own understanding of the image of the stone/rock as well.

Quote
As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
    a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
    will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone,”
8 and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
    and a rock that makes them fall.”
1 Peter 2
Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2014, 01:37:26 PM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.

On quotes such as these... Make of them what you will :

 Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis  says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The saintly African bishop adds in the next chapter:
Damasus [was succeeded by] Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Chair, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!"
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 01:39:08 PM by Wandile »
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,039
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2014, 02:26:12 PM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.

On quotes such as these... Make of them what you will :

 Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis  says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The saintly African bishop adds in the next chapter:
Damasus [was succeeded by] Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Chair, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!"

It seems to me St. Optatus is talking against a Donatist chair of episcopacy, not against other Apostolic Churches in the world.  As was said earlier, no Orthodox Christian denies that the other Apostles received the same Petrine powers.  Someone earlier mentioned St. Cyprian, that every bishop is a Peter.  But it does not sound like him saying "Rome is center of world-wide Church".

So the context of your argument does not seem to match the context of today's argument.  Pope Damasus is a "colleague", who with "the whole world", through "letters of peace" confirming agreement "in the bond of communion".  That sounds very Orthodox in concept based on Orthodox interpretation of ecclesiology as well.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 02:27:33 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2014, 02:51:57 PM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.

On quotes such as these... Make of them what you will :

 Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis  says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The saintly African bishop adds in the next chapter:
Damasus [was succeeded by] Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Chair, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!"

It seems to me St. Optatus is talking against a Donatist chair of episcopacy, not against other Apostolic Churches in the world.  As was said earlier, no Orthodox Christian denies that the other Apostles received the same Petrine powers.  Someone earlier mentioned St. Cyprian, that every bishop is a Peter.  But it does not sound like him saying "Rome is center of world-wide Church".

So the context of your argument does not seem to match the context of today's argument.  Pope Damasus is a "colleague", who with "the whole world", through "letters of peace" confirming agreement "in the bond of communion".  That sounds very Orthodox in concept based on Orthodox interpretation of ecclesiology as well.

With all due respect, you have either grossly misinterpreted the Saint or deliberately twisted his words. I think its the former. As such, I will explain the quote to you.

he is saying Peters episcopal chair (Chair of authority) was placed in Rome that's why he says "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of ROME was bestowed the Episcopal Chair". He uses this as the whole basis for his argument that all who are I communion with this chair are part of the true church as he says "that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic". He fuether elaborates that merely having apostolic succession is not enough as he says only this chair and those who sit on it (By mentioning his communion with the Pope of his day) preserve the unity of the Church and thats why he said "lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs". See the donatists were not in communion with the Church to which St.Optatus belonged to however, to prove that he is orthodox and a member of the true church, he uses a petrine argument to prove his orthodoxy. He pretty much says "where Peter is, there is the church" and them goes on to speak about where Peter is, that is in Rome, the see which inherits and up till his day had bishops succeeding Peter in that one chair that unity is held. Thats why he says you can't deny that that chair was in Rome or that anyone who breaks communion from this chair is a schismatic. The donatists were thus proven to be schismatics unlike St.Optatus who was in communion with this chair that resides in the roman see, that is the bishop of Rome who he mentions to be Pope Siricius.

This is in conformity with St.Cyprian who ,even though advocated succession of all bishops to Peter, stated that Rome was the unique bearer of,the throne of Peter  in that because Peter left his cathedra there which contains his authority as source of unity, so too will this church and those who sit upon that chair have that authority as he says :

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics — to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." (Epistle 54, 14)

And this is in further agreement with St. Ireanius of Lyon when said "it is a matter of necessity that every church be in agreement with this one [Rome] on account of its superior origin and preeminent authority"

And in this understanding in 536 certain Patriarch of Constantinople now known as St.Menas  says :
 
Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic... we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns."
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 03:25:59 PM by Wandile »
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Online Sam G

  • The Thief
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 874
  • Tangled up in blue
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2014, 03:16:23 PM »
They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.

They both are true! How ? And why Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome ?

They can both be true, there is no reason for one to be true and one to be false. Catholics believe this also.

Papal advocates always assume that the Bishop of Rome is meant when 'Peter' is mentioned in a text, even though Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome. Or at least, doesn't equal the Bishop of Rome only. Why should the Apostle Peter only be associated with the Roman Pontiff?

True, because Peter also established the Church of Antioch, so the Peter can also equal Patriarch of Antioch. But Catholics say that Peter has his "cathedra" in Rome not in Antioch.  :-\

Based on...? If Ultramontanism is their dogma, they'll believe it and defend it no matter where the evidence leads.

On quotes such as these... Make of them what you will :

 Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis  says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The saintly African bishop adds in the next chapter:
Damasus [was succeeded by] Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom 'the whole world,' through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Chair, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!"

It seems to me St. Optatus is talking against a Donatist chair of episcopacy, not against other Apostolic Churches in the world.  As was said earlier, no Orthodox Christian denies that the other Apostles received the same Petrine powers.  Someone earlier mentioned St. Cyprian, that every bishop is a Peter.  But it does not sound like him saying "Rome is center of world-wide Church".

So the context of your argument does not seem to match the context of today's argument.  Pope Damasus is a "colleague", who with "the whole world", through "letters of peace" confirming agreement "in the bond of communion".  That sounds very Orthodox in concept based on Orthodox interpretation of ecclesiology as well.

With all due respect, you have either grossly misinterpreted the Saint or deliberately twisted his words. I think its the former. As such, I will explain the quote to you.

he is saying Peters episcopal chair (Chair of authority) was placed in Rome that's why he says "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of ROME was bestowed the Episcopal Chair". He uses this as the whole basis for his argument that all who are I communion with this chair are part of the true church as he says "that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic". He fuether elaborates that merely having apostolic succession is not enough as he says only this chair and those who sit on it (By mentioning his communion with the Pope of his day) preserve the unity of the Church and thats why he said "lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs". See the donatists were not in communion with the Church to which St.Optatus belonged to however, to prove that he is orthodox and a member of the true church, he uses a petrine argument to prove his orthodoxy. He pretty much says "where Peter is, there is the church" and them goes on to speak about where Peter is, that is in Rome, the see which inherits and up till his day had bishops succeeding Peter in that one chair that unity is held. Thats why he says you can't deny that that chair was in Rome or that anyone who breaks communion from this chair is a schismatic. The donatists were thus proven to be schismatics unlike St.Optatus who was in communion with this chair that resides in the roman see, that is the bishop of Rome who he mentions to be Pope Siricius.

This is all fine and dandy, but when you consider that the Donatists were a sect that operated only within the Patriarchate of Rome, then it makes sense for St. Optatus to hold Rome as the mark of Episcopal unity against the Donatists. You have to extend St. Optatus's thought beyond the boundaries of this schism for it to apply to the whole Church.

It's also funny that you should mention St. Ambrose of Milan's famous quote "Where there is Peter, there is the Church."

St. Ambrose of Milan, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34:

Quote
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies
This user doesn't post here enough.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,039
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2014, 03:16:56 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Radical Revolutionary Nutbar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,817
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2014, 03:25:37 PM »
I agree with what was stated above. St. Opatus is clearly talking about setting up a rival episcopate in addition to, and in contention with, the Roman Episcopate.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2014, 03:32:25 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdortal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St.Optatus but is expressed amongst many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor nevermind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an eastwrn bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 03:34:08 PM by Wandile »
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Online Sam G

  • The Thief
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 874
  • Tangled up in blue
  • Faith: Orthodox Christianity
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2014, 03:38:47 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdotal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St. Optatus but is expressed among many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor never mind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an Eastern bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.

Silly us, how could we forget that the Bishop of Rome would not even have been a Patriarch at this time. Let us not forget that the holy fathers of Chalcedon honored St. Leo with his proper rank, that of Archbishop.
This user doesn't post here enough.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Radical Revolutionary Nutbar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,817
  • #FeelTheBern
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2014, 03:39:18 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdortal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St.Optatus but is expressed amongst many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor nevermind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an eastwrn bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.

Except I haven't seen a single trace of it in any writings of the Fathers I have seen to date that cannot be interpreted alternatively. So, convince me.
Not everything I type or have typed in the past is reflective of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, or may not reflect my contemporary views on a subject. (5/30/2015)

I am scaling back posting because the crack in my computer screen makes it harder and harder to type.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,039
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2014, 03:45:55 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdortal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St.Optatus but is expressed amongst many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor nevermind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an eastwrn bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.

But I'm not saying it's unique to St. Optatus.  When things involved Rome, honorary was the etiquette.  Elsewhere, veteran poster GiC showed some patristic quotes where the same hyperbolic honor was given to Constantinople.

Neither do I deny the fact that every bishop who professes the Orthodox faith and has Apostolic succession is of Peter.  I mentioned elsewhere, all clergy are Peters, and all the Apostles as is evident in Matthew 18 are Peters.  All sees are Cathedras of Peter.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2014, 03:55:53 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdortal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St.Optatus but is expressed amongst many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor nevermind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an eastwrn bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.

Except I haven't seen a single trace of it in any writings of the Fathers I have seen to date that cannot be interpreted alternatively. So, convince me.

So when st.irenaeus says "its a matter of necessity that every church agree with this church..."

or when St Cyprian explicitly says "to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source..."

Or when saint Optatus says anyone who breaks communion with the chair in role is a schismatic is not convincing?

It is either you are illiterate or you are going out of your way to deliberately ignore and play verbal gymnastics with any quote of these nature in order to brazenly claim that you see no evidence for the Catholic position.
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,039
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2014, 03:58:33 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdortal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St.Optatus but is expressed amongst many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor nevermind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an eastwrn bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.

Except I haven't seen a single trace of it in any writings of the Fathers I have seen to date that cannot be interpreted alternatively. So, convince me.

So when st.irenaeus says "its a matter of necessity that every church agree with this church..."

or when St Cyprian explicitly says "to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source..."

Or when saint Optatus says anyone who breaks communion with the chair in role is a schismatic is not convincing?

It is either you are illiterate or you are going out of your way to deliberately ignore and play verbal gymnastics with any quote of these nature in order to brazenly claim that you see no evidence for the Catholic position.

Yes, of course St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, and St. Optatus said that, not because it's Rome, but because it's Orthodox.  Why are you so abrasive?  It's not helping you in this discussion.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #40 on: August 01, 2014, 04:02:42 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdortal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St.Optatus but is expressed amongst many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor nevermind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an eastwrn bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.

But I'm not saying it's unique to St. Optatus.  When things involved Rome, honorary was the etiquette.  Elsewhere, veteran poster GiC showed some patristic quotes where the same hyperbolic honor was given to Constantinople.

Neither do I deny the fact that every bishop who professes the Orthodox faith and has Apostolic succession is of Peter.  I mentioned elsewhere, all clergy are Peters, and all the Apostles as is evident in Matthew 18 are Peters.  All sees are Cathedras of Peter.

And yet even in that understanding, you have to admit the fact that even these bishops advocate a unique succession to Rome and thats why they specify Peter chair is there ans that with this church, the faithful must be in communion with or , as St. Optatus says, you will be deemed a schismatic. St. Irenaeus says its matter of necessity and St.Cyprian even with his teaching, still explicitly teaches a unique succession of Rome from Peter by explicitly stating Rome is where sacerdotal unity has its source. This is an authority/privilege/charism only obtained from Peter as he together with his faith, inseparable, were this fount of sacerdotal unity.
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,039
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2014, 04:06:31 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdortal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St.Optatus but is expressed amongst many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor nevermind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an eastwrn bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.

But I'm not saying it's unique to St. Optatus.  When things involved Rome, honorary was the etiquette.  Elsewhere, veteran poster GiC showed some patristic quotes where the same hyperbolic honor was given to Constantinople.

Neither do I deny the fact that every bishop who professes the Orthodox faith and has Apostolic succession is of Peter.  I mentioned elsewhere, all clergy are Peters, and all the Apostles as is evident in Matthew 18 are Peters.  All sees are Cathedras of Peter.

And yet even in that understanding, you have to admit the fact that even these bishops advocate a unique succession to Rome and thats why they specify Peter chair is there ans that with this church, the faithful must be in communion with or , as St. Optatus says, you will be deemed a schismatic. St. Irenaeus says its matter of necessity and St.Cyprian even with his teaching, still explicitly teaches a unique succession of Rome from Peter by explicitly stating Rome is where sacerdotal unity has its source. This is an authority/privilege/charism only obtained from Peter as he together with his faith, inseparable, were this fount of sacerdotal unity.

Everything you wrote here, I agree.  The premises upon which you write this however, I disagree.  It's just as necessary to be in communion with Alexandria and Antioch in those days as it was with Rome.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2014, 04:11:08 PM »
In no way is St. Optatus suggesting that Rome is an eternal chair that has to be maintained.  He is maintaining that Rome is the chair of the chief of the Apostles, who was given the title "Cephas".  This title is the chair upon which all Apostles base their Church.

Suppose, we have a Donatist in Egypt.  An Egyptian bishop can easily say:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first, who sent Mark to the City of Alexandria, was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

You and I cannot claim this quote means the very city of Rome must be existent for the Church to be the Church.  Rome is an accident, not a particularity of the Church.  This very seat, the Episcopal Chair, the Cathedra is the binding and loosing, the keys of heaven, granted to every bishop in the universal church.  Later, St. Optatus writes, ridiculing the Donatists:

So, of the above-mentioned Endowments, the Cathedra is, as we have said, the first, which we have proved to be ours, through Peter, and which draws to itself the ANGEL ----unless, perchance, you claim him for yourselves, and have him shut up somewhere or other. Send him out if you can, and let him exclude from his communion seven angels, our colleagues in Asia, to whose churches wrote the Apostle John----churches with which you cannot prove that you have any intercourse whatsoever.

Optatus is not the bishop of Rome, but he receives his authority through Peter.  Every Church has an angel.  The chair of Peter has this angel.  If Donatists claim this angel for itself, let them prove that this Angel is separate in communion from the angels of the churches established by St. John.

Except that the idea of Sacerdortal unity held in Rome via Peter is not unique to St.Optatus but is expressed amongst many fathers, eastern and western so patriarchate is not a factor nevermind that in the eyes of the western church the idea of "patriarch" and "patriarchate" never really took sway and was looked upon as honorary. Your argument would work if an eastwrn bishop said such about Constantinople as in the east patriarchs were a real thing and a patriarchate was not honorary nor was the title honorary.

Except I haven't seen a single trace of it in any writings of the Fathers I have seen to date that cannot be interpreted alternatively. So, convince me.

So when st.irenaeus says "its a matter of necessity that every church agree with this church..."

or when St Cyprian explicitly says "to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source..."

Or when saint Optatus says anyone who breaks communion with the chair in role is a schismatic is not convincing?

It is either you are illiterate or you are going out of your way to deliberately ignore and play verbal gymnastics with any quote of these nature in order to brazenly claim that you see no evidence for the Catholic position.

Yes, of course St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, and St. Optatus said that, not because it's Rome, but because it's Orthodox.  Why are you so abrasive?  It's not helping you in this discussion.

Yes and because according to St irenaeus its is on account of the Church of Romes "Superior origin and preeminent authority". According to Optatus its because of Peter leaving his cathedra there. By virtue of Peter leaving his cathedra there and what Irenaeus says, St Cyprian goes onto says Rome is the see "from wither no errors can come". Indisputable doctrinal orthodoxy is a consequence of this unique petrine succession.

in simple, all of them don't mention Romes doctrinal orthodoxy but rather Peter as the basis for their claims about Rome.


Look I was not looking for a debate and who are we fooling, this debate has happened hundreds of times here so lets call it a day and leave with whatever we have or haven't gained from this discussion.

In Christ
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 04:16:53 PM by Wandile »
"We shall steer safely through every storm, so long as our heart is right, our intention fervent, our courage steadfast, and our trust fixed on God"
-St. Francis De Sales

Venerable Benedict Daswa and Blessed Isidore Bakanja, Martyrs of Africa, pray for the Church today

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,039
  • Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2014, 04:24:41 PM »
Well, my dear friend, I simply wanted to enlighten you on the fact that posting quotes does not prove one is right and one is wrong.  There's a deeper interpretive part in this whole issue where you and I will not cease to disagree upon.  So debate is inevitable, so long as it's respectful.  Unless it's very obvious I have an underlying hatred of Catholics and twisting quotes against you, I don't think it's fruitful to say to someone you're conniving or illiterate.  We both read the same quotes, with both agree with those same quotes, but we both have different premises.

For instance, you say:

Quote
in simple, all of them don't mention Romes doctrinal orthodoxy but rather Peter as the basis for their claims about Rome.

Two things.  First, "All of them" is too extreme.  Not all of them remove the fact that it's because of Rome's Orthodoxy.  Some of them do.  Second, Rome's Orthodoxy is taken for granted during this period, because Rome, among other sees like Alexandria and Antioch, was the leader of Orthodoxy in the world.  Rome deserved all praise, but she had her jurisdiction, everyone else had their's as well.  Rome was a model for all churches to follow, but not an mere authority for all churches to answer to.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 04:26:11 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.
« Reply #44 on: August 01, 2014, 07:09:26 PM »
No. It's actually because Rome is where Peter died and ended his earthly ministry. I won't get into a debate that will necessarily turn ugly here, but I believe and acknowledge that the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter, just not in the same sense that the Bishop of Rome is.

Not trying to be contentious, just honestly puzzled:surely you're not saying that the Bishop of Rome is a special case(infallible, universal head of the Church) because Peter died there? Where does that leave Paul?

The RC answer to "Where does that leave Paul" might be , well Christ didn't utter the same words to Paul as he did for the Apostles.  

Before the 'founding' of Rome, St. Peter founded the bishopric of Antioch......