www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "Upon this rock."

Dear A Nobody,
I hate to call you that but you give me no other alternative. Rest assured that I don't think of you as a nobody.
You stated that Augustine is called "blessed" because, though he lived a holy life much of his teaching was in error. How do you fit this belief with the solemn teaching of the Second Council of Constantinople:

" We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II,Session I (A.D.553),in NPNF2,XIV:303

Ed

Go to www.antiochian.org [antiochian.org] and the go to parish websites. By scrolling to Colorado, you will see that one of the Western Rite (note: not with a separate hierarchy due to Rite) parishes is ...St. Augustine's.

Dear Ed,

I am a nobody! Oh, that I could live the devout life Augustine lived and someday be counted among the just, but I've got a long way to go, and my experience with wine, women and song has been limited to an occasional glass, my mother and my CD player.

Yes, Augustine is a Father of the Church, held as such by both the East and the West. It's just that the East has problems with some of his writings which began to take a different course from the deposit of patristics. That doesn't mean that he's ejected from the club. Much of what he wrote was brilliant and to the point. I love his statements: "Our hearts are restless until they rest in You." Poetry!

We have to remember that the writings of the Fathers - and there are gazillions of them, both writings and Fathers - are taken collectively and used as such within Tradition. That is why even heretics like Tertullian are counted among the Fathers. Most of what he produced ended up being stuff and nonsense, but some of it was absolute truth. And even the "biggies", like John Chrysostom and Basil the Great, wrote pieces that are junk. No individual is perfect; master artists can produce horrendous flubs; the least talented can come up with one or two masterpieces. Most fall in-between.

I'm a great sinner trying desperately not to perfect my craft.

A Nobody

[This message has been edited by A Nobody (edited 06-11-2000).]

BTW, although this is somewhat off track from this thread, an interesting read on the place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church is a book by the same name (The PLace of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church)written by Father Seraphim Rose. Saint Augustine's confession were very instrumental in my life many years ago, and I was also born on his feast day according to the Latin calendar. So I have a great devotion to him, as did Father Seraphim.

It's available from Light and Life if you are interested in further reading on the topic.

Peace,

Gordo, sfo

Edward de Vita,

I apologize if my statistical analysis of the definition or meaning of the term �ROCK� seems flimsy. You are right. Numbers don�t mean a thing. So your arm-twisting sent me back to my patristic sources. I plan to itemize each and every source and their definition of ROCK. Many (or most) of the Fathers have multiple meanings of ROCK which makes it more interesting. Some Fathers, like Augustine and Cyprian of Carthage, start with Peter as the ROCK only to change it to his Confession in later writings. There was something of a rivalry between Rome and Carthage. Several define ROCK as Peter, Peter�s Confession, the Apostles, and, of course, Christ.

Even if the Fathers do refer to Peter as the ROCK, they necessarily don�t imply that it means the bishops of Rome, the successors of Linus, the first bishop. Every list made of the bishops of Rome BEFORE the transfer of the capital to Constantinople NEVER list Peter and/or Paul as the first bishop(s). They were the co-founders of the Church of Rome. There is also the issue that Rome was actually managed by presbyters since many of the Patristic letters addressed to Rome never mention Rome�s bishop or any bishops until later.

The Apostles belong to everyone, they are the New Israel not demarcated by tribal geography. The Apostles are also a separate class from the Bishops of the Church. Rome was founded by Peter AND Paul, those who were in charge of the mission to the Jews and the Gentiles respectively. Rome began emphasizing the apostolic primacy (and then papal primacy) only after the capital of the empire was transferred to Constantinople.

I plan to quote each reference for your benefit and the benefit of others. Please give me time because other things have taken me away from this thread. I hope to return soon with something good to chew on and further this topic even further. So far, I have gotten a whole bunch of citations.


Elias

<< Elias' patristic numbers is his kickoff posting re: Mathew 16:18 are troubling to me. Only 20 percent (17 out of 85) of the church fathers feel that the "rock" is Peter. (I wonder how many or if any of the 17 fathers were Easterners?) Somewhere I read that in the Catholic view, revelation was a combination of Scripture plus "the unanimous consent of the Fathers" (the phrase used at Trent.) Looks like the Primacy of Peter was a decidedly minority view of the fathers. >>

Just FYI:

The study being cited at the start of this thread is derived from the work by a Gallican priest, Jean de Launoy. It is cited approvingly most recently by Michael Whelton in his book Two Paths. Whelton seems not aware, however, that in order to pad his study to bias it against the papal position Launoy "introduced various medieval and Renaissance writers to swell the number of witnesses" in favor of non-Petrine interpretations of the Rock of Matt 16:18 (Joseph Crehan. "Peter the Dispenser," in A. Nikolaus, ed. Vom Wort des Lebens: Festschrift fur Max Meinertz zur Vollendung des 70. M�nster: Aschendorff, 1951).

The work by Paul Bottalla, S.J. "The Supreme Authority of the Pope" (London: Burnes and Oates, 1868) lists 27 Fathers in favor of the personal interpretation. But he terminates his own survey around A.D. 500, thus excluding such Western luminaries as St. Gregory the Great and St. Agatho and such Eastern lights as Sts. Theodore the Studite and John Damascene. He also does not include the witness of the Council of Chalcedon (in the official definition against Dioscorus, St. Peter is called "the Rock and Foundation of the Catholic Church, and support of the orthodox faith") nor of the Eastern liturgies, all of which speak of St. Peter himself as Rock (along with the other derivative interpretations such as Christ as Rock and St. Peter's faith/confession as Rock).

Certainly when the complete list of those who supported the personal interpretation (St. Peter is the Rock) the percentage is more like 80% in favor rather than 80% against (contra Launoy/Whelton.)

St. John Damascene perfectly harmonizes the interpretations when he says, "Peter's faith is undoubtedly the unshakeable rock upon which the Church rests, but this faith is not separable from Peter's person: it is indeed Peter who is the rock" (Homily on the Transfiguration, PG 96:556B).

I agree with several writers here as to the empty nature of the typical wrangling over the interpretation of Matt 16:18. Our Holy Fathers did not see these interpretations as mutually exclusive and neither should we. I am citing these figures here only to help balance those which began this thread.


[This message has been edited by Vincent (edited 07-16-2000).]