East and West

Slav

Saving Onesimus' thread from "Orthodoxy vs Catholicism" offtopic I'll create a new thread and reply to some of the points raised there.

alex73 wrote: »

East says the west pulled away, the west says the east did. Problem is that the East seem themselves as the keepers of the true faith, and any attempts to unit they see as a threat.

They are very sceptical about the possibility of reunion indeed but they don't see it as a threat. What they do see as a threat is Roman proselytism (which at times can be very violent). As a result, every time when Catholicism is trying to initiate a dialogue, on Orthodox side the proselytism alarm usually goes straight off.

PDN wrote: »

Do you see how from their perspective the problem is that the West see themselves as the keepers of the true faith?

Is it not the root cause of all schisms? I'm usually jealous of the spirit of unity among Evangelicals - arminians and calvinists, post- and pre- millennialists, everybody - feel united as One Church or Christ. Unfortunately it's not an option for us, Orthodox and Catholic, as our unity has to be Eucharistic in nature.

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholics see the Orthodox as schismatics, whereas they see the Catholics as heretics.

I wonder how can you be sure that we are not heretics? For example, judging from your reaction on some specific points of the Orthodox faith you don't even know what atonement we believe. What if it's a heresy?

The truth is, it was the Orthodox who broke communion.

How so? Was it an Eastern cardinal who came to Rome and rudely put an excommunication bull on the altar when the Pope was celebrating Mass?

Was it the Bishop of Rome and Latins who tried to reduce the conflict to misbehaviour of a particular cardinal so it would not look like a Church schism?

And once Rome insisted that it's a schism, was it four Patriarchs leaving one at once or was it actually a "slán agat" of that one to the other four?

They need to come home to Rome

Have you researched a possibility that it's actually the other way round: Rome needs to return back to Orthodoxy?

Let's not forget Our Lord built the Church on Peter, the rock, and also the other Apostles in communion with him. This unity with Peter is vital for Catholicity.

If I remember correctly we already started discussing this claim about a year ago with one of your previous incarnations, but unfortunately it became rather heated so the mods had to close it. If you are ready for a friendly exchange of opinions and some history and Church Fathers studying to the benefit of all then we can resume any time.

Donatello wrote: »

As I understand it, all the Orthodox would need to do is accept the Pope's universal supremacy and primacy and accept the Magisterium. Then communion could be restored.

That's another difference in our approaches to the union. Catholics say let's unite and we'll work out our differences then. Orthodox say let's work out our differences first and so be united.

Unfortunately, cut off from this vital communion, we already see the Orthodox withering, most notably on their weakening stance on contraception and abortion.

And from Orthodox perspective it's Rome who keeps introducing heterodoxy on topics far more important than contraception (which is not a huge question really). Abortion is, was and will be seen as a terrible sin by all true Christians, Orthodox are not an exception here.

Cut off from Peter, disintegration and fragmentation of the faith are bound to occur - when the branches are cut off from the living tree of Christ's Church, built on the rock of Peter.

The problem is that from Orthodox perspective it's the Roman Church that is cut off from Peter.

These are very strong arguments with contemporary evidence for their validity as regards the claims made by the Catholic Church.

They are only strong until they are stress tested.

alex73 wrote: »

Its not how the orthodox see it. The problem is we are 2 church's who walked away from each other and both of them have formed traditions, saints and teachings around the faith.

In Orthodoxy, there were new saints alright since the schism but hardly anything can be considered as new traditions or teachings.

But the last time the Pope Spoke infallible was in 1950 and was to proclaim Mary assumption. The east takes exception that the west has proclaimed it as a Dogma, but to be honest they also believe in the same faith.

Still there are differences between Orthodox Dormition and Catholic Assumption. For example, in Orthodoxy it's completely unacceptable to believe that the Theotokos did not die while in Catholicism it's an acceptable theologoumena AFAIK.

Also, Orthodox do call the conception of Theotokos "immaculate" and there is a feast for that in Orthodox Church as well. However that another ex cathedra dogma of the Catholic Church, Immaculate Conception, is seen by Orthodox no less than an "unacceptable answer to a non-existing question" because it just makes no sense in Eastern theology.

But they dismiss theological discussion or any discussion on Faith.

Well, I am Orthodox.
I enjoy theological discussions, especially with Catholics. On this board including. It's great to have yourself, lmaopml, keely1, Michael G, Onesimus, Donatello (with all his former incarnations ), Quo Vadis, Keylem, hinault, branie and other Catholics (sorry if I missed someone) here - it's one of the reasons I keep coming back to the Christianity forum on boards.ie

Catholics are heretics, End of Story.

I would not call Catholics heretics. Perhaps you got that impression from some hard line Orthodox or former Cathlics converted to Orthodoxy: they usually don't bother choosing the words.

I think a heretic is someone who once had the right faith but then departures from it. Also during the first few centuries of Christianity, and that's essentially where the Orthodox are comfortably stuck, catholic and orthodox (small 'c' and 'o') Christians used to call heretics those who preached wrong christology. Based on these criteria I think it would not be right to call modern Catholics or Protestants heretics: they confess the right christology and they confess their traditional faith. That faith can be heterodox in places but not really heretical. In case or Rome Orthodox think that it did not necessarily departed from the Apostolic faith but rather started adding non-catholic doctrines to it.

I think in an effort to unit the Church the Pope will probably clarify his role. At the end of the day he is not going to speak infallibly without the consent of the Church, and our faith is mature.. what is there to add?

Actually, Papacy is not the only and not the major obstacle. And speaking of Papacy, it's not actually the role of Pope that is in question. It's more than that: we differ in understanding of the term "catholicity" and that's where the ecumenical dialogue should really start.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is a very holy man, Bartholomew I, He was a lecturer in the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. But unlike the Bishop of Rome, he does not lead an united Church, and the same respect Catholics show to the Pope is not shown to him by the Orthodox.

And rightly so. The Patriarch of Constantinople is not any different from, for example, Patriarch of Serbia. Except that the Serbian Church has probably more parishes then the Church of Constantinople.

As I said we understand unity and catholicity a bit different.

Donatello

Slav wrote: »

1. Have you researched a possibility that it's actually the other way round: Rome needs to return back to Orthodoxy?

2. That's another difference in our approaches to the union. Catholics say let's unite and we'll work out our differences then. Orthodox say let's work out our differences first and so be united.

3. The problem is that from Orthodox perspective it's the Roman Church that is cut off from Peter.

Let's start with 3 points, otherwise it gets very confusing.

1. In what doctrines has Rome departed from orthodoxy, according to your beliefs?

2. I think this Catholic would say let us sort out our differences and then be united. For me (and I speak only for myself not the Catholic Church), this would mean Orthodox must accept the universal supremacy of the Pope and accept in full the Deposit of Faith. They must accept the Magisterium. As I said, I speak only for my ignorant self. I understand that this is not the approach adopted by the Catholic Church.

3. How so? We have Peter - we keep his successor captive in the Vatican!

So, you might like to respond to 1. and 3.
2. is a nonsense. I'm not competent to comment on that matter so we'll ignore that for now.

Onesimus

Slav, you say that Rome broke away from St.Peter. So we both agree that Peter is the head of the Church? If so you will see that history proves that the apostolic succession of St.Peter is provable from the beginning of his office as head of Rome right up until the present day Pope.

If you still contend that Rome broke away from St.Peter and his office, then the burden will lay upon you with regards to providing quotes from the early fathers ( prior to the schism ) that Rome broke away from St.Peter since both of us rely upon both Scripture and Tradition.

Christos Voskrese

Onesimus

Slav

Donatello wrote: »

1. In what doctrines has Rome departed from orthodoxy, according to your beliefs?

As I said above, from our perspective the problem is not that Rome departed from orthodox doctrines but that it rather started adding non-catholic beliefs and dogmatise upon them. In no particular order this includes:

• Reducing understanding of atonement to a certain juridical model and as a result postulating a whole new bunch of doctrines (dividing sins to mortal and venial, Purgatory, indulgences, Immaculate Conception, etc.)
• Different ecclesiology and the doctrines it gave birth to (Papal Infallibility, Magisterium)
• Filioque

This may not be the exhaustive list but as you see it's already a substantial piece of Catholicism that Orthodox have problems with.

3. How so? We have Peter - we keep his successor captive in the Vatican!

And Orthodox say that they have successors of Peter captive on each and every bishop cathedra. Differences in ecclesiology illustrated.

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

Slav, you say that Rome broke away from St.Peter. So we both agree that Peter is the head of the Church?

No, not really. Peter was not the head of the Church. Christ is the one and the only head of the Church. Peter was coryphaeus, chief of the Apostles. Those successors of Apostles (bishops) - who confess Jesus as the Christ and Son of Living the God and who are united in faith and in Chalice as the Apostles were united - those are said to hold the cathedra petri.

If so you will see that history proves that the apostolic succession of St.Peter is provable from the beginning of his office as head of Rome right up until the present day Pope.

Apostolic succession of Roman bishops is not questioned. As far as "Peter the first Bishop of Rome" theory is concerned, I don't see how history (in sense of a research employing historical method) can provide a reliable evidence for it.

If you still contend that Rome broke away from St.Peter and his office, then the burden will lay upon you with regards to providing quotes from the early fathers ( prior to the schism ) that Rome broke away from St.Peter since both of us rely upon both Scripture and Tradition.

Sure.

But first let's check that we have the same understanding of Papacy. Then we can check how history, scripture and tradition support it.

So, compressed in one line, the logic behind Papacy can be expressed like this:

"You are Peter and on this rock" --> Peter is the monarchical head of the Church on Earth --> Peter is the first bishop of Rome --> Successors of Peter in Rome inherit his monarchical status and the associated powers.

Is that about right?

In order to confirm the above logic we need to establish that:

1. There was a consensus in Early Church that the rock is Peter himself rather then his confession.
2. Peter held a certain authoritative office in the Church, i.e. he had some powers that the other Apostles did not.
3. Peter has ever been to Rome
4. Peter was a bishop of Rome
5. There was a single monarchical bishop in Rome starting from the apostolic times
6. Supremacy of Rome is the authentic and catholic belief and not a gradual and localised development as Orthodox claim it to be.

OK so far?

Onesimus

Hi Slav.

I am talking about St.Peter as head of the visible Church on earth.





There was a consensus in Early Church that the rock is Peter himself rather then his confession.

1. Peter held a certain authoritative office in the Church, i.e. he had some powers that the other Apostles did not.
2. Peter has ever been to Rome
3. Peter was a bishop of Rome
4. There was a single monarchical bishop in Rome starting from the apostolic times
5. Supremacy of Rome is the authentic and catholic belief and not a gradual and localised development as Orthodox claim it to be.

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built ( consensus of the fathers )

Peter built the Church in Rome

Primacy of Peters apostolic see

peter's successors claim authority over the Church

Another great book for you to buy which includes Tradition and consensus of the Fathers in is ''The Biblical Basis for the Papacy'' by John Salza ( of whose website I link you to ) and I'd also advise you e-mail him with any questions you have.

There is now a question I have for you ( that I must repeat as you did not answer it. ) Now that I have provided you with the consensus of the Fathers that Peter is indeed the Rock and head of God's visible Church on earth, and not just one bishop of many....What basis do you hold by using either Sacred scripture of Tradition ( prior to the schism ) for your belief that Peter is not the head of the Church that he did not build the Church in Rome and that Rome broke away from Peter?

For all the qoutes there is in the consensus of the fathers prior to the great schism of the East, not one ever says Peter is not the rock nor says that he does not hold the ''throne'' and supremacy over the Church. Seeing as you follow both Sacred Scripture and Tradition, where is your belief in that Tradition?

Onesimus

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

I am talking about St.Peter as head of the visible Church on earth.

Yes, I know. And that's exactly something that Orthodoxy rejects based on Scripture and Tradition, i.e. we claim that Christ is the only head of the Church and there is no special monarch to govern its visible part. I also think that we might understand that "visible" bit differently. For us "visibility" of the Church manifests itself in Eucharist and only in Eucharist (which unites the past, the present and future as well as Heaven and Earth). We don't see visible Church as institution.

We can cover the details later.

Another great book for you to buy which includes Tradition and consensus of the Fathers in is ''The Biblical Basis for the Papacy'' by John Salza ( of whose website I link you to )

I've read it.

and I'd also advise you e-mail him with any questions you have.

Thanks, but I don't think I have questions.

There is now a question I have for you ( that I must repeat as you did not answer it. ) Now that I have provided you with the consensus of the Fathers that Peter is indeed the Rock and head of God's visible Church on earth, and not just one bishop of many..

Before I start answering it I wanted to ensure that we work from the same premises. Do you have any objections to my 6 point list? Anything to add/remove/alter? Can we use it as the basis?

Also can we agree that we'll be using historical method when dealing with sources and evidences?

In addition, it would be extremely beneficial if we refrain from posting and linking to quote mines. If we use a source then we make a point first on what exactly the author wanted to say and if needed support it with the quote. Also if we quote something it's assumed that we have read the whole document (and ideally all other writings of that author)- this is to avoid out-of-context quotes. Unfortunately many resources on the Internet dedicated to Papacy (including the pages you linked) are just flooded with them.

I know this way it's going to be a lengthy discussion because the issue is not an easy one and there are many sources to consider but we are not in a hurry, are we?

I don't want to prove someone right or wrong but I rather see the aim of such discussion as a mutual understanding of where the other party is coming from.

So if you are OK with the above I will try to demonstrate in my next post here how Orthodoxy objects to those 6 points I drafted based on Scripture and Tradition. In parallel I'll try to outline the ecclesiological model that Orthodox hold and how we see it's supported by the Early Church.

Now that I have provided you with the consensus of the Fathers that Peter is indeed the Rock and head of God's visible Church on earth

Sorry, but it's quote mining. I can go through those quotes one by one and explain what kind of fallacy applies to each of them but don't you think it will be a bit unfair discussion? It takes much more time and effort to reply to them than supply them, and to be honest I'm overloaded with work and don't have that much time right now. Maybe we'll go through them later if there is a need but I definitely don't want to start with it.

On the other hand I believe if we agree on the principles of conducting discussion as I outlined above then we can have an interesting and beneficial discussion.

alex73

On the above on Peter. The orthodox church believes much of it. What they take exception to is how the primacy has evolved. In the early church it was not Rome who appointed bishops. The east would claim there was a unity of Church's in the same faith. And the Rome had primacy of Honor.

I admire how the east has retained much of the Faith, But I do think the Church was created to be visibly united. When Christ was alive all the apostles listened to him. There was a visible unity and I think that Christ intended his church to have this same unity. The Apostles did not just honor Christ they obeyed him, and followed him. And when Peter was alive he was the head.

Having met John Paul II a number of times he always impressed me how he fully embodied the holy person who should occupy the seat of Rome. I know his personal holiness does not justify his position. (after all there were various unholy occupiers)

Christ knowing human weakness I am sure did not intend for the faith to be divided out. Its one faith. And a visible head was needed to lead us in this faith.

But the east have developed a theology so far removed it has every reason written as to why the Church should not have a Pope (as we Catholics see him). Saddens me really.

Keylem

In the following verse, Jesus gives Authority to Peter by commissioning him to shepherd His flock!

John 21: 15-17

So when they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

Slav

Ok, it looks like I missed the fun that you had during the bank holiday weekend. Some people who replied here even managed to get themselves banned..

Anyway, I'll reply to their posts in hope that the things will be sorted out and they'll be back.

Keylem wrote: »

In the following verse, Jesus gives Authority to Peter by commissioning him to shepherd His flock!

Indeed He does. It's a long way though from here to the supremacy of Roman bishops.

alex73 wrote: »

On the above on Peter. The orthodox church believes much of it. What they take exception to is how the primacy has evolved. In the early church it was not Rome who appointed bishops. The east would claim there was a unity of Church's in the same faith. And the Rome had primacy of Honor.

That's right, with the only exception that the unity is primarily seen as Eucharistic in nature. Unfortunately faith does not always unite Christians as we know it from history.

I admire how the east has retained much of the Faith, But I do think the Church was created to be visibly united.

Indeed it was. The visible unity of the Church is in Eucharist. The Cup is one and those who drink from this Cup are visibly united in Christ. And being visibly united by and in Christ who needs an earthy office to manifest their unity?

The Apostles did not just honor Christ they obeyed him, and followed him. And when Peter was alive he was the head.

Don't we all have Christ to obey and follow and not just a handful of Jews? People followed Christ because in Him and only in Him was salvation. Was salvation in Peter as well? Did people follow him as they had followed Christ?

Christ knowing human weakness I am sure did not intend for the faith to be divided out. Its one faith.

Faith is one and the Church is one. But did not God foreknew all our schisms from His eternity? Did not He warn us about them(e.g. in Matthew 18:15-20) as well as the Apostles? Schisms and anathemas might not look nice but on the other hand this is the very mechanism that has been keeping the faith pure.

And a visible head was needed to lead us in this faith.

Absolutely, if you mean Christ. If you mean a certain bishop however then I would have serious problems with this claim. First, is Christ not visible or is He not the head of the Church? Or is the guidance of Holy Spirit is not enough to lead us in faith so we need a mortal and sinful man for that as well?

But the east have developed a theology so far removed it has every reason written as to why the Church should not have a Pope (as we Catholics see him). Saddens me really.

Unlike Roman Catholicism, East did not develop any theology, it merely follows Apostolic and Catholic faith. Bur "development of doctrine" is surely another interesting topic to discuss as this is another thing that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have different views on.

Slav

Slav wrote: »

So if you are OK with the above I will try to demonstrate in my next post here how Orthodoxy objects to those 6 points I drafted based on Scripture and Tradition.

I've dug up some of my scribbles that I did when I was doing my research on Papacy. So I try to put the first portion in a readable format here. This part deals with Early Church fathers and historic evidence of the premises that the Papacy is based on should we derive it from the pertine verses in the Bible. It can further be extended on the topic of how Early Church fathers saw the Roman bishop and then how Papacy very gradually developed in the West from the patristic age to the eleventh century and then from there to Vatican I and our days.

So this is a summary of the premises that I think Papacy is claimed to be based on:

Claim|What evidence would we expect|What evidence we have
Peter is rock himself|Close to 100% consensus of the Early church that the rock is Peter himself|The impression that we get reviewing the ECF comments on Matthew from the modern RCC point of view is that there was no consensus among them. Rock is understood as either Peter's confession, or Christ Himself, or Peter himself. The later are not in majority and even when they interpret Matthew verses the way that Peter himself is the Rock they do not do it in the papal sense but rather seeing Peter as a figurative representative of all the bishops.
Peter had some extra powers that other Apostles did not|

1. Scriptural support
2. ...or at least Early Church Fathers accounts in the lack of scriptural support

|

1. Nothing in the New Testament that would indicate that Peter had some powers that other Apostles did not
2. Lack of any hints to that alleged powers from the Early Church either.

Peter ever went to Rome|

1. Apostolic account: clear indication of that in the New Testement, perhaps in the book of Acts or maybe a separate book dedicated to Peter
2. Apostolic fathers account: anything from Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Didache or Hermas.

|

1. Nothing in the New Testament apart from a certain interpretation of 1 Peter if we assume that by Babylon Peter meant Rome. Acts and other Epistles are silent on this topic.
2. No evidence of that from Apostolic Fathers. Clear references to Peter visit and martyrdom in Rome started to appear more then a century after the Peter's death: late second century AD in documents of questionable authorship (e.g. Pseudo-Clementines) and early third century(e.g Tertulian).

Peter was the Bishop of Rome|As above: Apostolic account in the New Testament and Apostolic fathers account|As above: nothing in the new Testament and nothing in Apostolic Fathers. First accounts are dated centuries after Pater's death.
Apostles could be bishops|As above: Apostolic account in the New Testament or at least Apostolic fathers account|As above: nothing in the New Testament and nothing in Apostolic fathers.
There was a monarchical bishop in Rome since apostolic times|

1. Indication of that in the book of Acts or in the Paul's epistle to Romans
2. ...and/or references to that in Apostolic fathers writings

|

1. Bishop of Rome is not mentioned in New Testament while it's not unreasonable to assume, based on the book of Acts and Paul's epistles, that there were monarchical type of bishops in Jerusalem, Crete and Ephesus (James, Timothy and Titus)
2. No references to mono-episcopacy in Rome until late second century AD which can only be seen as secondary sources. At the same time analysis of some apostolic fathers writings (Ignatius and Clement) suggests that Rome was actually the last See that adopted mono-episcopacy and at least for a century was governed by a number of presbyters.

On Peter as the Rock
It's really straightforward: anyone interested to know how the Early Church interpreted so-called petrine verses only needs to open the list of early Christian authors who commented on Matthew and read them. Quick summaries and main quotes on the subject from a mix of Western and Eastern early fathers (note that none of them mentioned Rome or its bishop in connection with Peter and the rock):

Tertullian: The Rock is Peter, the Church build through Peter as he was the first "to unbar the entrance to the heavenly kingdom" with the entrusted keys which are confession of Christ and preaching the Gospel:
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "upon this rock I will build My Church," "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring this gift personally upon Peter? "On thee," He says, "will I build My church;" and, "I will give thee the keys" and, "Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound." For so withal the result teaches. In Peter himself the Church was reared; that is, through Peter himself; Peter himself essayed the key; you see what key: "Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you," and so forth. Peter himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound, in accordance with true salvation. (On Modesty, 21)

Origen: Every faithful Christian surnamed rock after the Rock of Christ; every faithful who confesses Christ as Peter did receives the keys; the Church is built on the Rock of Christ and all the faithful "rocks":
And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us.
. . .
And if we too have said like Peter, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "You are Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. (Commentary on Matthew, XII:10)

Cyprian: The rock is Peter; Peter is the symbol of unity of the episcopate. The chair of Peter inherited by every bishop.
There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; "yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her."
. . .
And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. 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. (On the Unity of the Church, 4-5)

On a side note, St Cyprian is a good example of an author who should never be studied only by his quotes. To get the full picture (especially on his ecclesiology) one should really read his works and study his biography.

Augustine: The rock is Christ; the Church is built upon the rock of Christ; the Church is represented in Peter's confession. Early Augustine could be understood as interpreting the rock as Peter himself however he clarified his position in his Retractations so the Rock is Christ and it was Simon's confession that gave him the name Peter:
I said about the Apostle Peter: "On him as on a rock the Church was built." This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the rock: "At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt." 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. (Retractations 20:1)

Chrysostom: The rock is Peter's confession; Church is built upon Peter's confession:
"And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession. (Commentary on Matthew, Homily 54, 2)
For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession (Commentary on Matthew, Homily 82, 3)

Jerome: The rock is Christ; the Church is built upon the rock of Christ:
"The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built. For the Church was founded upon a rock. Upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock" (Commentary on Matthew)


On alleged Peter's unique powers
In New Testament we would expect Peter to demonstrate his authority over the Church at least during (or better still instead of) the Council of Jerusalem. However Peter did not make an ex cathedra statement on the matter, nor did he issue a Bull. Instead, the council was gathered; the chairperson was James, the local bishop; the decision was councilor. This is essentially the ecclesiological model that the East has always been following.

Similarly, Early Church Fathers never attributed to Peter any jurisdiction or authority or powers that other Apostles did not have. Actually it was quite the opposite: the spoke explicitly against it. For example:

Origen: But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect?
. . .
And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. (Commentary on Matthew, XII:11)

Augustine: After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter's acknowledged preeminence, that he stood for the Church's universality and unity, when he was told, "To you I am entrusting," what has in fact been entrusted to all. I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: "Receive the Holy Spirit" and straightway, "Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained". This refers to the keys, about which it is said, "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven". But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: "If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone". (Sermon "On the Saints")

Very often Chrysostom is quoted to support the view that Peter had some unique authority. Indeed, St Jonh wrote quite a lot about Peter and he definitely saw him as the leader, the coryphaeus of the Apostles. However, he often say same things about others, particularly John and Paul and even James though he was not one of the 12 but was a bishop. In any case I cannot see where he attributed a unique authority to Peter never mind extrapolating it to a single bishop or a See.


On Peter visiting Rome
What we have is only secondary accounts and no primary ones. This is very suspicions if Peter special connections with Rome are so vital for the theory of Roman Papacy.


On Peter as the first Bishop of Rome.
It can be argued that the lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. However even if we assume, despite the low probability given us by historical method, that Peter was in fact a bishop, this won't add much credit to Papacy. There are only two possible way to explain this lack of primary sources:

• Peter was a bishop the early church tradition did not see this fact as significant (same reason can apply to the above, Peter's visit of Rome),
• or Peter was never a bishop.

Neither is easily reconcilable with Papacy.


On Apostles being bishops
Not only New Testament is silent on such a possibility but it also contains verses that suggest that the charisma of apostles was distinct from the charisma of presbyters/bishops. A good example is the whole chapter 4 in 1 Corinthians. Specifically we read:
Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; and labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. (1 Cor 4:8-13)

So unlike presbyters, the apostles are not bound to a single place. Unlike presbyters they don't lead a local Christian community but they belong to the whole Church. Then St Paul continues:

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Cor 4:15)

Apostles are fathers, presbyters are children. How can you be both at the same time?


On monarchical bishop of Rome
This is a huge topic on its own but apart from the lack of biblical evidence of mono-episcopacy in Rome during the first century of Christianity, some interesting observation can be made when reading Ignatius' epistles. Ignatius was the first who clearly emphasized on the importance of bishops and who was the great proponent of the 3-level church hierarchy: bishop - presbyters - deacons. Ignatius speaks of himself as of the single bishop of Antioch and every epistle contains references or greetings to the local bishop, except on: to the Romans. Every epistle teaches of bishop as of icon of Christ and about the importance of obedience to the local bishop, except one: to the Romans. The only reasonable explanation to that is that it was not applicable to Rome at that time as there was not a bishop yet.

Clement does not give any hints that he is the Pope of Rome or there is a monarchical bishop in Rome in his time. Instead he still uses words bishop and presbyter interchangeably.

PatricaMcKay

What was that quote from Pope Gregory the Great that any Bishop claiming universal jurisdiction was a direct forerunner of the Antichrist, what would he have thought of the insane hubris of Pope Pius the IX?

Slav

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

What was that quote from Pope Gregory the Great that any Bishop claiming universal jurisdiction was a direct forerunner of the Antichrist?

It was from his letter to emperor Mauricius when he was giving out the Patriarch of Constantinople for the title "Ecumenical":

Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.

Full text here.

PatricaMcKay

Doesnt Irenaeus though talk about St Peter being Bishop of Rome (I could be wrong on this)? Isnt the tradition of St Peter being in Rome pretty ancient?

Slav

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Doesnt Irenaeus though talk about St Peter being Bishop of Rome (I could be wrong on this)?

I know that in his Against Heresies St. Irenaeus gave a list of the first Roman Popes but I don't think he included Peter in that list (or even singled out Peter from Paul):

...tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.
...
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. (Against Heresies, III:3:2-3)

Here it looks like he saw Peter and Paul as apostles and not bishops. Are there any other referenced to the bishopric of Peter in Irenaeus writings?

Isnt the tradition of St Peter being in Rome pretty ancient?

It is very ancient but not ancient enough to support Papacy. The sources that we have can only be counted as secondary while those sources that could be considered as primary are silent about it. For this particular question (Papacy) it does not really matter whether Peter was or was not in Rome (personally I believe Peter was martyred in Rome). What's important for us is the lack of primary sources: if Papacy is the Apostolic and Catholic ecclesiological model which is based in petrine verses of the New Testament then there is no way Apostles and then Apostolic Fathers could possibly drop such an important issue.