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

In response to Dr. John's previous post, let me develop a few of his points.

First, on pink and blue, this is a matter that may apply in some particular situations but is far from a universal rule. If my bishop says kill and the Pope says maim, justice might dictate that I do neither.

It is hard to say a Catholic has no direct relationship to the Pope in any way. Watching the television broadcast of Midnight Mass from St. Peter's is certainly a form of Papal ministry to which I and others have access unmediated by our bishop.

Even the valid point that the bishop is the ruler of the Church in a given location suggests a legitimate higher episcopal authority exists. "Given location" is a VERY subjective term. Who decides where one bishop's territory ends and another begins? Who ministers to migrant people?

I would say reputable theologians have differing views on exactly how the Pope's ministry should be exercised and what aspects of it are of divine mandates and of human creation for the good order of the Church -- though an excessive division between the two may be an ecclesiastical form of "Nestorianism". All would agree, I think, that the Office of the Patriarchate in an entirely human creation.

Dear Kosmik

Yes you could look at the Rock as the rock of Faith. Christ could mean that Peter faith was �rock solid� or the faith that was Jesus taught was as strong as a rock, which is free from any error. However one has to ask why did Jesus re-name Simon to �Peter� or Aramaic �Cephas� which mean rock. The Jews had not used this as a first name previously. Was Christ being frivolous or did have a deeper reason for this change?
Constantine changed the imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople. By the church seat, you mean the Petrine seat that held by the Bishop of Rome who is successor to St. Peter, then no temporal power or indeed Church power other than the Bishop of Rome can move that authority from one Bishopric to another.
About the Crusades if you want to start another discussion on that then I will reply, but this is about Fathers/Primacy/Peter/Rome .

We may be well served to remember that Antioch is also a successor to Blessed Peter.
Further matter for reflection is that Peter was an Apostle and from Apostles come Bishops. Peter was never the "Bishop" of Rome or Antioch in the strictest application of the term. Peter and Paul did establish the See of Rome as Peter had established the Church at Antioch. The Bishops of Rome and
Antioch have a shared Petrine succession.

Where do the fathers call the see of Antioch the "See of Peter"? Rome has been consistently called the See of Peter for the last ~1,900 years. To call Antioch such is an act of revisionism.

I believe the See of Antioch has always reminded the world that the Apostle Peter was once its bishop and excercised the Petrine Ministry from that city. It has never denied that Peter subsequently became Bishop of Rome and then excercised the Petrine Ministry from Rome. Antioch has never claimed Peter's successors in that city have a universal ministry (I am saying Anitoch with the Catholic understanding of H.B. Cyril V and H. B. Cyril VI being the actual succesors to the See).

In Mathew 16 Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven. What significance are these keys? Do the keys confer anything to the holder? If the giving of these keys conferred anything then did all the apostles share in it?

The question asked above was answered by St. Cyprian of Carthage in THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH www.stmichael.org/CypUC.html [stmichael.org]
In section four he addresses the issue of the power of the keys and explains that "Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership office and power, but the beginning proceeds from unity..." St. Peter was a sign of unity. It would seem to me that every ship needs a Captain and Peter was made the Captain of this new ship to be the sign of unity . Peter was not isolated in the exercise of his authority as we see at Jerusalem. Also, Paul claimed the same rights as Peter and claimed the same divine guidance.

Dear Brian
I agree with what you are saying. There is an important question does the divine authority given by Christ through the keys pass to St Peter then from him to the other Apostles or directly from Christ to all the apostles?

To the "other' Brian: The best answer I could give you would be personal opinion. My personal opinion would be that the power and authority evidenced by the Keys was given to all the Bishops directly by Christ Himself. The reason I say that is every time the issue is raised and the statement made that all are the same as Peter, the Patristic Fathers and early Church leaders say that Christ made them what Peter is in that area. Today, we receive our Apostolic Succession and authoirty of office through a Bishop. The Apostles received their authority directly from Christ as is evidenced by the early church writings. It was not through Peter that the others became Bishops/Apostles.

We need to distinguish how Christ gave his authority to the Apostles.
Firstly as a group and this can be discerned by looking at the relevant quotes in the NT.
Christ would gather the 12 and would address them as whole,
(Mt 18:18, 28:16-20 Power to bind/loose on earth will be bond/ loosed in heaven. Power to forgive sins, giving a sanction to their preaching (Mark, xvi, 16), send them the "promise of the Father", "virtue from above" (Luke, xxiv, 49). The Apostle makes laws (Acts, xv, 29; I Cor., vii, 12 sq.), teaches (Acts, ii, 37 f.), claims for his teaching that it should be received as the word of God (I Thes., ii, 13), punishes (Acts, v, 1-11; I Cor., v, 1-5), administers the sacred rites (Acts, vi, 1 sq.; xvi, 33; xx, 11), provides successors (II Tim., i, 6; Acts, xiv, 22). In the modern theological terms the Apostle, besides the power of order, has a general power of jurisdiction and magisterium (teaching).

Secondly the authority or commission given to one person.
Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew 16:17-19, 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." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. 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 ratificationin 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".


[This message has been edited by Brian Ingram (edited 06-15-99).]

I respectfully submit that nowhere in the NT or in the phronema of the early church do we find anything that can be understood as giving Peter "Supreme" authority over the entire Church. We have already seen the Patristic Fathers express that what Peter was so were all the others (St. Cyprian) and also somebody recently provided fine examples of others who have the same mind-set as did Cyprian. If you take Scripture as a whole and not take one sentence out of context, you will see that the Church was built upon the Apostles, not just one man.
You will also find that the same word used to say build my Church is used to say the church was built upon the Apostles. There is no justification for supremacy in Scripture, Sacred Tradition or the teachings of the early Fathers.

Dear Brian
You say
�If you take Scripture as a whole and not take one sentence out of context, you will see that the Church was built upon the Apostles, not just one man.�
I agree. No-where does the fact that Peter was the head of the apostles suggest that he was the only one the church was built on
I think what a lot of people get confused with is they do not understand how a house is built.
If you attempt to lay a foundation on sand then the building over time will sink and be in danger of collapse
The safest thing do is to build you house on a rock (Cephas, Peter) solid foundation. You then start building you house by laying the chief foundation stone(Christ) from which the other foundation stones (the apostles) gain their direction and strength from. From that sure footing and foundation you build the whole house (the Church).
Christ gave us the office of Peter as you quoted St Cyprian as a source of unity. Through unity we gain strength. If any Bishop or Bishops ultimately break with that unity, does that not weaken all the Church?
If you take Mathews and Johns Gospel especially Matthew�s and see that Peter was not given a separate and definitive authority then you are being wilfully stubborn and blind

You also say
�I respectfully submit that nowhere in the NT or in the phronema of the early church do we find anything that can be
understood as giving Peter "Supreme" authority over the entire Church.�
I again quote 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"
That is only one Father I quoted the other Fathers whose opinions dispite what Orthodoxophilos has gleaned from the other quotes clearly support the Catholic position

You have taken John C out of context, however, the real issue is the other part of your popst. The difference between us is you chose to build your house upon the rock that is Peter and we chose to build our house on the rock that is Christ. Christ is the rock, Peter's faith is the rock, but we cannot build our house on Peter. Was it in Peter's name that you were baptized? Was it Peter that redeemed you? Of course not. It was upon the rock that is Christ that we are saved from perdition. Having said that, I have no problem with accepting the Pope as Patriarch of the West. I have no problem with his authority in that position. However, I have all kinds of trouble with one Patriarch thinking that he is supreme
or thinking that he is infallible or any of the other things the Popes have declared themselves to be. I do have problems with the innovations in Theology that have brought the Roman church to the sad state of heresy and schism in which she finds herself today. There is hope for them only in repentence and to humbly rejoin Holy Orthodoxy and forsake the heresy that has gripped them by the throat and is choking the spiritual life out of her. I object to Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike who claim that the POpe has no authority to determine the liturgy or calendar that is to be used. That is the area for a Patriarch. The Novo Ordo is not the demon some try and make it out to be, if the words of consecration were corrected from 'for all' back to for many and ofcourse the filioque must be dropped.
In truth, the filioque is as good as gone
anyway. Even the Pope is praying without the filioque when he visits the Orthodox.
But the real issue is the one you state above. We build our house on Christ, not on Peter.

Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, �And I tell you, you are Cephas (rock), and on this rock I will build my Church� (Matt. 16:18).
Clearly in this passage Christ says to Peter �I will build my Church on you�.
He did not say, �I will build my Church on me�
You try and avoid the natural sense of the passage, by saying �rock� refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter�s profession of faith is two sentences away and can�t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can�t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8)
As I asked Kosmic � Why did Jesus re-name Simon to �Peter� or Aramaic �Cephas� which mean rock. The Jews had not used this as a first name previously. Was Christ being frivolous or did have a deeper reason for this change?�
Now you say you build your church on Christ
Christ said he builds his Church. I prefer to be in the Church Christ built not your one.
You accuse the Catholic Church of various un-named heresies. I will leave it up to St Augustine to defend it
Why I�m in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should.... With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me.... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so
strong to the Christian religion.... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." -St. Augustine
Lastly you say "I have no problem with accepting the Pope as Patriarch of the West. I have no problem with his authority in that position. However, I have all kinds of trouble with one Patriarch thinking that he is supreme."
Your stand throws up the flaw in Orthodox denial of Peters authority which was given by Christ. One the one hand you say all bishops are equal and no one can have authority over them then you say Patriarchs, which as Kurt pointed out is a human invention, has authority over other Bishops in a given area. Pride not logic underlines the Orthodox position.

Okay, I guess I have to get involved again.

Thanks, Brian I, for the quote from Augustine. What is disappointing about this is not the rock-hard faith of this great Father, but your erroneous conflation of the word "Catholic", as used by Augustine, with the "Roman Catholic Church".

"Catholic", in the patristical era, the era of the councils and the creed, meant, and still does mean, that which is universally held. St. Vincent of Lerins explained it well already in the 5th Century: "Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense 'Catholic' which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent." (from "A Commonitory").

Catholicity is therefore something of which each particular church partakes by virtue of its universal cohesion with all of the others. It is not something novel that is imposed by one see upon the others, with their resistance, disapproval and non-consent -- that, by definition, cannot be "catholic", but can only be "particular". When one particular church goes off on its own and defines or adopts doctrines that are not universal, ancient and consensual, they are no longer behaving in a "Catholic" manner.

The Roman view of the office of the Pope fails the Vincentian test in flying colors, I'm afraid. The current Roman conception of the papacy is not, and never was, universally accepted or taught, is not ancient (even the Roman theologians admit that it was a "development" as they call it) and does not have the consent/approval of the rest of the Church outside the Roman patriarchate. It is not universal, ancient or consensual. It misses the point to say that the Roman theologians can come up with this or that source to back up their claims -- the historical fact is that in they early Church this office did not exist in the way the Roman Church eventually defined it, and when the Roman Popes tried to "flex their muscles" in this regard, they met with uniform resistance -- thereby making it clear that this was not, and is not, a universal or consensual doctrine.

Again, St. Vincent is clear: "But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate a city or even a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. .... and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently...". There is no way that the current Papal claims pass this test.

Brian, the Catholic position loses the historical argument. The only way that the Papal claims can be adequately defended by Roman Catholics are by defending the Roman concept of the development of doctrine -- something which the Orthodox do not accept, following the views of the early Church Fathers, perhaps best expressed by St. Vincent of Lerins.

Orthodoxophilos