Dear Theophilos and Stuartk,

I read over the quotes from St. John Chrysostom and Cyprian of Carthage that Theophilos posted. I must say in the case of Chrysostom I had not yet read such a strong case for the idea that the rock was Peter's confession and not Peter himself. I have read many fathers that have given both Peter and his confession the title of the rock at different times in their lives. So I guess, what I must ask is what do we take away from this? Are these Fathers changing their minds on the issue? Are both interpretations valid? Is one more valid than the other? I don't know how to answer this question for sure, but I believe much of the evidence points to Peter himself being the Rock and that is what I believe. I also believe in the Infalibility of the Pope of the Catholic Church. Does that make me a schismatic or a heretic? I know what Tim and many Eastern Orthodox would say. What do Byzantine Catholics who feel the papacy has overstepped its bounds by claiming infalibility say? I (at first) thought that you were an Eastern Orthodox Christian Stuart untill you mentioned that you were a Byzantine Catholic. Do most Byzantine Catholics feel the way you do when you said "I do not denigrate the papacy, nor do I reject the concept of universal primacy. I merely take the pope at his word that the modalities of papal primacy are and must be open to discussion in order for the universal Church to arrive at a consensus on the issue, a necessary prerequisite for unity in the Holy Spirit."?

I know of one Byzantine Catholic (Kurt) that does not. He said in my post on Byzantine Catholic Beliefs that "I believe in the Immaculate Conception, purgatory and the infalibility of the Universal Pastor, as taught by the Church." I am very sure there are many others with the same beliefs. When the pope says we must open discussion on papal primacy, what kind of changes do you (Stuart or Theophilos) see on the horizon for the pope of the Catholic Church? As a newly returned Catholic, just back a year now after a 20 year absence from the Church, I must say that though my new found faith is strong it is rocked daily by all the division I see in Christ's Universal Church.

As far a St. Cyprian of Carthage, He also said in 258 A.D.: "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 too you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.' And again He says to him after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep.' ON HIM (PETER)HE BUILDS THE CHURCH, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a LIKE power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a SINGLE CHAIR, and He established by His own authority a SOURCE AND INTRISIC REASON FOR THAT UNITY. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; BUT A PRIMACY IS GIVEN TO PETER, WHEREBY IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THERE IS BUT ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in a SINGLE MINDED ACCORD. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT HOLD FAST TO THIS UNITY OF PETER, CAN HE IMAGINE THAT HE STILL HOLDS THE FAITH? IF HE DESERTS THE CHAIR OF PETER UPON WHOM THE CHURCH WAS BUILT, CAN HE STILL BE CONFIDENT THAT HE IS IN THE CHURCH?

I feel he is saying that, yes the other apostles had a LIKE power to PETER, but that Peter was given a SPECIAL POWER over the Universal Church. I also feel that todays understanding of the papacy and Peter's chair are NOT in conflict in any way with what this Church father has written so long ago. How can the Eastern Orthodox be sure they still hold the faith, or are still in the Church since the have most certainly deserted the Chair of Peter and broken the unity of the Universal Church?

Theophilos, you mentioned Pope Victor and Romes dispute over the celebration of Easter with the Churches in Aisa Minor in one of your posts. I feel this very early bit of Church history strongly forshadows and eludes to todays papal claims on the Universal Church. Victor assumed the authority to cut the Asian Churches off by excommunicating them not only from Rome, but from the entire Universal Church itself. Other bishops felt it in their power and freedom to challenge and rebuke Victor for his reaction to these events, but what I find interesting is that NO ONE challenged his authority to do what he did. Some did not like his decision and challenged it, but what they did not do is challenge his rightful authority to make the decision he made.

Well, I have much more I would like to write on these issues, but my wife and I are on vacation togather this week for Thanksgiving and I want to spend some time with her. I probably will not go online again untill after the holiday, but I am interested in your responces. I also hope to hear from Tim about this post and others. I hope you all have a wonderfull Thanksgiving with your familys!

God bless you my brothers in Christ,


john johnson



[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-24-1999).]

[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-24-1999).]

[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-24-1999).]