The Bishop of Rome

[spathariossa]

Okay Aluigi - go for it.


BTW:

Matt 16:18 seems kinda solid? hrmm...

Edited December 9, 2004 by spathariossa

[spathariossa]

Ok I'll go first. The Pope is really just the Bishop of Rome and he has no legitimate authority over anyone outside of his see, that being Rome itself. Furthermore it was the ambitions and pride of the Bishops of Rome from the early middle ages that caused the Schism. And the Catholic response is?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Here are some quotes from the Fathers for you to think about. God bless!

[quote][b]St. Ignatius of Antioch:[/b]
"Ignatius . . . [b]to the church also which holds the presiden[/b]cy, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"[b]You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught[/b]. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).[/quote]

[quote][b]St. Irenaeus of Lyons:[/b]
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of [b]the greatest and most ancient church known to all[/b], founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, [b]that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us[/b] after having been announced to men by the apostles. [b]With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree[/b], that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).[/quote]

[quote][b]St. Cyprian of Carthage:[/b]
"If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? [b]If he [should] desert the chair of Peter[/b] 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]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and [b]one chair founded on Peter[/b] 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]).

"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 [b]if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church[/b]. 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" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of [b]the sacerdotal chair[/b], was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to [b]the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source[/b]" (ibid., 59:14).[/quote]

[quote][b]St. Ephraim the Syrian, Doctor:[/b]
"[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 [b]head of the fountain from which my teaching flows[/b]; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Pope Damasus I:[/b]
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, [b]the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior[/b], 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, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in 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]).[/quote]

[quote][b]St. Jerome, Doctor:[/b]
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with [b]the chair of Peter[/b]. 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 of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).[/quote]

[quote][b]St. Augustine, Doctor:[/b]
"Number the priests even from that [b]seat of Peter[/b]. And in that order of fathers see to [b]whom succeeded[/b]: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer." [Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393)][/quote]

[quote][b]John Cassian:[/b]
"[b][B]ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding [B]the government of the Roman Church[/b] possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God." [Contra Nestorium,3:12(A.D. 430)][/quote]

Edited December 9, 2004 by thedude

[spathariossa]

Ah, but the dispute we have is not the primacy of Peter amongst the disciples but rather the idea of the Bishop of Rome as God's vicar on Earth. Instead, we hold to be Dogma, that Jesus Christ himself is the head of the Church and is the Chief Shephard.

This is based on scriptural accounts those being Ephesians 4:16, and Eph 1:22-23 as well as 1 Peter 5:1-4. Furthermore we hold that Christ represents an eternally present yet invisible chief priest of the Church. Matt 28:20 tells us that He will never leave us but shall be with us always. Hebrews 7:23-25 contrasts the old chief priests of the old testament to Jesus Christ the eternal and unchanging chief priest of the new testament. Furthermore, in Rev 3:7 we are told that it is Jesus himself that has the keys formerly belonging to King David.

In his homilies on the epistle to the Ephesians, St. John Chrysostom writes "In Christ, in the flesh, God placed a single head for everyone, for angels and men..."

To quote Ignatius back at you, he refers to the Lord as the "episkopos aoratos" or the "Invisible Bishop."

Thus, it is the teaching of Orthodoxy that we need no Vicar of Christ on Earth because Christ never left Earth to begin with.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]Thus, it is the teaching of Orthodoxy that we need no Vicar of Christ on Earth because Christ never left Earth to begin with. [/quote]

Time to re-read the Acts of the Apostles...

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 9 2004, 05:25 PM']
Time to re-read the Acts of the Apostles... [/quote]
Care to give me a quotation as to what from the Acts refutes what I've said?

I have this book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. I've read the whole section on the head of the Church. I must say I'm wholly dissatisfied with their rebuttal of the Pope. To be honest, the book doesn't address the specific points Catholics point to that show the Pope to be the head of the Church. I find that distressing. I'll have to go over some other Dogma books.

Edited December 9, 2004 by spathariossa

[peach_cube]

Just some thoughts from "A History of the Catholic Church" by the Rev. Sidney A Raemers, M. A., PhD. Because I just can't explain as well as others.

[quote]
Before the close of the first century (between A. D. 95-98), and during the life-time of St. John the Apostle, the bishop of Rome intervened as arbiter between factions abroad in his capacity of supreme head of the church.  Controversies had arisen at Corinth; the Christian element in the city was divided, because some had refused to submit to the presbyters who presided over them.  The Church of Rome authoritatively intervened. "You would be a source of great joy to us," wrote St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, "if, obediant to what we have written you in the Holy Ghost, you would cut short the unjust outburst of your anger.  Behold, we have sent you men both faithful and wise.  They shall be the witnesses between ourselves and you."  The faithful of Corinth did not regard the intervention of St. Clement as an intrusion; on the contrary, his letter re-established peace and quiet in the local church , and his efforts were so sincerely appreciated by the Corithians that seventy years later they still continued to read this message in the assembly of the faithful.

St Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostles, according to whose letter this Church this Church is the "president of the society of love."  In other words, St Ignatius regards the Roman Church as the head of all Christians, united among themselves by the bond of charity.  Commenting upon this same epithet, St. Ignatius continues: "You have never deceived any one; you have taught others; it is my wish that whatever you prescribe by your teaching be not contested."  The testimony of St. Ignatius derives additional weight from the fact that it proceeds from the great metropolis of Antioch, which had a prior claim to be a see of Peter.

All doctrinal and disciplinary questions were referred to Rome, and her decision was always accepted as final.  The appereance of Montanism furnishes an instance in point.  Some of the members of the church of Lyons were Asiatics, and professed the false doctrines of Montanism.  The brethern of Gaul "informed Eleutherius, bishop of Rome, of thsi state of affairs, in order to restore peace to the churches.'  Ten years later, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, sought anew the advice of the Pope on this same question, and Praceas arrived in Rome from the East to obtain the condemnation of the Montanist heresy.  The striking feature of this whole procedure is that the communities abroad did not apeal to the Apostolic cities of Ephesus and Antioch for the solution of an Oriental difficulty, but to the bishop of Rome.  Instances of appeals of this kind are plentiful in the first centuries , and the heretics themselves formed no exception to the rule.  Persuaded that a victory was scored for their teachings if they encountered favor in the eyes of Roman authorities, heresiarchs one and all hastened to Rome to pleac their cause.  Marcion, who journeyed thither from Pontus, and Valentine, who came from Egypt, are only two instances in point.

Toward the end of the second century, an intervention on the part of the Church of Rome, even more remarkable that any we have so far cited, failed to cause any resentment on the part of other Christian communities.  In regard to the date of Easter, town traditions existed side by side: one, Oriental; the other, Roman.  The first of these two traditions reckoned the date of Easter according to the mannner of the Jews, the 14th of the first month , or the 14th Nisan, no matter on what day of the week this date fell.  Rome, on the other hand, reckoned the date of Easter in a more Christian manner, alway settin the date on the Sunday following the 14th Nisan.  For the Asiatics, Easter was the anniversary of the death of Christ; for the others it was the anniversary of His Resurrection.  Thus there arose a serious liturgical conflict.  The minds of the Asiaticswere not completely at rest on this score, because, finding themselves at variance with Rome on this question, they petitioned St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to repair to the Eternal City and debaate the question with pope Anicetus (c. 154).  The attempts on the part of St. Polycarpto with the Pope over to his side proved unsuccessful, but the epilogue to the drama is even more significant.  Victor I, Bishop of Rome (190-198), resolved to settle the question.  He issued orders for all the churches of the West and East to assemble in synods and expound their different opinions.  We know from the writings of Eusebius that the results of the debates were recorded in synodal letters, and we have the verdict of the bishops of Pontus; that of the churches of Osrhoene; that of the bishop of Corinth; that of the synod of Palestine, and that of the churches of Gaul.  All of these took issue against the practice of fixing the date of Easter according to the Jewish manner of reckoning, siding with the Roman practice; but the Asiatics held out, protesting that the Roman custom was not in accord with the Apostolic tradition, and declaring that they would never concede the point.  When matters came to pass, Pope Victor did not hesitate, but fulminated against the rebels a sentance of excommmunication, manifestly conscious as he was that the Church of Rome embodied all Christendom, and could sever from her communion persons who were recalcitrant to here decisions.  True, some persons, in particular St. Irenaeus, regarded the punishment as legitimate , though excessive; as a matter of fact, the decision carried the day and the practice of celebrating Easter on Sunday prevailed.  The controversy regarding the date of Easter is significant also because it provides an additional proof of the far-reaching influence of a Church which already in the second century could concern herself with so secondary a question.[/quote]

[thessalonian]

"Instead, we hold to be Dogma, that Jesus Christ himself is the head of the Church and is the Chief Shephard."

Why does it have to be instead. There is not neccessarily a conflict in calling Peter and the Popes the Chief Shepherd any more than it is a dichotomy for the scriptures to say that Prophets and Apostles are the foundation of the Church in Eph 2:20 and Jesus is the foundation in 1 Cor 3:11. Or, Jesus says "I am the light of the world" in John's Gospel. Later he says "YOU are the light of the world". It is through Christ that both can be true. Jesus is the eternal head. It is no conflict to say that each pope is the present head. I know of no Pope who has lived since Christ's time so it would be a conflict if we called the Pope the eternal head. Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. That does not mean that one would be wrong in Matt 7 in saying that the foundation the Church was built on (i.e. the Rock) is Christ. By the way have you explored the Is 22 and Matt 16 parrellel?

The Catholic Church does hold that Jesus is the Cheif Shepherd btw. Eternally so. So there is no conflict with Chrysostom.


Hope that helps.

Edited December 9, 2004 by thessalonian

[spathariossa]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 9 2004, 05:38 PM'] "Instead, we hold to be Dogma, that Jesus Christ himself is the head of the Church and is the Chief Shephard."

Why does it have to be instead. There is not neccessarily a conflict in calling Peter and the Popes the Chief Shepherd any more than it is a dichotomy for the scriptures to say that Prophets and Apostles are the foundation of the Church in Eph 2:20 and Jesus is the foundation in 1 Cor 3:11. Or, Jesus says "I am the light of the world" in John's Gospel. Later he says "YOU are the light of the world". It is through Christ that both can be true. Jesus is the eternal head. It is no conflict to say that each pope is the present head. I know of no Pope who has lived since Christ's time so it would be a conflict if we called the Pope the eternal head. Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. That does not mean that one would be wrong in Matt 7 in saying that the foundation the Church was built on (i.e. the Rock) is Christ. By the way have you explored the Is 22 and Matt 16 parrellel?

Hope that helps. [/quote]
Nope. Aluigi seemed to what to debate the papal supremacy. I was reluctant because I'm not an expert on Orthodox Dogma by any stretch of the imagination. But I figured why not. To be honest, I'm technically still Catholic and not Orthodox yet. Chrismation won't be for awhile.

[thessalonian]

Chysostrom's quote :

"It has also another signification; and of what nature is this? He hath set over all one and the same Head, i.e., Christ according to the flesh, alike over Angels and men. That is to say, He hath given to Angels and men one and the same government; to the one the Incarnate, to the other God the Word. "

Christ most definitely is over all men. This is not a conflict with other men being over us as it is through Christ that they have authority over us.

Edited December 9, 2004 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

Spath,

I assume the nope is to my last question.

There is an interesting parrellel between Matt 16 and Is 22. No Jew who knew his scriptures would have missed it when Jesus spoke his words to Peter.

Isaiah 22:20-23
"Then it will come about in that day,
That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your authority,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
"Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.
"I will drive him like a peg in a firm place,
And he will become a throne of glory to his father's house.
Matthew 16:15
He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"


The context of this verse is with regard to the Davidic Kingdom which is a foreshadowing of Christ’s spiritual kingdom. In that kingdom there was of course a line of kings, but there was also other offices. One such office was that of steward which was essentially equivalent to a Prime Minister, or spokesman for the king. We can see this in 2 Kings 18 when Eliakim goes out to the Assyrian King who is planning an attack and speaks for King Hezikiah. Now Eliakim replaced Shebna who was apparently a corrupt steward. This we see as the literal fulfillment of Is 22 but it also has a spiritual fulfillment pointed to by Matt 16:18.

Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Matthew 16:17
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 16:18
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Matthew 16:19
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

A couple things to note. First of all the keys. Both passages mention keys. One to the Davidic kingdom and one to the “Kingdom of Heaven” which of course was what the Davidic Kingdom foreshadowed. Now keys to me indicate something. Succession. I bought my house in 94 and received a set of keys which gave me access, control, and authority to that house. If I sell the house I will give those keys over to another who will then control that house. It is also worthwhile to note that Shebna and Eliakim were stewards in a long line of stewards as well.

Next thing to note is in Is 22 it says “he shall shut and none shall open and he shall open and none shall shut.”. This is equivalent to binding and loosing in Matt 16:18 in Hebrew. No Jew would have missed the parallel's that Christ was drawing upon from Is 22. There are other things that point to the papacy from these parallel's as well but this is enough for now.

Blessings

Edited December 9, 2004 by thessalonian

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Dec 9 2004, 06:30 PM']Care to give me a quotation as to what from the Acts refutes what I've said?

I have this book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.  I've read the whole section on the head of the Church.  I must say I'm wholly dissatisfied with their rebuttal of the Pope.  To be honest, the book doesn't address the specific points Catholics point to that show the Pope to be the head of the Church.  I find that distressing.  I'll have to go over some other Dogma books.[/quote]
Here's your statement:
[quote]Thus, it is the teaching of Orthodoxy that we need no Vicar of Christ on Earth because Christ never left Earth to begin with. [/quote]

If you don't mean to deny the Ascension, you should elaborate on what you mean.

Here's the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles:
[quote name='Acts 1:1-11']In the first book, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did and taught until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.  He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for "the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit." 

When they had gathered together they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 

He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."  When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight. 

While they were looking intently at the sky as he was going, suddenly two men dressed in white garments stood beside them.  They said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven." [/quote]

Both the Nicene and Apostles Creeds refer to His Ascension into Heaven and His eventual return. More info here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767a.htm"]Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven (link)[/url]

Then, there's stuff like [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john17.htm#v11"]John 17:11.13 (link)[/url].

God bless!

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Dec 9 2004, 06:30 PM']
I have this book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. I've read the whole section on the head of the Church. I must say I'm wholly dissatisfied with their rebuttal of the Pope. To be honest, the book doesn't address the specific points Catholics point to that show the Pope to be the head of the Church. I find that distressing. I'll have to go over some other Dogma books. [/quote]
that might be an indicator that there isn't any validity to the claims against the primacy of the Pope.

There really are some very sound reasons for it.
In my opinion, without central authority, an executive bishop if you will, there would be a lack of cohesiveness in the Church akin to the Protestant denominations.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Dec 9 2004, 06:21 PM'] that might be an indicator that there isn't any validity to the claims against the primacy of the Pope.

There really are some very sound reasons for it.
In my opinion, without central authority, an executive bishop if you will, there would be a lack of cohesiveness in the Church akin to the Protestant denominations. [/quote]
And yet that hasn't happened with Orthodoxy.


As far as the other question of Ascension, no I don't deny the ascension but neither do I deny the presence of Christ within everything on Earth.

[cmotherofpirl]

Christ is present within everything on earth?