Author Topic: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter  (Read 11697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline freedominspring

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Catholic (Sedevacantist)
Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« on: July 02, 2015, 03:22:44 AM »
This is just a quick question.

Can someone please give me examples of quotes from Church Fathers demonstrating that all the bishops are successors of Saint Peter?  This is in opposition to the Roman Catholic view that the Roman Bishop alone is the successor of Peter. 

If it is impossible to produce such quotes,  it is possible that the Eastern Orthodox view is more of a misapplication of Sacred Scripture than the Roman Catholic view,

On the other hand if you can prove that the ECFs unanimously held that all bishops are successors of Saint Peter,  you have destroyed the Roman Catholic view.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2015, 05:17:55 AM »
Well, every quote does.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Mountain

  • BANNED for rules violations, duplicate account
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2015, 06:41:17 AM »
This is just a quick question.

Can someone please give me examples of quotes from Church Fathers demonstrating that all the bishops are successors of Saint Peter?  This is in opposition to the Roman Catholic view that the Roman Bishop alone is the successor of Peter. 

If it is impossible to produce such quotes,  it is possible that the Eastern Orthodox view is more of a misapplication of Sacred Scripture than the Roman Catholic view,

On the other hand if you can prove that the ECFs unanimously held that all bishops are successors of Saint Peter,  you have destroyed the Roman Catholic view.

It is not just the Church Fathers quotes that destroy the Latin faith, it is Ecumenical Council who do and the Holy Tradition. Read the records of 7 Ecumenical Councils, and you will realize how minor was the role of the bishop of Rome, not even slightly close to the role of today's Rome. Popes were respected as an bishop of important city and great history, and nothing else. They were not infallible vicars of Christ who could excommunicate angels and to whom all must kneel down and kiss the ring. This is Holy Tradition, the Church lived without papacy, as it lives today without pope completely.

Ecumenical Councils are supreme authority, focus on that.

Offline Mountain

  • BANNED for rules violations, duplicate account
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2015, 06:46:33 AM »
The Church exists as you know as a vehicle or means of salvation. This is exercised and maintained through the Sacraments (or Holy Mysteries) of the Economy of salvation.   
(Namely Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist)
The Church fathers when speaking of the "Heirarchy" of the Church generally speak of three
Deacons
Priests
And Bishops.

According to Roman Catholic standards the Papacy is not a sacrament but an office of administration. The Pope is in fact a bishop, who in the matter of Ordination (episcopal consecration) is no different from that of other Bishops.
(That much is taken from anglican website here's my addition)
Roman Catholics often cite Matt 16:18 as proof text for the Papacy but their own teachings confute their claim. For the power of binding and loosing is not only for the Pope but for all the Church, namely the Bishops. It would be absurd to say that a catholic must travel the whole world to the pope to recieve Sacramental absolution.

On the contrary one can simply go to ones Parish Priest for confession who RECIEVES HIS JURISDICTION FROM THE LOCAL BISHOP.

The modern day Catechism of the Catholic Church (under John Paul II) admits on paragraph

1462 Forgiveness of sins brings reconciliation with God, but also with the Church. SINCE ANCIENT TIMES THE BISHOP VISIBLE HEAD OF A PARTICULAR CHURCH HAS THUS RIGHTFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE THE ONE WHO PRINCIPALLY HAS THE POWER AND MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION; he is the moderator of the penitential discipline. PRIESTS HIS COLLABORATORS, EXERCISE IT TO THE EXTENT THEY HAVE RECEIVED IT FROM THEIR BISHOP(or religious superior) or the Pope, according to the law of the Church.(End Quote Emphasis Mine)

In this context I think it is also revealing that the same Catechism also admits on paragraph

1444 "the office of binding and loosing was conferred to peter and THE (WHOLE) college of apostles (the catechism also adds "United to its head"

Well the only head of the Church is Christ. The church does not have two heads like a monster.

But I find those two quotes revealing for they totally demolish the claims of the Papacy. Most Roman Catholics don't even realize it.

For they attribute the power of binding and loosing in Matt 16:18 to Peter alone, yet they admit it was given to all the Apostles.
Papalists often insist that this verse means the Pope has some extra powers of authority, but they cannot attribute this to the pope alone without contradicting their own teaching.
As a matter of fact
 Earlier in the same paragraph 1444 the catechism of the Catholic Church admits that binding and loosing ONLY actually refers to the forgiveness of sins.

Catechism of the (roman) Catholic Church paragraph 1444

In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you LOOSE  on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

That Bishops themselves can delegate this power to priests under their jurisdiction even according to Roman Catholic Ecclessiology serves to further destroy their arguments in favour of the papacy. (For a priest according to Roman Catholicism cannot give absolution without jurisdiction, which only comes from the Bishop) 

Roman Catholics may respond by citing the current practice of their church by saying that bishops themselves recieve jurisdiction from the Pope.

The response is in the Early Church the diocese elected its own bishops and the approval of the pope was neither sought nor necessary. Bishops recieve their jurisdiction IN THEIR EPISCOPAL CONSECRATION  from Christ himself. Not from the Pope.

It is for this reason that the Church is said to be complete at the local level. Under the Bishop. The keys to the kingdom belong to the bishops who shepherd the faithful by word and Sacrament. That is how salvation is achieved.

Salvation is the economy received by the Holy Mysteries through our cooperation with divine grace, the Acts of mutual love.

It is not by submission to the Pope or anyone else for we recieve the truth by holy Tradition. Not by the Pope. Which teaches and installs in Christians Faith, Hope, and Charity.

The Universal Church is rightly to be understood as NOT a communion of the present college of bishops around the world, (though it is relevant) but rather a communion, of all christians from the birth of the Church until present under the one Universal Bishop of our Souls Jesus Christ.

I believe that in this way the Church is truly the icon of Christ. For if we follow the Papalist model the local church has three heads. The diocesan bishop the pope and christ.

Under the Orthodox model (the true one) the head of the Church is Christ. The visible church under the Bishop is the icon of Christ.

For if one studies the true nature of the Catholic Church its necessity for salvation in no part of the economy of salvation does the Papacy ever come into play.

As a matter of fact even many catholics admit the Church can survive (ie continue to exist) without the Papacy. Because the papacy is just an office of administration.

But the church cannot exist without bishops. All those even remotely familiar with Catholicism acknowledge this fact.

Another point as well on the concept of Catholic Authority. The truth need not be preserved by a single infallible dictator King (Pope) but is preserved by the Holy Ghost in Holy Tradition. The moment any church breaks with this Sacred inviolate Tradition (distinguishing between holy Tradition and cultural traditions of course) they cease to be part of the church automatically.

When all the Bishops of the world confirming the ancient traditions condemn a heretic that indeed is much more powerful than a single "universal bishop" condemning him.

For a man is a man, but an ecumenical council is the voice of the whole (Catholic) Church throughout all ages.

It is based on Catholic Authority the consensus of the early churches that the New Testament canon became fixed.
Not by a declaration from the Pope, a claim put forward by Romanists but lacking all Proof.
For which is more trustworthy the CATHOLIC authority of the Catholic Church.
Or the declaration of a single man?

How do we know that the guy acting (supposing the papacy were true) as pope wasn't secretly a heretic?

One doesn't even need to dive into history to disprove the Papacy. The evidence against this monstrosity is so clear (though diving into history is indeed helpful, about that btw I found out that none of the fathers I quoted in support of the papacy actually believed In it, that I was quoting them either out of context or a mistranslation of their statements)

Offline Misplaced Book

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 268
  • Don't mind me......
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: EP
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2015, 08:00:31 AM »
This is just a quick question.

Can someone please give me examples of quotes from Church Fathers demonstrating that all the bishops are successors of Saint Peter?  This is in opposition to the Roman Catholic view that the Roman Bishop alone is the successor of Peter. 

If it is impossible to produce such quotes,  it is possible that the Eastern Orthodox view is more of a misapplication of Sacred Scripture than the Roman Catholic view,

On the other hand if you can prove that the ECFs unanimously held that all bishops are successors of Saint Peter,  you have destroyed the Roman Catholic view.


Hello, freedominspring.

I think quote mining will not help you in what you seek.   You say you are a sedevacantist, so obviously the Latin Church has disillusioned you.

If there was such silver bullet proof,  the Schism would not be where it is today. 

Have you ever attended a Divine Liturgy before?

"A positive thought is worth more than a vigil service on Mt. Athos." -St. Paisios the Athonite

Offline freedominspring

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Catholic (Sedevacantist)
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2015, 08:47:39 AM »
Quote
Hello, freedominspring.

I think quote mining will not help you in what you seek.   You say you are a sedevacantist, so obviously the Latin Church has disillusioned you.

If there was such silver bullet proof,  the Schism would not be where it is today. 

Have you ever attended a Divine Liturgy before?


So you're saying no Church Father has a quote saying "every bishop is the successor of Saint Peter"?  Isn't this the de facto official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church?  At least that's the impression I got from talking to a lot of Eastern Orthodox people in the past. 

Yes I've been to Divine Liturgy before.  Only once though, because it was hard to get to.  I've considered converting for a long period of time,  but now I don't think so.  In my opinion the Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is pretty convicting proof the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded.   I haven't heard of anything like this in the post-schism Eastern Church.  It's impossible for that miracle to have been the work of the devil (he cannot conjure things into existence in that kind of way) and God would not perform such a miracle in a false church.  This is why I had to rethink my evaluation of Church History. 

The Catholic position is not that each person in the Church has always understood the implications of the truth of the Papacy but rather that the Popes’.   
Quote
teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren
-Vatican I.


Quote
For a man is a man, but an ecumenical council is the voice of the whole (Catholic) Church throughout all ages.

That’s actually one of the biggest reasons why I won’t become Eastern Orthodox.  There is no mechanism to know if a council is binding or not.   An Orthodox priest I was talking to actually told me that they accept the validity of councils as an act of faith. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church has various Traditionalist schisms and since all bishops are equal there is no mechanism to tell which side is right.  Is it numbers that settle disputes? 
You can say that because I’m a sedevacantist I can’t say that but the mechanism of the Papacy still exists although the office is currently vacant.   God made it very clear that these Vatican 2 claimants are antipopes, there are just a lot of spiritually blind people in the world. 

Quote
How do we know that the guy acting (supposing the papacy were true) as pope wasn't secretly a heretic?
We would know because the Papacy was instituted by God for a specific reason and it would be inconsistent with the reason and the fact that we know the “gates of hell (heresy)” would not prevail against the church.  If any Pope throughout history were to become a heretic and therefore lose his office, in accordance with the good graces of God, it would be clear and manifest.  This is the case with Honorious who was condemned by an ecumenical council (Constantinople III). 

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2015, 09:28:47 AM »
Quote-mining is never a good way to determine theology, but for the sake of continuing the conversation, here are a few.

Quote from: St. Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church
Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her

Quote from: St. Augustine, The Retractations
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable


Quote from: St. Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord
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

Quote from: St. John of Damascus, Homily on the Transfiguration
This rock was Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the Lord, for Paul clearly teaches us: ‘The rock was Christ’

Quote from: St. Bede
Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other Apostles, as Christ Himself testified when, after the triumph of His Passion and Resurrection, He appeared to them and breathed upon them, and said to them all, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if ye forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven to them; if ye retain the sins of any, they are retained

Quote from: St. Cyril, 2nd Epistle to Nestorius
“One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of dignity which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal dignity with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples would have been one, and yet the two are not one....”[
God bless!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,711
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2015, 09:41:10 AM »
We've done this kind of thread before, IIRC.

Offline Mountain

  • BANNED for rules violations, duplicate account
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2015, 10:08:55 AM »
Quote
Hello, freedominspring.

I think quote mining will not help you in what you seek.   You say you are a sedevacantist, so obviously the Latin Church has disillusioned you.

If there was such silver bullet proof,  the Schism would not be where it is today. 

Have you ever attended a Divine Liturgy before?


So you're saying no Church Father has a quote saying "every bishop is the successor of Saint Peter"?  Isn't this the de facto official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church?  At least that's the impression I got from talking to a lot of Eastern Orthodox people in the past. 

Yes I've been to Divine Liturgy before.  Only once though, because it was hard to get to.  I've considered converting for a long period of time,  but now I don't think so.  In my opinion the Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is pretty convicting proof the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded.   I haven't heard of anything like this in the post-schism Eastern Church.  It's impossible for that miracle to have been the work of the devil (he cannot conjure things into existence in that kind of way) and God would not perform such a miracle in a false church.  This is why I had to rethink my evaluation of Church History. 

The Catholic position is not that each person in the Church has always understood the implications of the truth of the Papacy but rather that the Popes’.   
Quote
teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren
-Vatican I.


Quote
For a man is a man, but an ecumenical council is the voice of the whole (Catholic) Church throughout all ages.

That’s actually one of the biggest reasons why I won’t become Eastern Orthodox.  There is no mechanism to know if a council is binding or not.   An Orthodox priest I was talking to actually told me that they accept the validity of councils as an act of faith. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church has various Traditionalist schisms and since all bishops are equal there is no mechanism to tell which side is right.  Is it numbers that settle disputes? 
You can say that because I’m a sedevacantist I can’t say that but the mechanism of the Papacy still exists although the office is currently vacant.   God made it very clear that these Vatican 2 claimants are antipopes, there are just a lot of spiritually blind people in the world. 

Quote
How do we know that the guy acting (supposing the papacy were true) as pope wasn't secretly a heretic?
We would know because the Papacy was instituted by God for a specific reason and it would be inconsistent with the reason and the fact that we know the “gates of hell (heresy)” would not prevail against the church.  If any Pope throughout history were to become a heretic and therefore lose his office, in accordance with the good graces of God, it would be clear and manifest.  This is the case with Honorious who was condemned by an ecumenical council (Constantinople III).

And this is Vatican II

Please... so much about your Robber Councils...

See this picture. This is what happens to a Church which fails to follow Holy Tradition (Orthodoxy). hahaha You guys are so fake, i cant understand how don't you see this...

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2015, 01:18:58 PM »
Incorrect. Orthodox priest Fr. Afanassieff explains the thought of St. Cyprian, for example, "According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est - [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]."

Here is Dom Prosper Gueranger, an eminent Catholic scholar, prove that the same doctrine on the Keys (which signify episcopal authority and come from Peter the head to the Apostles, or the Roman Pontiff to the other shepherds of the Church) has ever been upheld by the Roman Church, the Apostolic See, "St. Optatus of Milevis says: "For the sake of unity, Peter was made the first among all the apostles, and he alone received the keys, that he might give them to the rest." By St. Gregory of Nyssa : "It is through Peter that Christ gave to bishops the keys of their heavenly prerogative." By St. Leo the Great : 'If our Lord willed that there should be something common to Peter and the rest of the princes of His Church, it was only on this condition, that whatsoever He gave to the rest, He gave it to them through Peter." Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman Pontiffs, from the earliest ages, who have always spoken of the dignity of bishops as consisting in their being "called to a. share of their own solicitude ... "

In the ancient Church, the sees of Alexandria and Antioch held the greatest authority after Rome, because of their Petrine origin. The pre-eminent authority of the Roman Church was already evident and is attested to by these ancient Apostolic Churches as well.  St. Ignatius, of Antioch, address it as "presiding over the brotherhood in love" and St. Irenaeus says "every Church must of necessity be in agreement with that Church" which he describes as "founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" and also records the well known facts that these two holy Apostles consecrated that Church in their own blood. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, addresses Pope St. Julius in the synod of Sardica he presided over, "it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."

This has always and everywhere been acknowledged in the ancient Church, in Rome and Constantinople alike. Thus Pope Hadrian wrote to Nicaea II, "For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all ... For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors" and St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople wrote to Pope St. Leo III of Rome "Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven" which clearly attest to the inalienable prerogatives the See of Rome enjoys by divine right and Apostolic Tradition. The see of Constantinople, the second according to the canonical taxis that prevailed especially after Chalcedon, freely recognized this in the era when there was peace, unity and communion between East and West in the Church.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 01:41:27 PM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2015, 02:12:13 PM »
Incorrect. Orthodox priest Fr. Afanassieff explains the thought of St. Cyprian, for example, "According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est - [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]."

Here is Dom Prosper Gueranger, an eminent Catholic scholar, prove that the same doctrine on the Keys (which signify episcopal authority and come from Peter the head to the Apostles, or the Roman Pontiff to the other shepherds of the Church) has ever been upheld by the Roman Church, the Apostolic See, "St. Optatus of Milevis says: "For the sake of unity, Peter was made the first among all the apostles, and he alone received the keys, that he might give them to the rest." By St. Gregory of Nyssa : "It is through Peter that Christ gave to bishops the keys of their heavenly prerogative." By St. Leo the Great : 'If our Lord willed that there should be something common to Peter and the rest of the princes of His Church, it was only on this condition, that whatsoever He gave to the rest, He gave it to them through Peter." Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman Pontiffs, from the earliest ages, who have always spoken of the dignity of bishops as consisting in their being "called to a. share of their own solicitude ... "

In the ancient Church, the sees of Alexandria and Antioch held the greatest authority after Rome, because of their Petrine origin. The pre-eminent authority of the Roman Church was already evident and is attested to by these ancient Apostolic Churches as well.  St. Ignatius, of Antioch, address it as "presiding over the brotherhood in love" and St. Irenaeus says "every Church must of necessity be in agreement with that Church" which he describes as "founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" and also records the well known facts that these two holy Apostles consecrated that Church in their own blood. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, addresses Pope St. Julius in the synod of Sardica he presided over, "it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."

This has always and everywhere been acknowledged in the ancient Church, in Rome and Constantinople alike. Thus Pope Hadrian wrote to Nicaea II, "For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all ... For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors" and St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople wrote to Pope St. Leo III of Rome "Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven" which clearly attest to the inalienable prerogatives the See of Rome enjoys by divine right and Apostolic Tradition. The see of Constantinople, the second according to the canonical taxis that prevailed especially after Chalcedon, freely recognized this in the era when there was peace, unity and communion between East and West in the Church.

Ahem... no, just no. Read how Orthodox interpret those quotes. None of them demonstrate anything about how the Papal claims are based on Peter, Papal Infallibility or Universal Jurisdiction. I know how you like to find quotes to support heretical positions, but it's a fruitless effort.

St. Gregory the Great mentions that the One See of Peter is made up of all Petrine Sees, Antioch and Alexandria, along with Rome. It isn't the beloved dogmatic nonsense of Sola Roma that the Papal Church holds today that St Gregory held to.

Funny enough, many of these quotes demonstrate the Orthodox position perfectly. St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 02:16:21 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2015, 05:03:01 PM »
Quote
St. Irenaeus says "every Church must of necessity be in agreement with that Church
Is today's Rome in agreement with the Rome of St. Irenaeus ?

It is very unlikely that there is a church father who claimed that all bishops are equal in matters of administration, because the doctrine of primacy is entirely orthodox and yes an Orthodox Pope of Rome is a primate of the Church.

All bishops are given the power to bind and to lose, if you are looking for quote from a church father confirming the importance of the bishop i can give you:

 Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
                                                                                                                                                               - St Ignatius of Antioch

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2015, 01:25:10 AM »
Incorrect. Orthodox priest Fr. Afanassieff explains the thought of St. Cyprian, for example, "According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est - [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]."

Here is Dom Prosper Gueranger, an eminent Catholic scholar, prove that the same doctrine on the Keys (which signify episcopal authority and come from Peter the head to the Apostles, or the Roman Pontiff to the other shepherds of the Church) has ever been upheld by the Roman Church, the Apostolic See, "St. Optatus of Milevis says: "For the sake of unity, Peter was made the first among all the apostles, and he alone received the keys, that he might give them to the rest." By St. Gregory of Nyssa : "It is through Peter that Christ gave to bishops the keys of their heavenly prerogative." By St. Leo the Great : 'If our Lord willed that there should be something common to Peter and the rest of the princes of His Church, it was only on this condition, that whatsoever He gave to the rest, He gave it to them through Peter." Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman Pontiffs, from the earliest ages, who have always spoken of the dignity of bishops as consisting in their being "called to a. share of their own solicitude ... "

In the ancient Church, the sees of Alexandria and Antioch held the greatest authority after Rome, because of their Petrine origin. The pre-eminent authority of the Roman Church was already evident and is attested to by these ancient Apostolic Churches as well.  St. Ignatius, of Antioch, address it as "presiding over the brotherhood in love" and St. Irenaeus says "every Church must of necessity be in agreement with that Church" which he describes as "founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" and also records the well known facts that these two holy Apostles consecrated that Church in their own blood. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, addresses Pope St. Julius in the synod of Sardica he presided over, "it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."

This has always and everywhere been acknowledged in the ancient Church, in Rome and Constantinople alike. Thus Pope Hadrian wrote to Nicaea II, "For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all ... For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors" and St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople wrote to Pope St. Leo III of Rome "Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven" which clearly attest to the inalienable prerogatives the See of Rome enjoys by divine right and Apostolic Tradition. The see of Constantinople, the second according to the canonical taxis that prevailed especially after Chalcedon, freely recognized this in the era when there was peace, unity and communion between East and West in the Church.
As Mor pointed out, we have been here before:
Christ is ascended!
You got some quotes for me?
"Talitha qumi!" "Ephphatha!" "Eli, Eli, lama sabakhthani?"

You have been supplied plenty.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28604.msg451932.html#msg451932

They are not going to go away.  One of may favorites:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.


So did Christ say or did He not say "you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church?"
We do not have St. Matthew recording Him so saying, so you cannot tell.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2015, 02:19:21 AM »
Incorrect. Orthodox priest Fr. Afanassieff explains the thought of St. Cyprian, for example, "According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est - [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]."

From the 33rd Epistle of St. Cyprian:
Quote
Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.

St. Cyprian directly ties the promise of Christ to St. Peter to the office of the episcopacy.

From the Council of Carthage presided over by St. Cyprian:
Quote
For no one [of us ] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops],  or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position].

Even if what you quoted were true, you still have other elements of St. Cyprian's writings that demonstrate that he in no way accepted any notion of universal primacy/jurisdiction.

Here is Dom Prosper Gueranger, an eminent Catholic scholar, prove that the same doctrine on the Keys (which signify episcopal authority and come from Peter the head to the Apostles, or the Roman Pontiff to the other shepherds of the Church) has ever been upheld by the Roman Church, the Apostolic See, "St. Optatus of Milevis says: "For the sake of unity, Peter was made the first among all the apostles, and he alone received the keys, that he might give them to the rest." By St. Gregory of Nyssa : "It is through Peter that Christ gave to bishops the keys of their heavenly prerogative." By St. Leo the Great : 'If our Lord willed that there should be something common to Peter and the rest of the princes of His Church, it was only on this condition, that whatsoever He gave to the rest, He gave it to them through Peter." Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman Pontiffs, from the earliest ages, who have always spoken of the dignity of bishops as consisting in their being "called to a. share of their own solicitude ... "

St. John Chrysostom explicitly mentions St. John as also having received the keys:
Quote
For the Son of thunder (John), the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not as hiding his head with a mask, (for he hath another sort of words to speak), nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.

The quote of St. Gregory of Nyssa you referenced above clearly states that through St. Peter (not the current Bishop of Rome) the bishops (plural) are given the keys.  Same with the St. Leo quote.  In fact, that entire paragraph you quoted above means nothing, because it assumes that every time the fathers mention St. Peter, they mean the Bishop of Rome.

In the ancient Church, the sees of Alexandria and Antioch held the greatest authority after Rome, because of their Petrine origin. The pre-eminent authority of the Roman Church was already evident and is attested to by these ancient Apostolic Churches as well.  St. Ignatius, of Antioch, address it as "presiding over the brotherhood in love" and St. Irenaeus says "every Church must of necessity be in agreement with that Church" which he describes as "founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" and also records the well known facts that these two holy Apostles consecrated that Church in their own blood. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, addresses Pope St. Julius in the synod of Sardica he presided over, "it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."

And if you quote the rest of St. Ignatius's letter, you'll find that he speaks of Rome presiding "in the region of the Romans".  The St. Irenaeus quote is a dubious translation. The word often translated by Catholic apologists as agreement is convenire which is almost always translated in the Vulgate as "to have recourse to".  Also, St. Ireneaus describes Saints Peter and Paul as having trusted the episcopacy of Rome to Linus while St. Peter was still alive.

I confess I don't know much about Sardica, but St. Athanasius obviously didn't believe the Church was founded on St. Peter:
Quote
But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian...And because this is the faith of the Church, let them somehow understand that the Lord sent out the Apostles and commanded them to make this the foundation of the Church...

This has always and everywhere been acknowledged in the ancient Church, in Rome and Constantinople alike. Thus Pope Hadrian wrote to Nicaea II, "For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all ... For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors" and St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople wrote to Pope St. Leo III of Rome "Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven" which clearly attest to the inalienable prerogatives the See of Rome enjoys by divine right and Apostolic Tradition. The see of Constantinople, the second according to the canonical taxis that prevailed especially after Chalcedon, freely recognized this in the era when there was peace, unity and communion between East and West in the Church.

St. Theodore the Studite is certainly an irregularity within the Byzantine tradition, but he's rather late if you're trying to establish the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as a universally held apostolic tradition.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2015, 10:46:08 AM »
This is just a quick question.

Can someone please give me examples of quotes from Church Fathers demonstrating that all the bishops are successors of Saint Peter?  This is in opposition to the Roman Catholic view that the Roman Bishop alone is the successor of Peter. 

If it is impossible to produce such quotes,  it is possible that the Eastern Orthodox view is more of a misapplication of Sacred Scripture than the Roman Catholic view,

On the other hand if you can prove that the ECFs unanimously held that all bishops are successors of Saint Peter,  you have destroyed the Roman Catholic view.


It is not just the Church Fathers quotes that destroy the Latin faith, it is Ecumenical Council who do and the Holy Tradition. Read the records of 7 Ecumenical Councils, and you will realize how minor was the role of the bishop of Rome, not even slightly close to the role of today's Rome. Popes were respected as an bishop of important city and great history, and nothing else. They were not infallible vicars of Christ who could excommunicate angels and to whom all must kneel down and kiss the ring. This is Holy Tradition, the Church lived without papacy, as it lives today without pope completely.

Ecumenical Councils are supreme authority, focus on that.

LOL @ "The Latin Faith."  ;D
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2015, 12:05:58 PM »
I will reply simply to the OO: How can you, sedevacantist, judge this infallible office? Who IS to judge it? Please make an effort to answer.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,711
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2015, 12:50:33 PM »
I will reply simply to the OO: How can you, sedevacantist, judge this infallible office? Who IS to judge it? Please make an effort to answer.

We are not sedevacantists.  We do not profess undying loyalty to a God-protected see which is currently not occupied because God couldn't protect it from Freemasons, Communists, Modernists, etc., but instead has let it drown in a sea of heresy while a few faithful meeting in a VFW lodge in South Dakota constitute the entire Roman Catholic Church on earth, with their own homegrown Pope ordained by some guy who was ordained by some random Cambodian auxiliary bishop forty years ago and elected by the parishioners.

Who judges Rome?  Christ judges Rome.  The Church which is his body judges Rome.  The Orthodox faith judges Rome.  And Rome is found wanting.   

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2015, 12:58:48 PM »
I will reply simply to the OO: How can you, sedevacantist, judge this infallible office? Who IS to judge it? Please make an effort to answer.

We are not sedevacantists.  We do not profess undying loyalty to a God-protected see which is currently not occupied because God couldn't protect it from Freemasons, Communists, Modernists, etc., but instead has let it drown in a sea of heresy while a few faithful meeting in a VFW lodge in South Dakota constitute the entire Roman Catholic Church on earth, with their own homegrown Pope ordained by some guy who was ordained by some random Cambodian auxiliary bishop forty years ago and elected by the parishioners.

Who judges Rome?  Christ judges Rome.  The Church which is his body judges Rome.  The Orthodox faith judges Rome.  And Rome is found wanting.

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,711
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2015, 12:59:24 PM »
I will reply simply to the OO: How can you, sedevacantist, judge this infallible office? Who IS to judge it? Please make an effort to answer.

We are not sedevacantists.  We do not profess undying loyalty to a God-protected see which is currently not occupied because God couldn't protect it from Freemasons, Communists, Modernists, etc., but instead has let it drown in a sea of heresy while a few faithful meeting in a VFW lodge in South Dakota constitute the entire Roman Catholic Church on earth, with their own homegrown Pope ordained by some guy who was ordained by some random Cambodian auxiliary bishop forty years ago and elected by the parishioners.

Who judges Rome?  Christ judges Rome.  The Church which is his body judges Rome.  The Orthodox faith judges Rome.  And Rome is found wanting.



You are not far from the kingdom, my son.

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2015, 02:49:38 PM »
I will reply simply to the OO: How can you, sedevacantist, judge this infallible office? Who IS to judge it? Please make an effort to answer.

We are not sedevacantists. 

I meant OP. Mea culpa

MODERATOR, correct it please for the clarification of all.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 02:51:38 PM by wainscottbl »
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,711
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2015, 02:52:56 PM »
I will reply simply to the OO: How can you, sedevacantist, judge this infallible office? Who IS to judge it? Please make an effort to answer.

We are not sedevacantists. 

I meant OP. Mea culpa

MODERATOR, correct it please for the clarification of all.

Misereatur tui omnipotens Deus*, etc. 





*May Almighty God have mercy on you

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2015, 02:56:01 PM »
This is just a quick question.

Can someone please give me examples of quotes from Church Fathers demonstrating that all the bishops are successors of Saint Peter?  This is in opposition to the Roman Catholic view that the Roman Bishop alone is the successor of Peter. 

If it is impossible to produce such quotes,  it is possible that the Eastern Orthodox view is more of a misapplication of Sacred Scripture than the Roman Catholic view,

On the other hand if you can prove that the ECFs unanimously held that all bishops are successors of Saint Peter,  you have destroyed the Roman Catholic view.

There's St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 02:56:20 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,676
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2015, 03:35:32 PM »
Incorrect. Orthodox priest Fr. Afanassieff explains the thought of St. Cyprian, for example, "According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est - [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]."

Here is Dom Prosper Gueranger, an eminent Catholic scholar, prove that the same doctrine on the Keys (which signify episcopal authority and come from Peter the head to the Apostles, or the Roman Pontiff to the other shepherds of the Church) has ever been upheld by the Roman Church, the Apostolic See, "St. Optatus of Milevis says: "For the sake of unity, Peter was made the first among all the apostles, and he alone received the keys, that he might give them to the rest." By St. Gregory of Nyssa : "It is through Peter that Christ gave to bishops the keys of their heavenly prerogative." By St. Leo the Great : 'If our Lord willed that there should be something common to Peter and the rest of the princes of His Church, it was only on this condition, that whatsoever He gave to the rest, He gave it to them through Peter." Yes, the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors. Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman Pontiffs, from the earliest ages, who have always spoken of the dignity of bishops as consisting in their being "called to a. share of their own solicitude ... "

In the ancient Church, the sees of Alexandria and Antioch held the greatest authority after Rome, because of their Petrine origin. The pre-eminent authority of the Roman Church was already evident and is attested to by these ancient Apostolic Churches as well.  St. Ignatius, of Antioch, address it as "presiding over the brotherhood in love" and St. Irenaeus says "every Church must of necessity be in agreement with that Church" which he describes as "founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" and also records the well known facts that these two holy Apostles consecrated that Church in their own blood. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, addresses Pope St. Julius in the synod of Sardica he presided over, "it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."

This has always and everywhere been acknowledged in the ancient Church, in Rome and Constantinople alike. Thus Pope Hadrian wrote to Nicaea II, "For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all ... For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors" and St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople wrote to Pope St. Leo III of Rome "Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. Save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven" which clearly attest to the inalienable prerogatives the See of Rome enjoys by divine right and Apostolic Tradition. The see of Constantinople, the second according to the canonical taxis that prevailed especially after Chalcedon, freely recognized this in the era when there was peace, unity and communion between East and West in the Church.
As Mor pointed out, we have been here before:
Christ is ascended!
You got some quotes for me?
"Talitha qumi!" "Ephphatha!" "Eli, Eli, lama sabakhthani?"

You have been supplied plenty.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28604.msg451932.html#msg451932

They are not going to go away.  One of may favorites:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.


So did Christ say or did He not say "you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church?"
We do not have St. Matthew recording Him so saying, so you cannot tell.

The rebuttal you provided rests on a false premise that the Catholic Church teaches that only the Bishop of Rome enjoys the binding a loosing power of Peter. Rather the Catholic doctrine is perfectly harmonious with the passage which states :

"But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with [/size]Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.[/quote][/i]

For the Bishops exercise their powers only in union with their head, Peter, for apart from the union maintained through him they have no canonical authority to bind and loose. Thus it was necessary that Shenoute restore himself with his bishop for with his bishop he is restored to the head from whence canonical authority is legitimized. He would thus be indirectly excommunicated from and by Peter by virtue of communion with the head of the college .
Here the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches in Lumen Gentium :

"He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation.


This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2015, 04:27:56 PM »
This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on

And your argument is a red herring. No one is trying to dispute that the Roman Church teaches that all bishops share in the power of binding and loosing. It's mentioned in the gospel itself that all of the apostles received this power in Matthew 18. What's being disputed is whether or not the promises of Christ made to St. Peter were interpreted as applying solely to the Bishop of Rome or to the entire episcopacy.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 04:29:12 PM by Sam G »
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,676
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2015, 05:23:36 PM »
This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on

And your argument is a red herring. No one is trying to dispute that the Roman Church teaches that all bishops share in the power of binding and loosing. It's mentioned in the gospel itself that all of the apostles received this power in Matthew 18. What's being disputed is whether or not the promises of Christ made to St. Peter were interpreted as applying solely to the Bishop of Rome or to the entire episcopacy.

No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

The Catechism teaches :

"Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 05:25:49 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2015, 05:42:47 PM »
This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on

And your argument is a red herring. No one is trying to dispute that the Roman Church teaches that all bishops share in the power of binding and loosing. It's mentioned in the gospel itself that all of the apostles received this power in Matthew 18. What's being disputed is whether or not the promises of Christ made to St. Peter were interpreted as applying solely to the Bishop of Rome or to the entire episcopacy.

No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

The Catechism teaches :

"Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."
evidently not, as Besa records the words of that covenant applying to the bishop of Shmin.

As for your bold erroneous assErtion
Quote
In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in "Dict. Christ. Antiq.", s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hierarchy throughout the world.

Some few of the Fathers, however, are careful to note that the bestowal of this power upon St. Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles, denoted his primacy among the twelve (Optatus, "De Schism. Don.", vii, 3, in P.L., XI, 1087). Origen dilates at length on this point, but teaches erroneously that the power conferred upon the Twelve in Matthew 18:18, could only be exercised within certain restrictions of place, while that conferred upon St. Peter in Matthew 16:18, was of universal extent (Comm. in Matt., P.G., XIII, 1179).


Btw, Opatus places a great emphasis on the line of St. Peter at Rome, but then produces a incorrect list of popes (I'll let the comment on Origin "teaches erroneously" stand on its own).
Quote
The whole schism has arisen through the quarrel as to the episcopal succession at Carthage, and it might have been expected that Optatus would claim this property of cathedra by pointing out the legitimacy of the Catholic succession at Carthage. But he does not. He replies: "We must examine who sat first in the chair, and where. . . .You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome upon Peter first the chair of the bishop was conferred, in which sat the head of all the Apostles, Peter, whence also he was called Cephas, in which one chair unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles should each stand up for his own chair, so that now he should be a schismatic and a sinner who should against this one chair set up another. Therefore in the one chair, which is the first of the dotes Peter first sat, to whom succeeded Linus." An incorrect list of popes follows, ending with, "and to Damasus Siricius, who is today our colleague, with whom the whole world with us agrees by the communication of commendatory letters in the fellowship of one communion. Tell us the origin of your chair, you who wish to claim the holy Church for yourselves". Optatus then mocks at the recent succession of Donatist antipopes at Rome.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11262b.htm
Quote
The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

Wandile of Pretoria and Wyatt of Peoria.  Hmmm
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 05:47:00 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2015, 05:51:58 PM »
In the ancient Church, the sees of Alexandria and Antioch held the greatest authority after Rome, because of their Petrine origin.
no, because of their secular importance. Otherwise Antioch would have come before Alexandria, and Jerusalem would have been on the list-if you notice St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles acts only in Jerusalem-except when he is sent by Jerusalem to Samaria. (St. John 13:16).
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2015, 04:10:30 AM »
This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on

And your argument is a red herring. No one is trying to dispute that the Roman Church teaches that all bishops share in the power of binding and loosing. It's mentioned in the gospel itself that all of the apostles received this power in Matthew 18. What's being disputed is whether or not the promises of Christ made to St. Peter were interpreted as applying solely to the Bishop of Rome or to the entire episcopacy.

No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

The Catechism teaches :

"Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."


To my understanding, I think it all comes down to this:

The orthodox view is that all bishops are of equal in chrism, with some having administrative function.

RC's view is that the bishop of rome doesn't simply posses administrative rights but also special chrism that makes him a special bishop above all bishops, that special chrism gives him:

- The exclusive right to rule all other bishops
- exclusive infallibility (no other bishop can speak ex-cathedra)
- exclusive vicar of God on earth
- exclusively having the keys (exclusively binding and losing)

Do i understand this correct ?

« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 04:24:56 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,676
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2015, 10:06:58 AM »
This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on

And your argument is a red herring. No one is trying to dispute that the Roman Church teaches that all bishops share in the power of binding and loosing. It's mentioned in the gospel itself that all of the apostles received this power in Matthew 18. What's being disputed is whether or not the promises of Christ made to St. Peter were interpreted as applying solely to the Bishop of Rome or to the entire episcopacy.

No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

The Catechism teaches :

"Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."


To my understanding, I think it all comes down to this:

The orthodox view is that all bishops are of equal in chrism, with some having administrative function.
Same as the Catholics. All bishops are equal in dignity but not in administrative authority.

RC's view is that the bishop of rome doesn't simply posses administrative rights but also special chrism that makes him a special bishop above all bishops
"special" only in that he has a primacy, he is first in ranking of bishops, and the source of the unity. This comes with specific rights and responsibilities in order to maintain the unity of the church and purity of the faith

, the special chrism gives him:

- The exclusive right to rule all other bishops
Yes but it must be applied only when needed and not when "he just feels like it" as in this he scandalizes the office he holds (Pope St. Victor to the eastern Churches). The Bishop of Rome acts over the church in a similar fashion a patriarch acts within his patriarchate.

-exclusive infallibility (no other bishop can speak ex-cathedra)
Yes in one sense that is in a single person this is true. But the bishops can speak together infallibly in the ordinary magisterium of the church through ecumenical councils or through speaking together in consensus dispersed throughout the world on a point of faith

-exclusive vicar of God on earth
All bishops are vicars of Christ. However only the Pope holds this title official in the context of heading the church in the physical absence of the true head, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

-exclusively having the keys (exclusively binding and losing)
The power to bind and loose is not exclusive to the Pope but rather the whole Church possesses this power. The power of the Keys is limited to the Pope as it was given to him as Peters successor as the right to govern the Church. It is interpreted as an analogy to a passage in the Book of Isaiah where in the absence of the king the prime minister holds the keys and rules in the Kings absence on His behalf.

-Do i understand this correct ?
For the most part yes. :)
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 10:11:01 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2015, 10:44:18 AM »
The power to bind and loose is not exclusive to the Pope but rather the whole Church possesses this power. The power of the Keys is limited to the Pope as it was given to him as Peters successor as the right to govern the Church. It is interpreted as an analogy to a passage in the Book of Isaiah where in the absence of the king the prime minister holds the keys and rules in the Kings absence on His behalf.
So the keys are not used for binding and losing but to govern the church ?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 10:46:59 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2015, 01:05:54 PM »
This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on

And your argument is a red herring. No one is trying to dispute that the Roman Church teaches that all bishops share in the power of binding and loosing. It's mentioned in the gospel itself that all of the apostles received this power in Matthew 18. What's being disputed is whether or not the promises of Christ made to St. Peter were interpreted as applying solely to the Bishop of Rome or to the entire episcopacy.

No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

The Catechism teaches :

"Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."

To my understanding, I think it all comes down to this:

The orthodox view is that all bishops are of equal in chrism, with some having administrative function.
Same as the Catholics. All bishops are equal in dignity but not in administrative authority.

Except one Bishop in particular has a Divine Authority which is both episcopal and immediate over the entire body of the faithful, including fellow bishops.  Also, by Divine right this particular Bishop's decisions cannot be judged or overturned by any legitimate means.


"Equal Dignity"

RC's view is that the bishop of rome doesn't simply posses administrative rights but also special chrism that makes him a special bishop above all bishops
"special" only in that he has a primacy, he is first in ranking of bishops, and the source of the unity. This comes with specific rights and responsibilities in order to maintain the unity of the church and purity of the faith

, the special chrism gives him:

- The exclusive right to rule all other bishops
Yes but it must be applied only when needed and not when "he just feels like it" as in this he scandalizes the office he holds (Pope St. Victor to the eastern Churches). The Bishop of Rome acts over the church in a similar fashion a patriarch acts within his patriarchate.

An Orthodox patriarch does not have an Divinely given authority that is both episcopal and immediate outside of his diocese. And while it's true that when power is unnecessarily wielded by the Papacy it creates bad feelings, there's no legitimate means to counter or restrain this power, which has been given to him by God.

-exclusive infallibility (no other bishop can speak ex-cathedra)
Yes in one sense that is in a single person this is true. But the bishops can speak together infallibly in the ordinary magisterium of the church through ecumenical councils or through speaking together in consensus dispersed throughout the world on a point of faith.

True, but in theory unnecessary considering that infallibly has already been guaranteed by God to one bishop whose decision would be binding on all bishops throughout the world.

-exclusive vicar of God on earth
All bishops are vicars of Christ. However only the Pope holds this title official in the context of heading the church in the physical absence of the true head, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
So it's basically a title devoid of all meaning unless you happen to be a certain bishop.

-exclusively having the keys (exclusively binding and losing)
The power to bind and loose is not exclusive to the Pope but rather the whole Church possesses this power. The power of the Keys is limited to the Pope as it was given to him as Peters successor as the right to govern the Church. It is interpreted as an analogy to a passage in the Book of Isaiah where in the absence of the king the prime minister holds the keys and rules in the Kings absence on His behalf.

Consensum Patrum.

-Do i understand this correct ?
For the most part yes. :)

No.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 01:09:39 PM by Sam G »
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2015, 02:14:02 PM »
No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

St. Augustine, sermon 149:
Quote
Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.

St. Augustine, sermon 295:
Quote
After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity.

St. Augustine, sermon 229:
Quote
If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alone did this; he passed away, and went away; so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys.

St. Augustine, On the Gospel of St. John:
Quote
'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.' If this was said only to Peter, it gives no ground of action to the Church.

St. Augustine, sermon 392:
Quote
So was there no point in the Lord saying, What you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt 18:18; 16:19)? So were the keys given to the Church of God for nothing?

St. John Chrysostom, On the Gospel of St. John:
Quote
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...

St. Cyprian of Carthage, epistle 33:
Quote
Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew:
Quote
Then he adds: 'And to you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' This word no angel nor any other rational power can speak. It is proper only to God, Lord of all, who holds power in heaven and earth. Moreover the time of the gift was the hour of the resurrection when he said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any they are retained

St. Gaudentius of Brescia, Tract 16:
Quote
But later, when Judas had been condemned for the crime that he had committed; all the apostles, when Christ had risen, receive the keys in Peter; yea, rather, with Peter receive the keys of the heavenly kingdom from the Lord Himself, when He says, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven;' and again, 'Going,' He says, 'teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' For the gate of the kingdom of heaven is not opened save by this key of the spiritual sacraments

St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity:
Quote
Hence has she (the Church) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God.

St. Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticus:
Quote
Thus the Lord says to him: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and I shall give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.' So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of honor and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles.

St. Jerome, Against Jovinanius:
Quote
But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven....

Origen, On the Gospel of St. Matthew:
Quote
Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.

Tertullian, Scorpiace X.:
Quote
For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him

Actually Wandile, of all of the Fathers whose commentary on Matthew 16:18 mentions the keys 9 either state explicitly or imply that all of the apostles received them (10 if you count St. Cyprian who implies that the power of the keys is given to the episcopacy) and 7 state explicitly or imply that only St. Peter received them. However, 4 out of the 7 that imply or state that only St. Peter received them don't interpret the keys a symbol of authority but rather as symbol of his faith.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 02:19:36 PM by Sam G »
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,676
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2015, 02:32:00 PM »
This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on

And your argument is a red herring. No one is trying to dispute that the Roman Church teaches that all bishops share in the power of binding and loosing. It's mentioned in the gospel itself that all of the apostles received this power in Matthew 18. What's being disputed is whether or not the promises of Christ made to St. Peter were interpreted as applying solely to the Bishop of Rome or to the entire episcopacy.

No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

The Catechism teaches :

"Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."

To my understanding, I think it all comes down to this:

The orthodox view is that all bishops are of equal in chrism, with some having administrative function.
Same as the Catholics. All bishops are equal in dignity but not in administrative authority.

Except one Bishop in particular has a Divine Authority which is both episcopal and immediate over the entire body of the faithful, including fellow bishops.  Also, by Divine right this particular Bishop's decisions cannot be judged or overturned by any legitimate means.


"Equal Dignity"

RC's view is that the bishop of rome doesn't simply posses administrative rights but also special chrism that makes him a special bishop above all bishops
"special" only in that he has a primacy, he is first in ranking of bishops, and the source of the unity. This comes with specific rights and responsibilities in order to maintain the unity of the church and purity of the faith

, the special chrism gives him:

- The exclusive right to rule all other bishops
Yes but it must be applied only when needed and not when "he just feels like it" as in this he scandalizes the office he holds (Pope St. Victor to the eastern Churches). The Bishop of Rome acts over the church in a similar fashion a patriarch acts within his patriarchate.

An Orthodox patriarch does not have an Divinely given authority that is both episcopal and immediate outside of his diocese. And while it's true that when power is unnecessarily wielded by the Papacy it creates bad feelings, there's no legitimate means to counter or restrain this power, which has been given to him by God.

-exclusive infallibility (no other bishop can speak ex-cathedra)
Yes in one sense that is in a single person this is true. But the bishops can speak together infallibly in the ordinary magisterium of the church through ecumenical councils or through speaking together in consensus dispersed throughout the world on a point of faith.

True, but in theory unnecessary considering that infallibly has already been guaranteed by God to one bishop whose decision would be binding on all bishops throughout the world.

-exclusive vicar of God on earth
All bishops are vicars of Christ. However only the Pope holds this title official in the context of heading the church in the physical absence of the true head, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
So it's basically a title devoid of all meaning unless you happen to be a certain bishop.

-exclusively having the keys (exclusively binding and losing)
The power to bind and loose is not exclusive to the Pope but rather the whole Church possesses this power. The power of the Keys is limited to the Pope as it was given to him as Peters successor as the right to govern the Church. It is interpreted as an analogy to a passage in the Book of Isaiah where in the absence of the king the prime minister holds the keys and rules in the Kings absence on His behalf.

Consensum Patrum.

-Do i understand this correct ?
For the most part yes. :)

No.

I'm not here to start a debate. Just to explain our view. Debates on this site a rather futile as everyone is fixed in their opinions including myself. No Orthodox argument has ever convinced me and never will as I'm totally convinced of the catholic faith and not  through reason but through living it.

Have a good Sunday tomorrow
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,676
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2015, 02:38:35 PM »
The power to bind and loose is not exclusive to the Pope but rather the whole Church possesses this power. The power of the Keys is limited to the Pope as it was given to him as Peters successor as the right to govern the Church. It is interpreted as an analogy to a passage in the Book of Isaiah where in the absence of the king the prime minister holds the keys and rules in the Kings absence on His behalf.
So the keys are not used for binding and losing but to govern the church ?

They are as by the keys he is given the authority to bind and loose. But the authority to bind and loose is due to Peter holding the keys and having authority to govern the church. Hence we teach all bishops obtain their authority through unity with the church which finds its summit, with Peter and his successors. Outside of it no bishop may bind or loose for they do not hold fast this unity from whence this power comes from which was given to the Church by Christ through Peter when he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 02:41:23 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2015, 02:54:02 PM »

Quote
They are as by the keys he is given the authority to bind and loose.

Well, if the power to bind and to lose is inseparable from the keys, therefore it logically follows that all who received the power to bind and to lose do so with the keys.

Therefor the logical conclusion should be that all the apostles received the keys.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 02:55:18 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,676
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2015, 03:04:09 PM »

Quote
They are as by the keys he is given the authority to bind and loose.

Well, if the power to bind and to lose is inseparable from the keys, therefore it logically follows that all who received the power to bind and to lose do so with the keys.

Therefor the logical conclusion should be that all the apostles received the keys.

Note my denial is not that the apostles did not receive the keys, I denied that they received them as proper to themselves as the power was given properly to Peter. It is through Peters they share in ruling and governing the church. But yet it must be acknowledged the keys are given to Peter alone and this is how the Church has the power to bind and loose.

Ephraim the Syrian

Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter [Kefa, or Rock, in the original text], because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they would wish to build upon what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of the kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures.”

John Chrysostom

For it is a laborious thing indeed to have the oversight of a hundred men, and of fifty alone. But to have on one's hands so great a city, and a population extending to two hundred thousand, of how great virtue and wisdom do you think there is a proof? For as in the care of armies, the wiser of the generals have on their hands the more leading and more numerous regiments, so, accordingly, in the care of cities. The more able of the rulers are entrusted with the larger and more populous. And at any rate this city was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. (Chrysostom, Homily on Ignatius, 4)

He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", 1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].

Gregory the Great

To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles . . . Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him (Epistles, 5, 37; to Emperor Maurice)
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2015, 03:34:03 PM »
Quote picking as problematic as has been said. What causes me problems with the papal thing is how confusing it is when a statement is infallible, etc. Yes, I know the whole " it's only available when he speaks ex cathedra, but you should hear some of the arguments about when a statement is so and what it is not. So the argument that the Orthodox Church cannot call, or even make up their minds, when any post Early Church Council is ecumenical is negated. And yes the Magisterium interprets the Magisterium, etc, etc, etc,. And then there's the whole thing when the Pope falls into error  like today, when his error is often grave heresy. Can he be deposed, and if so how? No one can give me a straight answer on this matter. So all the arguments against the Orthodox not having to straight argument on this or that issue, like Toll Houses, is, again, negated.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2015, 09:16:42 PM »
This is not a a rebuttal to EO belief but rather to the straw man the argument presented earlier by you rests on

And your argument is a red herring. No one is trying to dispute that the Roman Church teaches that all bishops share in the power of binding and loosing. It's mentioned in the gospel itself that all of the apostles received this power in Matthew 18. What's being disputed is whether or not the promises of Christ made to St. Peter were interpreted as applying solely to the Bishop of Rome or to the entire episcopacy.

No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

The Catechism teaches :

"Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom."

To my understanding, I think it all comes down to this:

The orthodox view is that all bishops are of equal in chrism, with some having administrative function.
Same as the Catholics. All bishops are equal in dignity but not in administrative authority.

Except one Bishop in particular has a Divine Authority which is both episcopal and immediate over the entire body of the faithful, including fellow bishops.  Also, by Divine right this particular Bishop's decisions cannot be judged or overturned by any legitimate means.


"Equal Dignity"

RC's view is that the bishop of rome doesn't simply posses administrative rights but also special chrism that makes him a special bishop above all bishops
"special" only in that he has a primacy, he is first in ranking of bishops, and the source of the unity. This comes with specific rights and responsibilities in order to maintain the unity of the church and purity of the faith

, the special chrism gives him:

- The exclusive right to rule all other bishops
Yes but it must be applied only when needed and not when "he just feels like it" as in this he scandalizes the office he holds (Pope St. Victor to the eastern Churches). The Bishop of Rome acts over the church in a similar fashion a patriarch acts within his patriarchate.

An Orthodox patriarch does not have an Divinely given authority that is both episcopal and immediate outside of his diocese. And while it's true that when power is unnecessarily wielded by the Papacy it creates bad feelings, there's no legitimate means to counter or restrain this power, which has been given to him by God.

-exclusive infallibility (no other bishop can speak ex-cathedra)
Yes in one sense that is in a single person this is true. But the bishops can speak together infallibly in the ordinary magisterium of the church through ecumenical councils or through speaking together in consensus dispersed throughout the world on a point of faith.

True, but in theory unnecessary considering that infallibly has already been guaranteed by God to one bishop whose decision would be binding on all bishops throughout the world.

-exclusive vicar of God on earth
All bishops are vicars of Christ. However only the Pope holds this title official in the context of heading the church in the physical absence of the true head, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
So it's basically a title devoid of all meaning unless you happen to be a certain bishop.

-exclusively having the keys (exclusively binding and losing)
The power to bind and loose is not exclusive to the Pope but rather the whole Church possesses this power. The power of the Keys is limited to the Pope as it was given to him as Peters successor as the right to govern the Church. It is interpreted as an analogy to a passage in the Book of Isaiah where in the absence of the king the prime minister holds the keys and rules in the Kings absence on His behalf.

Consensum Patrum.

-Do i understand this correct ?
For the most part yes. :)

No.

I'm not here to start a debate. Just to explain our view. Debates on this site a rather futile as everyone is fixed in their opinions including myself. No Orthodox argument has ever convinced me and never will as I'm totally convinced of the catholic faith and not  through reason but through living it.

Have a good Sunday tomorrow

You too Wandile. God bless. I mean it.
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2015, 07:42:20 PM »
And this is Vatican II

Please... so much about your Robber Councils...

See this picture. This is what happens to a Church which fails to follow Holy Tradition (Orthodoxy). hahaha You guys are so fake, i cant understand how don't you see this...

Hi Mountain. Odd that none of your fellow Orthodox posters piggy-backed on your argument (well, not counting those who have drunk the ecumenical cool-aid).  :o
- Peter Jericho

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2015, 04:16:39 AM »
Quote from: Sam
St. Theodore the Studite is certainly an irregularity within the Byzantine tradition, but he's rather late if you're trying to establish the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as a universally held apostolic tradition.

St. Theodore certainly affirms said primacy, but he is far from an irregularity in Byzantium in doing so. St. Maximus of Constantinople, much earlier and very plainly, declares the Roman Church "from of old until now, as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all?" Saying that Apostles have established and Councils have confirmed this, he continues "she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law. He writes elsewhere that "from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it" (these citations in their historical context may be read http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm here). St. Theodore also tells us he is not repeating any personal opinion, but giving voice to the Tradition of his Church from the earliest times, "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ..." (sources here http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html)

Among others in Constantinople, we have Patriarch John VI who confirms the Petrine privileges belong to the Pope of Rome, he says "the Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren." There are many witnesses to this truth outside Constantinople, Metropolitan Sergius "O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed" is only one. So, when St. Theodore tells Pope St. Paschal, "Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter" he is only confirming how the Church of Constantinople always traditionally understood the Petrine passages in Sacred Scripture.

The "false translation" or misinterpretation claim in St. Ignatius or St. Irenaeus is unsustainable. Regarding the passage in St. Ignatius, you would have it reduce to a tautology, Rome presides in the region of the Romans! :) But the meaning is "To the Church which presides, in the region of the Romans, ..." as is confirmed elsewhere in St. Ignatius. Orthodox scholars like Fr. Afanasieff and Fr. Schmemann among several others write that it is no false translation. On St. Ignatius, Father writes, "The Roman Church 'presides' in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term 'which presides' needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the 'first place' at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church ... the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the 'first place.' So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord ... In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome. " and on St. Irenaeus, "I think a likelier sense of -convenire- here is 'address oneself to,' 'turn to,' 'have recourse to.' The sense of the remark would then be: every local church should have recourse to the Church of Rome ... This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches." And as we have seen, it is this ancient right of recourse which later synods under Damasus and at Sardica would codify was widely accepted in the East, Constantinople, Jerusalem and elsewhere, St. Maximus, St. Theodore, St. Nicephorus, St. Sophronius and many others bearing witness.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2015, 04:41:49 AM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline Xavier

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for US!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2015, 04:41:00 AM »
To take only two for the sake of brevity, Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople confirms this canonical right the Roman Church has received by Apostolic Tradition as follows, "Without whom a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (i.e. the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles." St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Bishop Dora (the citations are in the link given above) under him likewise bear witness, "we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church." clearly showing the Tradition of all the Churches, especially of the patriarchal sees, always believed and upheld this canonical right and prerogative of that Church alone which presides over the brotherhood in love.

With regard to the other passages, Sam, no Catholic denies the other Apostles and Bishops have their own share in the power of keys, (else they would not be able to excommunicate or absolve, as of course they can) but we hold that as the Apostles received it through Peter the head, (which Presbyter Philip in Ephesus I, St. Leo the Great cited earlier and many others attest) the Bishops receive it from the Pope of Rome, the head of the Episcopate, as Patriarch John VI clearly says. The Catholic Church teaches quite clearly, "The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head" and it is in this sense that the other Churches and their Patriarchs and Bishops inherit the supreme Petrine power - indirectly and mediately, as members of the episcopal body together with the head, whereas the Roman Church and Her Sovereign Pontiff receive it directly and immediately, as being by divine right the head of the episcopate. Therefore, the other bishops are also the subject of the supreme power over the universal Church, and jointly preside with him, provided only that they remain subject to and in communion with the Bishop of Rome their head.

Orthodox4Christ, you appeal to Pope St. Gregory the Great, as the CE notes, that Servant of the Servants of God "reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12)" clearly showing he was a defender and expositor of that true and proper primacy of jurisdiction, that is, of judging and teaching, which the Roman Church has by divine institution. I have already agreed all bishops, especially and in the first place the Patriarchs of those Sees historically connected to the Apostle Peter, receive the supreme power of the episcopate signified by the Keys together as a college united with and subject to the bishop of Rome, but never apart from him, and still less without or against him. That is implied in the head-body analogy used by your own Patriarchs and Saints, never mind Roman Pontiffs like St. Gregory.

And, Vanyho, yes, there is no question at all of unequal sacramental dignity, but only of a differentiated administrative function. The primatial function over the brotherhood, this presidency of love, by the nature of the episcopate instituted in St. Peter, as Patriarch John VI puts it, as a body subject to a universal visible head, and of "sacerdotal law" confirmed by canons and established by Apostles, as St. Maximus puts it, belongs exclusively to the Roman Church.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2015, 04:43:30 AM by Xavier »
"My daughter, look at My Heart surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, try to console Me, and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep Me company for a quarter of an hour" - The Theotokos to Sr. Lucia.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2015, 12:29:49 AM »
No for the whole quote refers to the power of binding and loosing, not the gift of the keys to the kingdom of heaven which was specifically and properly promised to Peter alone (only a select few who are an extreme minority among the fathers hold  that all the apostles properly received the keys).

St. Augustine, sermon 149:
Quote
Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.

St. Augustine, sermon 295:
Quote
After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity.

St. Augustine, sermon 229:
Quote
If it was said to Peter alone, Peter alone did this; he passed away, and went away; so who binds, who looses? I make bold to say, we too have these keys.

St. Augustine, On the Gospel of St. John:
Quote
'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.' If this was said only to Peter, it gives no ground of action to the Church.

St. Augustine, sermon 392:
Quote
So was there no point in the Lord saying, What you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt 18:18; 16:19)? So were the keys given to the Church of God for nothing?

St. John Chrysostom, On the Gospel of St. John:
Quote
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...

St. Cyprian of Carthage, epistle 33:
Quote
Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew:
Quote
Then he adds: 'And to you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' This word no angel nor any other rational power can speak. It is proper only to God, Lord of all, who holds power in heaven and earth. Moreover the time of the gift was the hour of the resurrection when he said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any they are retained

St. Gaudentius of Brescia, Tract 16:
Quote
But later, when Judas had been condemned for the crime that he had committed; all the apostles, when Christ had risen, receive the keys in Peter; yea, rather, with Peter receive the keys of the heavenly kingdom from the Lord Himself, when He says, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven;' and again, 'Going,' He says, 'teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' For the gate of the kingdom of heaven is not opened save by this key of the spiritual sacraments

St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity:
Quote
Hence has she (the Church) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God.

St. Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticus:
Quote
Thus the Lord says to him: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and I shall give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.' So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of honor and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles.

St. Jerome, Against Jovinanius:
Quote
But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven....

Origen, On the Gospel of St. Matthew:
Quote
Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.

Tertullian, Scorpiace X.:
Quote
For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him

Actually Wandile, of all of the Fathers whose commentary on Matthew 16:18 mentions the keys 9 either state explicitly or imply that all of the apostles received them (10 if you count St. Cyprian who implies that the power of the keys is given to the episcopacy) and 7 state explicitly or imply that only St. Peter received them. However, 4 out of the 7 that imply or state that only St. Peter received them don't interpret the keys a symbol of authority but rather as symbol of his faith.

Thank you Sam, this is a keeper... ;)

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2015, 01:47:07 AM »
Quote from: Sam
St. Theodore the Studite is certainly an irregularity within the Byzantine tradition, but he's rather late if you're trying to establish the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as a universally held apostolic tradition.

St. Theodore certainly affirms said primacy, but he is far from an irregularity in Byzantium in doing so. St. Maximus of Constantinople, much earlier and very plainly, declares the Roman Church "from of old until now, as the elder of all the Churches under the sun, presides over all?" Saying that Apostles have established and Councils have confirmed this, he continues "she is subject to no writings or issues of synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate, even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law. He writes elsewhere that "from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it" (these citations in their historical context may be read http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm here). St. Theodore also tells us he is not repeating any personal opinion, but giving voice to the Tradition of his Church from the earliest times, "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ..." (sources here http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html)

St. Maximus attributes to Rome a primacy according to "all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions," the question is though: what synods and what canons are St. Maximus referring to? Also, this really doesn't help your case, since St. Maximus is implying that Rome's authority comes from councils.

Also, with regards to St. Theodore, if he's quoting from the tradition of the earliest times, why do you resort to quoting later Byzantine theologians who may or may not have been exposed to altered canons?

Among others in Constantinople, we have Patriarch John VI who confirms the Petrine privileges belong to the Pope of Rome, he says "the Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren." There are many witnesses to this truth outside Constantinople, Metropolitan Sergius "O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed" is only one. So, when St. Theodore tells Pope St. Paschal, "Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter" he is only confirming how the Church of Constantinople always traditionally understood the Petrine passages in Sacred Scripture.

That last bit is a bold (and blatantly false) statement when you consider that St. John Chrysostom was once Archbishop of Constantinople.

The "false translation" or misinterpretation claim in St. Ignatius or St. Irenaeus is unsustainable. Regarding the passage in St. Ignatius, you would have it reduce to a tautology, Rome presides in the region of the Romans! :) But the meaning is "To the Church which presides, in the region of the Romans, ..." as is confirmed elsewhere in St. Ignatius. Orthodox scholars like Fr. Afanasieff and Fr. Schmemann among several others write that it is no false translation. On St. Ignatius, Father writes, "The Roman Church 'presides' in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term 'which presides' needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the 'first place' at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church ... the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the 'first place.' So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord ... In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome. " and on St. Irenaeus, "I think a likelier sense of -convenire- here is 'address oneself to,' 'turn to,' 'have recourse to.' The sense of the remark would then be: every local church should have recourse to the Church of Rome ... This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches." And as we have seen, it is this ancient right of recourse which later synods under Damasus and at Sardica would codify was widely accepted in the East, Constantinople, Jerusalem and elsewhere, St. Maximus, St. Theodore, St. Nicephorus, St. Sophronius and many others bearing witness.

Whose analysis of St. Ignatius are you quoting. You didn't really specify. It's also laughably bad, even if it did come from an Orthodox source. Read the rest of St. Ignatius's epistles.

Read St. Irenaeus in context.
Quote
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse,and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?

Rome was the only Apostolic See in the West, where St. Irenaeus was writing from (Gaul), and since we don't have the Greek original of his work we can only speculate the exact meaning of convenire.


« Last Edit: July 28, 2015, 01:50:46 AM by Sam G »
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline Sam G

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,212
  • One Rome to rule them all.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2015, 01:56:02 AM »
With regard to the other passages, Sam, no Catholic denies the other Apostles and Bishops have their own share in the power of keys, (else they would not be able to excommunicate or absolve, as of course they can) but we hold that as the Apostles received it through Peter the head...

And the Fathers don't.

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2015, 10:53:07 AM »
Interestingly enough, I recently found a critical edition of St. Cyprian's De Unitate Ecclesiae which included a somewhat different, undoubtedly interpolated, version that is found in only one manuscript. That version was more favorable to the Papacy and excluded, amongst others, the famous "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole" and added in more praise of St. Peter and the Pope. Even more interestingly, that version was called version one despite overwhelming evidence against its genuineness.

Then again, the editor was a Jesuit and he did sort of explain it in the footnotes, but still, it makes one wonder, what more could be interpolated about St. Peter?
On this one:

This has been dealt with a lot (including on St. Chrysostom's words on St. James and St. John, in addition to St. Peter). For an example:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 10:54:48 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Church Fathers on All Bishops Being Successors of Peter
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2015, 11:03:53 AM »
I've considered converting for a long period of time,  but now I don't think so.  In my opinion the Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe is pretty convicting proof the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded.   I haven't heard of anything like this in the post-schism Eastern Church.  It's impossible for that miracle to have been the work of the devil (he cannot conjure things into existence in that kind of way) and God would not perform such a miracle in a false church.  This is why I had to rethink my evaluation of Church History. 
"I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. ...such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds...there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth