OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 10:14:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Church build upon Peter or upon his faith confession.  (Read 935 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« 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 ?

Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,636



« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2014, 09:44:59 PM »

They are both true.

But Peter doesn't equal Bishop of Rome.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« 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 ?
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,636



« 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 » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« 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.  Undecided
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 620


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« 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
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,636



« 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.  Undecided

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

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« 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.  Undecided

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.
Logged
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« 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 ?
Logged
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 620


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« 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.  Undecided

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!
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 620


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« 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.
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« 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.
Logged
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,303


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« 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 » Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 620


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« 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.
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« 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.
Logged

Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« 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.



Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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.  Undecided

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 » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« 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.  Undecided

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?

Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,485



« 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?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Nathanael
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 254



« 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.
Logged

"Orthodoxy is the very nature of man" - Father Rafail Noica
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,636



« 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 » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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 » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,136



« 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."
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« 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 » Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,136



« 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.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Direct Archdiocesan District
Posts: 1,674


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« 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.  Wink
Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« 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
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« 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.  Undecided

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 » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,969


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« 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.  Undecided

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 » Logged

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.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« 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.  Undecided

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 » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 620


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« 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.  Undecided

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
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,969


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« 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.
Logged

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.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,636



« 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.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« 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 » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
Sam G
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Old Rite)
Posts: 620


All ye Saints, pray to God for me a sinner.


« 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.
Logged

All of my hope, I place in thee, O Mother of God; do preserve me under they shelter.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,636



« 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.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,969


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« 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.
Logged

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.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« 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.
Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,969


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« 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.
Logged

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.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« 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.
Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,969


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« 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.
Logged

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.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« 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 » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,969


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« 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 » Logged

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.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« 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......
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,636



« Reply #45 on: August 01, 2014, 07:54:07 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

Interpret 'preeminent authority' as preeminent authority and not as infallibility, and cathedra as the seat which all Bishops hold, then your argument is terminated.

"Peter" simply meant the holder of the Episcopate.

St. Irenaeus' saying about "necessity of agreeing' makes sense, since Rome was Orthodox. Cyprian was simply talking about the Episcopate. Opatus was only talking about setting up rival Episcopates in the city of Rome to contend against the Roman Episcopate.

Again, "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."
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 07:58:13 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,303


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2014, 07:56:08 PM »

Wandile, are you really reading Fathers' counsels not to ostracize Rome as directives to Rome to subjugate others? That would be like interpreting "Don't leave Porter off the planning committee" to mean "Porter will be taking over the planning." I won't say it's illiterate, to use your word, but I will say you're being very wishful.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2014, 08:15:27 PM »

Guys, if you didn't see earlier, I'm done debating this topic. I will never be convinced by the orthodox arguments because , at least to me, they seem like verbal gymnastics... and I doubt you will be convinced by the catholic arguments. Its gets very repetitive so as much as there are calls for me to explain this and that, I will not. It will only prolong an argument I'm not too keen on having.

In Christ
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 08:17:34 PM by Wandile » Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2014, 08:20:37 PM »

Guys, if you didn't see earlier, I'm done debating this topic. I will never be convinced by the orthodox arguments because , at least to me, they seem like verbal gymnastics... and I doubt you will be convinced by the catholic arguments. Its gets very repetitive so as much as there are calls for me to explain this and that, I will not. It will only prolong an argument I'm not too keen on having.

In Christ
And all of us are on Roman Catholic forum where w Orthodoxe constantly confront Roman Catholic hosts....
Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2014, 08:23:05 PM »

Guys, if you didn't see earlier, I'm done debating this topic. I will never be convinced by the orthodox arguments because , at least to me, they seem like verbal gymnastics... and I doubt you will be convinced by the catholic arguments. Its gets very repetitive so as much as there are calls for me to explain this and that, I will not. It will only prolong an argument I'm not too keen on having.

In Christ
And all of us are on Roman Catholic forum where w Orthodoxe constantly confront Roman Catholic hosts....

Ok brother
Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,636



« Reply #50 on: August 01, 2014, 08:25:29 PM »

Guys, if you didn't see earlier, I'm done debating this topic. I will never be convinced by the orthodox arguments because , at least to me, they seem like verbal gymnastics... and I doubt you will be convinced by the catholic arguments. Its gets very repetitive so as much as there are calls for me to explain this and that, I will not. It will only prolong an argument I'm not too keen on having.

In Christ

If Roman Catholics made arguments that actually took into consideration every alternative objection, and still came away with their head raised high, then I'd consider their position to be worthwhile.

Otherwise, I don't consider it in the slightest.

Roman Catholics just assume their position is true, and never give good reasons for believing it. Instead, it's just numerous, irrelevant quotations about Peter.

Which to me, is no different than any other religious or political position that people have that they cannot justify. Talking points are not evidence. That's what I think.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 08:28:33 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,208


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #51 on: August 01, 2014, 08:31:37 PM »

Guys, if you didn't see earlier, I'm done debating this topic. I will never be convinced by the orthodox arguments because , at least to me, they seem like verbal gymnastics... and I doubt you will be convinced by the catholic arguments. Its gets very repetitive so as much as there are calls for me to explain this and that, I will not. It will only prolong an argument I'm not too keen on having.

In Christ

If Roman Catholics made arguments that actually took into consideration every alternative objection, and still came away with their head raised high, then I'd consider their position to be worthwhile.

Otherwise, I don't consider it in the slightest.

Roman Catholics just assume their position is true, and never give good reasons for believing it. Instead, it's just numerous, irrelevant quotations about Peter.

Which to me, is no different than any other religious or political position that people have that they cannot justify. Talking points are not evidence. That's what I think.

To each their own opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2014, 05:58:48 PM »

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.

Those are some rich words coming from somebody who is clearly illiterate in Latin. For example, the second quote you provide has clearly been mistranslated, something that both Cyrillic and I pointed out to you nearly a year ago.

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Ibid?

Oh you...

umm want another version? Is there something I'm missing?

I've never heard of a patristic work called Ibid....

That's the translation source. The quote is from St Cyprian on the unity of the Church. I provided the Latin and English version

Ibid implies that there was quote that preceded it, and that implies that the same boring old prooftext-lists have been plagiarized yet again.

"Has its source" is a bad translation of "Unde...exorta est." "From which unity shone" would be more faithful to the original.

St Cyprian of Carthage:

Post ista adhuc pseudoepiscopo sibi ab haereticis constituto nauigare audent, et ad Petri Cathedram adque ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre, nec cogitare eos esse Romanos, quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum


With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ibid., 59:14).

Nice try, but the verb operating in that clause, exorta est, is in the perfect/preterite, not the present (the present tense would read unde unitas sacerdotalis exoritur). It is probably best translated as, "the principal church where sacerdotal unity originated," (using the perfect, "has originated," here instead of the preterite makes very little sense grammatically in English).

So why, if you are so wise and literate that you can afford to ridicule your opponents as being illiterates, do you continue to use a proof text which is incorrectly translated? It seems quite dishonest.

The first quote you provide has a similar problem. In English, it seems like a great slam dunk case, but the Latin verb convenire can be translated in many ways, and that isn't even taking into account that the document is itself a translation from Greek to Latin.

On the quotation from St. Optatus: the context of the argument is that the Donatists confessed six marks of the church, one of these being the cathedra. St. Optatus' argument against them is essentially that they do not possess any of these endowments, specifically writing of the Seven Churches in Asia (which he likens to seven angels) that "Whatever is without the Seven Churches is outside and alien." (extra Septem Ecclesias quicquid foris est alienum est). The Latin translator here tries very hard to show that St. Optatus meant this only in a figurative sense, but then that only raises the question of why we should understand this merely in a figurative sense while supposing that what he wrote about the Cathedra should be taken literally.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2014, 10:29:37 PM »

Guys, if you didn't see earlier, I'm done debating this topic. I will never be convinced by the orthodox arguments because , at least to me, they seem like verbal gymnastics... and I doubt you will be convinced by the catholic arguments. Its gets very repetitive so as much as there are calls for me to explain this and that, I will not. It will only prolong an argument I'm not too keen on having.

In Christ

Well then I think the feelings about your debates are also unconvincing.....I guess we can leave it at that and part ways in peace.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.249 seconds with 81 queries.