Catholics:The Ecumenical Councils

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."
Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.
John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.
John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.
Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.
Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."
Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.
1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.
1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.
1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.
2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock. Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

I. Peter Built the Church in Rome


"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).
'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'" Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).
"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).
'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross." Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).
"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).
"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome." Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).
"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..." Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).
"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).
"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome...Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).
"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..." Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).
"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).
“For if when here he loved men so, that when he [Peter] had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there.” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32 (c. A.D. 391).
"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?" Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394).
"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city, [Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon [Magus]." John Cassian, Institutes, X (ante A.D. 435). "The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries [of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth.” Pope Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), Sermon LXXXII (ante A.D. 461).

III. Peter’s Successors Claim Authority over the Church


"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).
"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).
"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius' Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).
"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret's EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).
"We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry....Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church....I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body....And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons." Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).
"Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth." Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400).
"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated ... by bishops ... as you have done, the example of ancient tradition ... For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived ... that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)...you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).
"It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches...Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).
"Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter...For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat...Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision." Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418).
"For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420).
"The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).
"None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgment of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus and bishops of Macedonia (c. A.D. 420).
"Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity." Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430).
"The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?" Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).
"But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445).
"And so he too rejoices over your good feeling and welcomes your respect for the Lord’s own institution as shown towards the partners of His honour, commending the well ordered love of the whole Church, which ever finds Peter in Peter's See, and from affection for so great a shepherd grows not lukewarm even over so inferior a successor as myself." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 2 (A.D ante 461).
"'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and every tongue which confesses the Lord, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by God that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461). "Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

Victor said:

Ok James, this line of thinking has become repetitious and perhaps It’s justified in your own mind due to your confrontations with other RC’s. But I will not sit here and take another hit of “this claim is out of context”. Months back you said the same exact thing to me and I swallowed that bitter pill and learned from it. Because at the time, you were right. I was not picking up the full text and reading the context. I assure you that is no longer the case. Before even reading the Council of Nicea, I read about the people involved (Hosius, Sylvester, St. Alexander, etc.) the issues at hand (Arianism, Melitianism) and anything else I felt was relevant to it. Is this not getting context? Please, give me a bit more credit then your repetitious “out of context”. I’d much rather get a “your not understanding”.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you thought I said you were taking things out of context. So far you have not done so and so the comment was not aimed at you. It is, however, very common in RC apologetics to see such Patristic proof texting. Much like your reminder to remain civil this was simply a reminder not to go down that route. I did not mean to imply that you had already done so. I apologise again for the misunderstanding.

Here is a good example where you can tell me how this same Pope could make the above statement and make the following statements:

…decrees of the Roman bishops, which because of the height of the Apostolic See have an authority not inferior to that of councils.

Click to expand...

To whom was this addressed? Other western bishops? I'm afraid that I cannot quite know how to answer without knowing where this quotation comes from. However, I would point out that you make an assumption that by Apostolic See, St. Gregory means Rome. If he is talking to western bishops this is indeed the case as his was the only western Apostolic See, but his writings to the other Patriarchs leave little doubt that he did not mean Rome by this phrase when talking to them. Witness his letters to the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

Also Pope St. Gregory the Great called Rome the, "the head of all the churches." and said of the Church of Constantinople, "who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? The most pious lord, the emperor, and our brother, the bishop of the same city, also profess this assiduously.”

Click to expand...

See what I wrote about his use of Apostolic See above. Constantinople was clearly subject to the Apostolic See, but that does not mean Rome. I struggle to se how even RCs can think that the Apostolic See means Rome rather than the episcopate. It seems like an implicit denial of the apostolic nature of the Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.

Also,
As to what he [the primate of Byzacena in Africa] says about being subject to the Apostolic See: if any fault be found in the bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it.

Click to expand...

And this is exactly the same issue, but in this case I can see that he is speaking of western bishops who were subject to him, which is not going to be much evidence in a discussion of the role of the Pope of Rome in the wider Church.

It is important to note what was going on at the time that would provoke Pope Gregory to say the above. In short John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or "sole" bishop in his Patriarchate.

Click to expand...

This is untrue. John the Faster did not want to be a universal bishop. He was granted the title of Ecumenical Patriarch by the Emperor. St. Gregory misunderstood this to mean universal when, in fact, by the convention at the time it meant Imperial. It was a title of honour only, exactly as the librarian at Constantinople was called the Ecumenical Librarian. It was also perfectly appropriate, though rather unwise. I would note that St. Gregory's letters do not support your reasoning here. Not only does he point out that Rome rejected a similar honorary title when it was offered to the Popes by council as being impious but he also berates the Patriarch of Antioch for referring to him as universal in letters to him. In the very same series of letters he even refers to him as being equally the successor to Peter as Rome. Nowhere does he mention John the Faster lording it over the bishops in his See, but only over how taking the title universal detracts from the other Patriarchs:

"As your Holiness, whom I particularly venerate, well knows, this title of universal was offered by the holy Council of Chalcedon to the Bishop of the Apostolic see which, by God's grace, I serve. But none of my predecessors would use this impious word because, in reality, if a Patriarch be called universal, this takes from all the others the title of Patriarch. Far, very far, from every Christian soul be the wish to usurp any thing that might diminish, however little, the honour of his brethren!"

The Pope is not the "only" Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the "only" power. It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word.

Click to expand...

I disagree to an extent. Roman ecclesiology might not make the Pope the only bishop but as all the others are subject to him. it means that practically speaking he is. You know full well that we see no supreme authority in Peter but even if we did you would have to give a plausible reason as to why this belongs to the Pope as his only successor, particularly in the light of quotes such as this from St Gregory to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria:

"Your Holiness has spoken to me at large, in your letters, of the see of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, saying that he still resides there by his successors. Now, I acknowledge myself unworthy of not only the honour of the chiefs, but even to be counted in the number of the faithful. Yet I have willingly accepted all that you have said, because your words regarding the see of Peter came from him who occupies that see of Peter. A special honour has no charms for me; but I greatly rejoice that you, who are very holy, only ascribe to me what you also give to yourself."

Ctd.

So by “Universal Bishop” Pope Gregory intended it as 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. And that is exactly what John the Faster was doing, hence the quote above.

Click to expand...

It's not what John the Faster was doing, is not what St. Gregory said he was doing, but it is, practically speaking, what the modern Papal system does. Saying that the Pope has the right to interfere in Sees other than his own, being able to depose their bishops, takes from the authority of those bishops and directly contradicts the Ecumenical Councils. Having the sole authority to accept or reject the Ecumenical nature of a council puts him above said council as well. Claiming the right to reject a canonically appointed bishop (even a Patriarch!) on his own authority takes yet more authority from the other bishops. None of this is consistent with the ecclesiology of the first few centuries or of the councils.

Like Pope Gregory, Vatican I rejected ultramontanism theology regarding the Pope. Opting for a more moderate papal infallibility. Interestingly by a Pope (Pope Pius IX) who people talked about being as the embodiment of papal power gone awry. Seems that the Holy Spirit has His own ways of overcoming real or alleged faults of one man if that was indeed the case.

Click to expand...

I'm amazed that you can think Papal infallibility moderate. Exactly what, though, of ultramontainism is it that you feel Vatican I rejected? I've never looked very far into the details of that council as my study of Church history lead me to reject the Papal claims long before that period but from what little I do know of ultramontanism, it seems very much closer to the current position of the Vatican than that of their contemporary opponents, who had an ecclesiology markedly closer to ours.

The Bishop of Rome has great concern for the agreement of his fellow bishops. Conciliar input has been the norm through which the Bishop of Rome has functioned. Nonetheless, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees. This is perhaps the crux of our disagreement.

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. I'm afraid that I find it hard to believe what you say about the Pope's concern for the agreement of his fellow bishops. What little I do know about Vatican I appears to argue against said concern (I'll find some sources if you give me time) but the really obvious example, and the one that prompted my asking the question in the first place is the status of what you call the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Ask, if you don't know what I mean by this.

Like Vatican I and Pope Gregory I think the key is a very loose and light papal jurisdiction. If all could agree in principle and allow the liturgical and customary diversity that in fact exists, with Patriarchs running the show in their own domain, with only minimal papal input, then we could accomplish some sort of reunion. Perhaps naïve for me to think this but I wish it to be so.

Click to expand...

And I agree with what Pope Benedict said on the matter, though I do not know if he was being sincere in this, that Rome cannot require more of the east than that it accept the primacy of Rome that was accepted in the first centuries. That is a primacy identical to that currently wielded within the Church by Patriarch Bartholomew, a primacy which does not in any way contradict the ecclesiology of the councils by overstepping canonical boundaries. Any kind of universal jurisdiction of the Pope must be utterly rejected by us. The councils were quite clear as to what his jurisdiction was, just as they were with the rest of the Pentarchy and he, like any other bishop, is subject to their canons.

Peace be with you,

~Victor

Click to expand...

And with you

James

Geoff,

Do you actually have any thoughts to add to the discussion, or merely a long list of cherry picked proof texts? This was exactly the sort of thing that I mentioned to Victor earlier (and which he unfortunately misunderstood). I can produce a list of proof texts every bit as long as this, very often from the same people you quote, which would argue my position at least as clearly. All such arguments, then, are utterly pointles.

I won't even get into your scriptural quotations as these rely on an interpretation which Rome has put on the text rather than simply the text itself - the east never accepted such interpretations and, indeed, even if Peter were to have the prerogatives you suggest you would still have to show that they were passed onto his successors and that those successors are in Rome and Rome alone. I find that most amateur RC apologists seem to simply assume this is the case with little or no basis, but if anything there is actually a stronger case for the Patriarch of Antioch being the successor to Peter (not that I believe there is a single successor) than for the Pope of Rome.

By all means contribute to the discussion. It would be good to have further input, but be under no illusions that lists of the sort you posted will win your case for you. I'm fairly confident that I could turn each and every quote into an argument against Papal supremacy if I wished. I have studied Church history and the Fathers for several years (long before I was Orthodox) and I truly cannot see how such a study of history can lead to any other conclusion but that the modern Papacy is a marked departure from the ecclesiology of the undivided Church.

Evidently there are many people who would disagree, but please do not treat me as though I am ignorant of the writings used by RC apologists to defend their point and bombard me with great lists of them as if in seeing a few hundred words ripped out of context I will realise my error and decide to swim the Tiber. I can assure you that that is not likely to ever happen.

James

James,
Allow me to gather the proper links for you to read. Most all my quotes are gathered from material I have either in electronic format, paper copies, or books. Having a link is nice and would much rather provide that for all to read.

~Victor

JamesThePersian said:

I'm sorry that you thought I said you were taking things out of context. So far you have not done so and so the comment was not aimed at you. It is, however, very common in RC apologetics to see such Patristic proof texting. Much like your reminder to remain civil this was simply a reminder not to go down that route. I did not mean to imply that you had already done so. I apologise again for the misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

The misunderstanding was on my part. Thanks for the clarification.

JamesThePersian said:

To whom was this addressed? Other western bishops? I'm afraid that I cannot quite know how to answer without knowing where this quotation comes from. However, I would point out that you make an assumption that by Apostolic See, St. Gregory means Rome. If he is talking to western bishops this is indeed the case as his was the only western Apostolic See, but his writings to the other Patriarchs leave little doubt that he did not mean Rome by this phrase when talking to them. Witness his letters to the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

See what I wrote about his use of Apostolic See above. Constantinople was clearly subject to the Apostolic See, but that does not mean Rome. I struggle to se how even RCs can think that the Apostolic See means Rome rather than the episcopate. It seems like an implicit denial of the apostolic nature of the Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.

And this is exactly the same issue, but in this case I can see that he is speaking of western bishops who were subject to him, which is not going to be much evidence in a discussion of the role of the Pope of Rome in the wider Church.

Click to expand...

….. I know not what bishop is not subject to it
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/213/2130034.htm

The following were indeed speaking to western bishops (South Italy and Africa) although the language used is similar to that of the ones below. I have no reason to believe it wasn’t also talking about the East.

… which because of the height of the Apostolic See have an authority not inferior to that of councils.
I had a harder time trying to find this one online. It comes from a genuine Hispana collection. Not to be compared to the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.

The following on the other hand seem to be quite clear in its direction toward the East.

…Head of all the churches….
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/214/2140678.htm#fn_520

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/213/2130018.htm


Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?...Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles...received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate…
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/212/2120558.htm#fn_1721

So what context am I missing here exactly?

JamesThePersian said:

This is untrue. John the Faster did not want to be a universal bishop. He was granted the title of Ecumenical Patriarch by the Emperor. St. Gregory misunderstood this to mean universal when, in fact, by the convention at the time it meant Imperial. It was a title of honour only, exactly as the librarian at Constantinople was called the Ecumenical Librarian. It was also perfectly appropriate, though rather unwise. I would note that St. Gregory's letters do not support your reasoning here. Not only does he point out that Rome rejected a similar honorary title when it was offered to the Popes by council as being impious but he also berates the Patriarch of Antioch for referring to him as universal in letters to him. In the very same series of letters he even refers to him as being equally the successor to Peter as Rome. Nowhere does he mention John the Faster lording it over the bishops in his See, but only over how taking the title universal detracts from the other Patriarchs:

"As your Holiness, whom I particularly venerate, well knows, this title of universal was offered by the holy Council of Chalcedon to the Bishop of the Apostolic see which, by God's grace, I serve. But none of my predecessors would use this impious word because, in reality, if a Patriarch be called universal, this takes from all the others the title of Patriarch. Far, very far, from every Christian soul be the wish to usurp any thing that might diminish, however little, the honour of his brethren!"

Click to expand...

You are correct in observing that the title ‘Ecumenical Patriarch' really meant nothing more than "the Imperial Patriarch" (since the bishop of the city of Constantinople had become in effect the "right-hand man" of the Emperor). When the title was translated into Latin as "Universal Patriarch", it caused Pope St. Gregory the Great to denounce the title as "a name of blasphemy, of diabolic pride, and a forerunner of Antichrist". But what Eastern Orthodox writers utterly fail to note is that the Pope rejected the title because he understood it as involving a claim to be the one sole bishop in the Church ("solus conetur appellari episcopos") - thereby un-churching all other bishops including their Primate, the Bishop of Rome! Such a claim was also suspected to represent an assault by the Imperial power on the entire episcopacy as well as on the divine Primacy of the Roman See over all the Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church. The mischievous title "Universal Patriarch" granted by the Emperor similarly implied the assumption that the spiritual jurisdiction exercised by members of the hierarchy derived from determination by the Emperor rather than from Jesus Christ.

JamesThePersian said:

I disagree to an extent. Roman ecclesiology might not make the Pope the only bishop but as all the others are subject to him. it means that practically speaking he is. You know full well that we see no supreme authority in Peter but even if we did you would have to give a plausible reason as to why this belongs to the Pope as his only successor, particularly in the light of quotes such as this from St Gregory to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria:

"Your Holiness has spoken to me at large, in your letters, of the see of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, saying that he still resides there by his successors. Now, I acknowledge myself unworthy of not only the honour of the chiefs, but even to be counted in the number of the faithful. Yet I have willingly accepted all that you have said, because your words regarding the see of Peter came from him who occupies that see of Peter. A special honour has no charms for me; but I greatly rejoice that you, who are very holy, only ascribe to me what you also give to yourself."

Click to expand...

So he willingly accepts all from someone equal in authority? I'm not following what you are concluding from this.

JamesThePersian said:

It's not what John the Faster was doing, is not what St. Gregory said he was doing, but it is, practically speaking, what the modern Papal system does. Saying that the Pope has the right to interfere in Sees other than his own, being able to depose their bishops, takes from the authority of those bishops and directly contradicts the Ecumenical Councils. Having the sole authority to accept or reject the Ecumenical nature of a council puts him above said council as well. Claiming the right to reject a canonically appointed bishop (even a Patriarch!) on his own authority takes yet more authority from the other bishops. None of this is consistent with the ecclesiology of the first few centuries or of the councils.

Click to expand...

I covered this above...

JamesThePersian said:

I'm amazed that you can think Papal infallibility moderate. Exactly what, though, of ultramontainism is it that you feel Vatican I rejected? I've never looked very far into the details of that council as my study of Church history lead me to reject the Papal claims long before that period but from what little I do know of ultramontanism, it seems very much closer to the current position of the Vatican than that of their contemporary opponents, who had an ecclesiology markedly closer to ours.

Click to expand...

It is a Latin term that I'm sure few people in both our Churches are aware of. In short the ultramontanism movement wanted to give a stricter definition to papal infallibility. Vatican I defeated it. I can hunt down more information on this if you wish.

JamesThePersian said:

Indeed it is. I'm afraid that I find it hard to believe what you say about the Pope's concern for the agreement of his fellow bishops. What little I do know about Vatican I appears to argue against said concern (I'll find some sources if you give me time) but the really obvious example, and the one that prompted my asking the question in the first place is the status of what you call the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Ask, if you don't know what I mean by this.

Click to expand...

JPII has apologized for many past sins committed by sons of the Catholic Church, and was at the forefront of ecumenism and the concept of a papacy which, in practical application, can be acceptable to the Orthodox and Anglicans. This is precisely why we have waited so long to declare Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption as ex cathedra dogma. In both instances, the popes involved received overwhelming solicitation from bishops, priests, and laymen, urging them to make the declarations. It was anything but a solely top-down act of arbitrary power. If this isn't concern, then I don't know what is.

JamesThePersian said:

And I agree with what Pope Benedict said on the matter, though I do not know if he was being sincere in this, that Rome cannot require more of the east than that it accept the primacy of Rome that was accepted in the first centuries. That is a primacy identical to that currently wielded within the Church by Patriarch Bartholomew, a primacy which does not in any way contradict the ecclesiology of the councils by overstepping canonical boundaries. Any kind of universal jurisdiction of the Pope must be utterly rejected by us. The councils were quite clear as to what his jurisdiction was, just as they were with the rest of the Pentarchy and he, like any other bishop, is subject to their canons.

Click to expand...

The following is written by Jon Jacobson (Anglican).

I think a more [SIZE=-1]collegial exercise of papal primacy, in which the[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Bishop of Rome's consent is necessary, but not[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]sufficient, for the adoption of binding doctrinal[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]formulations or new ecumenical canons, is a more[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]promising model for Christian unity than the Second[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Millennium model operating at the Vatican. The reason[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]this wouldn't collapse into the sort of theological[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]and moral anarchy we see in Anglicanism is that it[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]would be accompanied by an affirmation of the[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]infallibility and irreformability of the Patristic[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]consensus and the Ecumenical Councils that have been[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]received by both the Pope (as Patriarch of the West)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]and all or nearly all Eastern Patriarchs.[/SIZE]

Would this be something EO's would accept?

You said,
The Pope didn't call a single one of the seven Ecumenical Councils we both accept, and in fact opposed them on occasion

Name one Council the Bishop of Rome opposed and didn't become part of the faith (on the 7 we agree on)?

You said,
Such flattering hyperbole is common and not just applied to Popes during the period.

Please show me where some other Patriarch is called "prince and head of the Apostles"?

What does title mean to you?

James,
I often read your posts where you make it clear of the differences between East and West. Albeit I understand why you would do it nowadays, I do not understand why you use such language when talking of early writings. I'm sure you'd agree that we were ONE back then. The East vs. West was more of an interest to emperors then the Church really. In what way do you speak of when seperating the Church like that?

Why would (for example) the Bishop of Rome telling Africa province something like:
I know not what bishop is not subject to it
be lumped toward the West only?
As if there was some kind of seperation back then.