www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Fathers/Primacy/Peter/Rome - Part I

Someone mentioned having read a list of quotes from the Fathers on papal infallibility. Others have mentioned the books _Jesus, Peter and the Keys_ and _Upon This Rock_. Most of us have seen such listings of quotations. A suggestion: How about discussions on these sort of quotes...but please, no long postings or several quotes in one post. Let's try to avoid any semblance of proof-texting. We've got a respectable group of participants here...I'm looking forward to learning a few things from such a discussion.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

One of the interesting things I have found in these "Patristics Wars" are that quotes are often taken out of context. I may be biased, but it seems that on the Catholic side, this is often the case. Many of the pro-Papal patristic quotes that are often trotted out seem to be either (1) precatory language or form of address and/or (2) statements contained in documents where one is trying to convince others to follow one's viewpoint by appealing to the position of the See of Rome. Often, the direct patristic studies of the Gospel texts themselves are not cited by Catholics, because they don't expound the Petrine verses in the Catholic way.

My own viewpoint is that one can get into patristical warfare easily, without any real resolution. The real answer is trying hard not to take these quotes out of context -- and by that I mean, not just the textual context, but the context of the early Church, the living tradition that these Fathers were experiencing and against the background of which their ideas and writings were formed.

Orthodoxophilos

I agree with Orthodoxophilos that throwing around Patristic quotes out of context can become unproductive. Patristic texts, like scriptural passages, should always be read IN context. To do less is a disservice.

However, we do not have room on this board to post the entire Ante-Nicene Fathers, and discuss it line by line. I do think, therefore, that it is useful to perhaps post one quote at a time, together with some background information as to the quote's source. If we keep the discussion charitable and intelligent, I have faith that we are mature enough to keep this from degenerating into Patristic wars.

Dave Ignatius Brown said:

"Someone mentioned having read a list of quotes from the Fathers on papal infallibility."

Actually, I did not read a list of quotes on this subject but compiled one from various sources. I took this task very seriously, and strived to keep the quotes in their original context. I pursued this project largely for personal reasons, because some time ago I was very inclined to become Eastern Orthodox, and wanted to carefully explore the issue.

Antony

Brothers and Sisters,

When pursuing this discussion, we need to be clear that this is to be a search for truth, not a battle of rhetorical skill. With this in mind, I am going to begin to share what I have learned. I am sharing this because I sincerely believe it to be the truth, and not because I want to be argumentative. In no way do I wish to insult or belittle my Orthodox brothers and sisters, who share in the true faith passed on by the Apostles.

Antony

I am very encouraged by the posts so far on this thread and want to echo Dragani's hope that the discussion not be a battle for rhetorical skill but a charitable search for truth. I think also his idea that we limit each post to *one* quote from the Fathers and include some background info if possible a great idea.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I really don't mean to throw cold water on any of these discussions, but I've hung around this board long enough to recognize my tail as I round the tree. For the most part the discussions here have been almost entirely without rancor or personal attack.

Let's face it, as a group we aren't going to solve any of these problems, but we DO need to put pressure on our respective hierarchies to exhibit the same general charitable spirit we have shown here and to build on it by building strong relationships with Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic/Roman Catholic parishes AND MORE IMPORTANTLY BETWEEN PARISHONERS. Our God is a personal God and He delights greatly when we treat each other as we would want others to treat ourselves with charity, humility and grace.

Maybe we can make this century much better than the last. Ours is the faith that can save the world.

Pray for me a poor sinner,

Bill

Dear Orthodoxophilos
You say
"Often, the direct patristic studies of the Gospel texts themselves are not cited by Catholics, because they don't expound the Petrine verses in the Catholic way."

Sorrow but I find this very hard to belive!
This arguement that the Fathers are misquoted by Catholics is an arguememt usually trotted out by Orthodoxy. When asked for quotes from the Fathers supporting their position most Orthodox apologists remain mute.
Catholic can show clear unambiguous scripture which support the Petrine Office

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter. The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Osee 8:1; 9:15; 1 Cor. 3:9-17, Eph. 2:20-2; 1 Tim. 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; I Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house. He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Sept.): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron".
There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd. The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom: "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"

Dear Brian not to throw mud I want
to know the answer to this question.
Wasn,t there 2 or 3 Popes at one time
a couple of times in western Europe?
And if so then which one was the
"REAL" succesor to Peter? Why were
12 Apostle's chosen and not one?
Our answers are not who is sole Earthly
leader but more how will we all get back into the same comunion with each other.
And shouldn't the Pope be in Jeruselum
which is God's chosen city if we are to have a "VICAR OF CHRIST" ?

If indeed there is a Holy Spirit, and if indeed we believe that the Holy Spirit intervenes in our lives today, is there any reason for us to run back to the ancients for 'guidelines' for our Christianity?

I get REAL nervous when folks start tossing around scriptural quotes, patristic quotes and conciliar anathemas to deal with problems that confront us today.

Shouldn't we rather be examining the reality of the world that confronts us, perusing the scriptures and 'old' church documents, PRAYING and meditating about what we should do, and then follow the Holy Spirit?

If we are always running to ancient documents, then we are abdicating our responsibility to be 'living' witnesses to the Gospel. I strongly believe that the Holy Spirit is kicking our tails to be witnesses in our contemporary world, and not mirrors of some past 'golden age' of Eastern/Orthodox Christianity.

DearKosmik

Yes in the Middle Ages there were three claimits to Peters seat at one time.
The cardinals elected a Pope, then they later had a change of mind and elected another person to the position. This caused what became known as the great Western schism as different sections of the church backed the rival claimits. They attempted to resolve it by electing a 3rd person. It was not resolved until each resigned and a fresh election held.
Important facts that arose out of this were
1/ once elected the Pope is the supreme power within the Catholic Church.
2/ The Cardinal exceeded their authority by deposing their original choice.
3/ The subsequent election of the other two were invalid.
4/ It was resolved by the legitimate Pope resigning to make way for a new election.

You ask, �Why were 12 Apostle's chosen and not one?�
This generic answer I hope answers the question behind your question

Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the "universal bishop" and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?
No. Gregory the Great (540-604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title "universal bishop" could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other "bishops" were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
But that isn't to say that the title didn't--and doesn't--have a proper sense which Gregory approved of. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other "bishops" are not really successors to the apostles, it's false.
What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch's act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.

How can you say that Peter had authority over other Church leaders when he referred to himself as only their "fellow elder" (1 Pet. 5:1). This proves Peter did not see himself as having any "primacy" in the Church. He was just a presbyter.
No, it doesn't. To assert that Peter had no primacy is to ignore the clear passages to the contrary, such as Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:33, John 21:15-17, and Galatians 1:18. The answer to your question is found within the very context you cite. Peter says, "Clothe yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another, for God opposes the proud but bestows favour on the humble. So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time" (1 Pet. 5:5).
By humbly calling himself a "fellow elder" Peter was not implying he was merely equal in authority to the presbyters of the Church; rather, he was practising something he enjoined on others. This self-effacement is the virtue of humility which Jesus calls all Christians to cultivate: "Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave" (Matt. 20:26-27).

You ask shouldn�t the Pope be in Jerusalem

Peter was guided by the Holy Sprit to go to Rome. Subsequent events show why as Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans soon after. It is remarkable of all the ancient sees Rome is the only one left, which has a majority Christian population.

Brother Brian, you are generally on target with the posts that you make, but in this case, I think you've fallen off the end of the pier in trying to defend the Holy Father.

The role of the Bishop of Rome is that of 'elder brother' among the bishops, not boss. While there has been a theological development among the more Italianate theologians (the same folks who gve us the Mafia) our Christian history indicates that each bishop is selected by the Holy Spirit to be the spiritual overseer (epi-skope) of the Christian community in a given location. As a bishop of a diocese, any bishop must be in concordance with all the other bishops of the Church. (Hence, a Council is our supreme earthly authority.) But as a bishop, it is that particular person's authority that governs me. (If the Pope says "Pink" and my bishop says "Blue", then I'm obliged to say "Blue". It's my bishop's responsibility to work it out with the other bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. An individual Christian, except for the residents of Rome, has no relationship with the Patriarch of the West except through the local bishop. This is the 2,000 year tradition of the community. And there is no reputable theologian who would say otherwise.)

I'm sure that the tradition of the Church regarding the Bishop of Rome being the 'elder brother' of the bishops is a valid one. But, for example, when the barbarians invaded Old Rome and the empire was transferred to New Rome (ie. Constantinople) did the plethora of Goths in Rome obviate the validity/liciety/reality of the Roman Bishop's perduring authority over his diocese and his role as 'elder brother'? I think not. And just because the Ottoman barbarians overtook Constantinople, this does not mean that the Patriarch lost his spiritual authority because he was surrounded by heathen. And the same is true of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. To tie a bishop's valid authority to the numbers of Christians versus heathen in an area is just not right. It's political; not spiritual.

And to worry about St. Gregory and St. John the Faster and the rest of them, I 'd like to point out: They're all DEAD.

We, however, have an obligation to preach the Gospel in the HERE and NOW. And whether this saint or that saint said "X" or "Y" is, in many ways, irrelevant. Because at the Judgement of Souls, Christ is going to ask ME and YOU, "Did you love God with your whole heart...etc. and did you care for these, the least of my brethren, as you care for yourself?"

And I'm going to do everything I can to say, "Yes, Lord! I really did my best." And if I have to say: "Lord, I broke some of the rules that the Canon Lawyers printed up" then I'm going to have to point to the words and works of Christ in the Gospel and say, "Lord, I did what You did, and I followed what you said. Forgive my imperfections, but I tried my best."

And my faith is in Him.

Dear Dr John
I have fallen off many a pier in my life and no doubt will fall off many more in the future.
I do not think the Holy Father needs my defence, however what I believe needs to be defended is the truth. Scripture gives abundant evidence of Christ�s intention on how his Church was to be structured and where his authority lay within it.
The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter.Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church." The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see CHURCH, THE, I).
In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Osee 8:1; 9:15; 1 Cor. 3:9-17, Eph. 2:20-2; 1 Tim. 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; I Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house. He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church;. It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.
In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna: "And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open." In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place. Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratificationThe promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Sept.): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron". The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these"? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd. The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom one of the most famous of the Greek Fathers) "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"

The Early Church Fathers (no not all Italian mafia)
Those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood Jesus to have been promising to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.
Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Tertullian
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19] . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])
The Clementine Homilies
"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?'" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ' [Matt. 16:18-19] On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"There [John 6:68-69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (Letters 66[69]:8).
Firmilian
Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build 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" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas ["Rock"] - of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
"[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . . ' Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Ambrose of Milan
"It is to Peter that he says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church' [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Pope Damasus I(a Greek)
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division." (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Jerome
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark on Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: 'There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors'" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Dear Brian ,The Rock you speak of
is the rock of faith as it was taught to me.
Also why was the Church's seat then
moved to Constantinople when St. Constantine legalized Christianity therfore
removing it from Rome. Why did crusaders sack Constantinople instead
of helping it from Islam forces? Wasn't there two or three different people claiming
to be Pope somewhere in France until
Rome sacked that too in a crusade?

BRIAN,

I had thought that the initiator of this thread had requested no long patristical strings. In that you have chosen to disregard this request, your last post presents a very slanted picture, and I can't let it stand, in good conscience, without at least providing some other patristical sources, mostly from the same Fathers you quote above, that lead to a different conclusion:

��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� � St. John Chrysostom on Matthew.

�Therefore�, he says, �Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock�, which Thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which Thou has acknowledged, saying �Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, will I build my Church� : that is, upon Myself, the Son of the Living God, �will I build my Church�. I will build Thee upon myself, not myself upon Thee. � But others, who do not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, �But I am of Christ�. � And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter, but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter�. --- St. Augustine on Matthew.

�See what praises follow this faith. �Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church�. What does it mean �Upon this rock I will build My Church�? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said �Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock�, says He �I will build My Church�� � St. Augustine, on John.

�Christ is the Rock who granted to his apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named�. --- St. Jerome on Matthew.

�The word �Rock� has only a denominative value � it signified nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles.� -- St. Cyril of Alexandria (On the Trinity).

�I believe that by the Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles� � St. Hilary, on the Trinity.

�Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter� � St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Catholic Church.

�As soon as Peter heard these words �Who do you say that I am?�, remembering his place he exercised his primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.� -- St. Ambrose.


My point in posting these quotes is NOT to kick off a patristics war. My point is that if we read the Fathers, or the Scriptures, in a vacuum, we can get into all kinds of warfare about how they are to be interpreted, and one can find various quotes to support either viewpoint, as the last two strings of quotes indicate. What is important, ISTM, therefore is to understand well the context within which these Fathers were writing -- i.e., the living, breathing, functioning Church which formed the background for, and therefore thoroughly informed, what they actually wrote. It's really only against that background, and not later history, that the Fathers can be properly interpreted -- any other kind of exposition "in a vacuum" is highly misleading at best.

Orthodoxophilos