Here I give you a series of evidences that you can try to
refute, but please discuss with evidence, not with those things that may occur to you out of the blue, or with
appeals to what the Pope says, or a priest or pastor, and without personal
attacks:
This is my position and my Biblical evidence, I invite you to
debate it, based on the biblical evidences, not on personal attacks or appeals
to papal statements.
There is no historical proof that Peter exercised
the office of bishop of the Church of Rome for 25 years, as the Roman Catholic
Church claims. Everything that the Catholic Church says about the pontificate
of Peter in Rome, is based on a tradition later in 120 years of the death of
the great apostle, which states only that he died together with St. Paul in
that city.
According to the Acts of the Apostles, Peter stayed in Jerusalem after the death of Stephen. Paul, seventeen years after his conversion (which would not happen until a few years after the death of Christ), found the apostle Peter still exercising his ministry in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18 and 2: 1).
According to the Acts of the Apostles, Peter stayed in Jerusalem after the death of Stephen. Paul, seventeen years after his conversion (which would not happen until a few years after the death of Christ), found the apostle Peter still exercising his ministry in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18 and 2: 1).
Then the two great apostles agreed, together with James and
John, that Peter would direct the propagation of the Gospel among the Jews, and
Paul among the Gentiles (Galatians 2: 7-10). This division of territory
precludes any possibility of Pedro becoming the bishop of a Gentile church,
established in the capital of the Roman Empire. And much less that it lasted
the 25 years that Rome maintains, since for this to be true, Peter would not
only have had violate the agreement with Paul, James and John, but he would
have to have died some 20 years after that tradition says he died.
Near the year 58 (that is, after sixteen years of Peter's pontificate in Rome, according to Catholic tradition), Paul writes his letter to the Romans, and in it he makes no mention of Peter being bishop: that great apostle so well known for Paul, as we see in other epistles of his. At the end of this letter there is a list of 27 Christians of Rome, to whom the apostle sends greetings, putting some phrases of praise for each one of them; but he does not send any greeting to Peter, the supposed bishop of the Church in Rome. Is this truly conceivable, if Peter had been bishop in that city? Does this ring true?
About three years later, Paul himself arrived in Rome, and many Christians came to meet him (a distance of 25 kilometers) If Peter had been in Rome, would not we have some news of the meeting of these two great champions of the same Christian cause, on the way, or in the capital itself? But not a word of this is mentioned by the author of the Acts of the Apostles.
Paul lived two years in Rome, as a prisoner in custody, in the house he had rented. If Peter was absent at the time of his arrival, as some apologists say, he must have returned in such a long period of time. During these two years Paul wrote many epistles, and in almost all of them he sent greetings from the Church in Rome and from several prominent Christians of Rome; to othe churches, but he never mentions Peter. In the letter addressed to the Colossians he gives the names of his collaborators, and adds: "These alone help me in the kingdom of God" (Colossians 4: 7, 11). But among these, Peter is not found, when, if he really was the bishop of Rome, he had to appear as the first among his collaborators.
In his 2 nd Letter to Timothy, referring to Paul at the end of these two years, when he was introduced to Nero, he says: "In my first defense nobody assisted me, they all have forsaken me: I pray to God that they will not be imputed this sin" Can we believe that Peter was one of those who forsook the great apostle of the Gentiles, had he been the bishop of Rome?
Paul, shortly before his death, as he expresses when he says: "I am already to be offered, and the time of my departure is near", the apostle Paul sends for the last time greetings from four leading Christians of Rome: "Eubulus, Pudent, Linus and Claudius "(2 Timothy 4:21). (It is this Linus to whom the Roman Catholic Church supposes Peter's successor and second Pope of Rome). But the name of Peter is not mentioned, although there were only a few days left until, according to the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, Peter and Paul were executed together on Mount Tiber, near Rome. From all these facts, the following conclusions are indubitably deduced:
1. Peter was never bishop of Rome; and a pontificate of his for 25 years is probably false, since there is no historical evidence that he was in Rome, not 25 years, but not even a week, exercising the pontificate in that city; and, on the other hand, we are overwhelmed by facts that contradict it.
2. Where is the concrete proof of Peter's pontificate in Rome, not for 25 years (which is totally impossible in light of the New Testament), nor for any period of time? There is no document of the time that proves it, nor any statement by the apostle Peter himself in the sense of appointing a successor. Nor is his Papacy mentioned by Paul, who was practicing in Rome and who never attributed himself the bishopric of Rome; and does not even attribute it to Peter, who supposedly according to the Roman Interpretation was his superior, and who does not even mention Peter in relation to Rome in any of his epistles
3. It is very strange that those bishops and presbyters of the Church, close in time to Peter, and succesors of the Apostles, do not bring to light, in their time, close as they were to the great apostle, any document of his from his pen or from any other, or that of the first bishops of Rome, knowing that the apostle conferred in a concrete way such succession and power.
4. If Peter did not exercise the pontificate in Rome, he could hardly name a bishop of that city as his successor. Most likely he did not do it in that city or anywhere else; for the title of Universal Head of the Church; the great apostle of the Jews, (Galatians 2: 8) never had or intended to have, nor did any Christian of his time attribute it to him, in any way.
Near the year 58 (that is, after sixteen years of Peter's pontificate in Rome, according to Catholic tradition), Paul writes his letter to the Romans, and in it he makes no mention of Peter being bishop: that great apostle so well known for Paul, as we see in other epistles of his. At the end of this letter there is a list of 27 Christians of Rome, to whom the apostle sends greetings, putting some phrases of praise for each one of them; but he does not send any greeting to Peter, the supposed bishop of the Church in Rome. Is this truly conceivable, if Peter had been bishop in that city? Does this ring true?
About three years later, Paul himself arrived in Rome, and many Christians came to meet him (a distance of 25 kilometers) If Peter had been in Rome, would not we have some news of the meeting of these two great champions of the same Christian cause, on the way, or in the capital itself? But not a word of this is mentioned by the author of the Acts of the Apostles.
Paul lived two years in Rome, as a prisoner in custody, in the house he had rented. If Peter was absent at the time of his arrival, as some apologists say, he must have returned in such a long period of time. During these two years Paul wrote many epistles, and in almost all of them he sent greetings from the Church in Rome and from several prominent Christians of Rome; to othe churches, but he never mentions Peter. In the letter addressed to the Colossians he gives the names of his collaborators, and adds: "These alone help me in the kingdom of God" (Colossians 4: 7, 11). But among these, Peter is not found, when, if he really was the bishop of Rome, he had to appear as the first among his collaborators.
In his 2 nd Letter to Timothy, referring to Paul at the end of these two years, when he was introduced to Nero, he says: "In my first defense nobody assisted me, they all have forsaken me: I pray to God that they will not be imputed this sin" Can we believe that Peter was one of those who forsook the great apostle of the Gentiles, had he been the bishop of Rome?
Paul, shortly before his death, as he expresses when he says: "I am already to be offered, and the time of my departure is near", the apostle Paul sends for the last time greetings from four leading Christians of Rome: "Eubulus, Pudent, Linus and Claudius "(2 Timothy 4:21). (It is this Linus to whom the Roman Catholic Church supposes Peter's successor and second Pope of Rome). But the name of Peter is not mentioned, although there were only a few days left until, according to the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, Peter and Paul were executed together on Mount Tiber, near Rome. From all these facts, the following conclusions are indubitably deduced:
1. Peter was never bishop of Rome; and a pontificate of his for 25 years is probably false, since there is no historical evidence that he was in Rome, not 25 years, but not even a week, exercising the pontificate in that city; and, on the other hand, we are overwhelmed by facts that contradict it.
2. Where is the concrete proof of Peter's pontificate in Rome, not for 25 years (which is totally impossible in light of the New Testament), nor for any period of time? There is no document of the time that proves it, nor any statement by the apostle Peter himself in the sense of appointing a successor. Nor is his Papacy mentioned by Paul, who was practicing in Rome and who never attributed himself the bishopric of Rome; and does not even attribute it to Peter, who supposedly according to the Roman Interpretation was his superior, and who does not even mention Peter in relation to Rome in any of his epistles
3. It is very strange that those bishops and presbyters of the Church, close in time to Peter, and succesors of the Apostles, do not bring to light, in their time, close as they were to the great apostle, any document of his from his pen or from any other, or that of the first bishops of Rome, knowing that the apostle conferred in a concrete way such succession and power.
4. If Peter did not exercise the pontificate in Rome, he could hardly name a bishop of that city as his successor. Most likely he did not do it in that city or anywhere else; for the title of Universal Head of the Church; the great apostle of the Jews, (Galatians 2: 8) never had or intended to have, nor did any Christian of his time attribute it to him, in any way.
For
more than a thousand years the Universal Church, that is, the whole Church
included in the 5 Ecumenical Patriarchates, namely: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome,
Alexandria and Constantinople; never attributed to Peter neither supremacy, nor
title of Head of the Church Universal.
If
indeed Peter was the head and the head of the Church, as the Roman
interpretation says, he was obliged to declare that headship publicly. It was
his duty to do so, to avoid disputes in the Church, if the office existed. Why
did not he do this? For the simple reason that he had heard Christ say:
"Whoever wants to be first, be the last of all"; and Jesus did not
try, in that opportunity and in any other, to give to His Body, that is, to the
Church, a visible leader. Peter therefore knew that the Church was not a
worldly society ruled liked the world rules and did not try to organize it that
way. Rome may question these reasons of the apostle, but what they can not
deny, is that there is no document, on the part of the apostle or other
Christians of his century, or of any other century before the Schism for that
matter, that proves the contrary.
It would have been hoped, that in his second epistle, when the apostle Peter declares the approach of his death (chapter 2, verse 14), he would had said to whom they owed obedience once he had left "his tabernacle". But instead of giving the name of a successor, he merely says that: he will try to leave a memory of the things of which he had been a witness to, as regards the glorious life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This promise was fulfilled, according to the holy fathers, in the writing of the Gospel of St. Mark, which was written, according to Papias, under the inspiration of Peter.
Rome says that Peter named Linus as his successor, but they do not provide any proof of it.
Then this being so, for what reason and under what titles can the current pope of Rome be called successor of Peter? Under a tradition that has lasted for many centuries this has been so. But the question is not, how many centuries the bishops of Rome consider themselves the successors of Peter and heads of the Church, but if they really are.
It would have been hoped, that in his second epistle, when the apostle Peter declares the approach of his death (chapter 2, verse 14), he would had said to whom they owed obedience once he had left "his tabernacle". But instead of giving the name of a successor, he merely says that: he will try to leave a memory of the things of which he had been a witness to, as regards the glorious life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This promise was fulfilled, according to the holy fathers, in the writing of the Gospel of St. Mark, which was written, according to Papias, under the inspiration of Peter.
Rome says that Peter named Linus as his successor, but they do not provide any proof of it.
Then this being so, for what reason and under what titles can the current pope of Rome be called successor of Peter? Under a tradition that has lasted for many centuries this has been so. But the question is not, how many centuries the bishops of Rome consider themselves the successors of Peter and heads of the Church, but if they really are.
If
they were appointed as such; if there is evidence of such succession, where it
should be found, in the first centuries of the church and prior to the Roman
Schism? They can not be found. In the Ecumenian Councils? There are not found
there. In the first 1054 years of the Church? Nor are there any evidences to be
found there. As easy as it would have been for the apostle Peter to resolve the
disputed question with two lines that he would have written in the letters,
universally recognized as his by all believers! One word only, one name: Linus,
and the unity of the Church would have been forever established! But he did
not. Why?
First, because, as we have seen, Peter had no relationship with these good Christians of Rome, given as he was to his ministry among the Jews of the East.
Secondly, because it was not Peter who guided his own pen, but as he himself declares: "The holy men of God wrote being inspired by the Holy Spirit" (2.1 Peter 1:21) .This great reality was fulfilled in his own person, and the Holy Spirit of God, who knew the destiny of the true Church of Christ, could not in any way sanction the authoritarian and abusive system that was to be formed, over the centuries, on the name of the great apostle .
Finally the most obvious test. What Christ himself taught about it?
Shortly after, according to the Roman misinterpretation of Mat. 16:18 where they say that the primacy of Peter was established, the other disciples still argued who would be the GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM Mat.20: 25 and 26, we read: "Then Jesus, calling them, said: You know that the rulers of the nations they rule over them and the powerful oppress them with their authority, but among you it will not be so, but whoever wants to become great will understand you, he will be your servant "
First, because, as we have seen, Peter had no relationship with these good Christians of Rome, given as he was to his ministry among the Jews of the East.
Secondly, because it was not Peter who guided his own pen, but as he himself declares: "The holy men of God wrote being inspired by the Holy Spirit" (2.1 Peter 1:21) .This great reality was fulfilled in his own person, and the Holy Spirit of God, who knew the destiny of the true Church of Christ, could not in any way sanction the authoritarian and abusive system that was to be formed, over the centuries, on the name of the great apostle .
Finally the most obvious test. What Christ himself taught about it?
Shortly after, according to the Roman misinterpretation of Mat. 16:18 where they say that the primacy of Peter was established, the other disciples still argued who would be the GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM Mat.20: 25 and 26, we read: "Then Jesus, calling them, said: You know that the rulers of the nations they rule over them and the powerful oppress them with their authority, but among you it will not be so, but whoever wants to become great will understand you, he will be your servant "
If they discussed who would be on their right and left, there
was no better time to tell them that it was already established that the
primacy rested on Peter. But that is not what he say. What Jesus tells them, is
that there would be no supreme authority on the part of any apostle or bishop,
because the supreme authority above all is the Father, as this same passage
establishes. The authority among them would be common as well, as shown by the
Jerusalem Council ( Acts 15). It clearly points out that the rulers of the
nations lord it over them and the oppressors, and here we have the popes whom
are not trying to oppress the nations, but the whole world. A pope dared to say
that only he had the right to wear the Imperial Insignia. What a way to follow
Jesus Christ!
Comments
Jackye
Tsikhlakis comments
Excellent, well researched article. thank you
for your insight. I have a question-
if
this being true for “the pope of Rome,” how does the Patriarch of
Constantinople justify his position, solely granting autonomy, ‘first among
equals’ etc. Like you, I truly just want to understand based on facts. Again, my thanks.
Gaspar Lopez Jackie
Tsikhlakis GBY. The Patriarch of Constantinople apprently thinks, he can be the
Orthodox Pope, thankfully since he has no home church to speak of, if the
National Churches and the other Patriarchates stand together, he will fail.
Let's pray that this happens. I think is about time, in fact is long
overdue, that the Orthodox Church have an ecumenical Council and straighten out
the Echumenical Patriarchate and put to bed forever the issue of Supremacy by
any one bishop over the Church once and for all, as a matter of fact, lets move
the Patriarchate out of Constantinople/Instanbul and place it either in Asia or
Latin America areas where the church needs to grow in the future, that way irt
could truly be an Echumenical Patriarchate and not a den of Papists and
Liberals.
Marlon Villanueva Hurillo Gaspar Lopez Pope Innocent I
"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).
Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 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 anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).
"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).
"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).
Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 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 anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).
"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).
Gaspar Lopez Precisely
there were several Bishops in Rome before the church started claiming that
Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I am all for returning to where we were The
Bishop of Rome as Primus Interpares and spokeman for the Church, together with
the Echumenical Patriarch. Thers is no justification for a Roman Absolute
Monarchy over the Church.
Thomas Dimattia comments
There is actually nothing to the contrary, but a reflection from an
unwritten oral tradition that Peter indeed had some sort of primacy.
You need to look more in scholarly work on this, for it seems that initially there were more than one bishop over Rome at the time of Peter.
You need to look more in scholarly work on this, for it seems that initially there were more than one bishop over Rome at the time of Peter.
In another Fathers Know Best tract,
Peter the Rock, we showed that the early Church Fathers recognized that Peter
is the rock of whom Christ spoke when he said, "You are Peter and on this
rock I will build my Church." This tract highlights some of the
implications of that fact.
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter 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]).
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter 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]).
Gaspar Lopez Precisely there were several Bishops in Rome before the
church started claiming that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I am all for
returning to where we were The Bishop of Rome as Primus Interpares and spokeman
for the Church, together with the Echumenical Patriarch. Thers is no
justification for a Roman Absolute Monarchy over the Church.
Gaspar Lopez I certainly encourage this type of discussion, although it
eventually centers around development of doctrine, imo.
And maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that by the breaking of the Russian Orthodox with the Ukrainian Church, that decision at least indirectly weakens your position.
But I could easily be wrong in that, I really haven't thought much of it nor discussed it with anyone.
And maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that by the breaking of the Russian Orthodox with the Ukrainian Church, that decision at least indirectly weakens your position.
But I could easily be wrong in that, I really haven't thought much of it nor discussed it with anyone.
Gaspar Lopez The Russina Orethodox Church did not
break with the Ukranian Church. the Ukranian Church is autonomous under the
Russian Patriarchate and still exist and as matter of fact it is legitimate
church and has not asked to separate from Russia. 340 years ago Constantinople
transfered the Kiev Autocephalus Church to Moscow, there was never an
Independent Ukranian Church that was not the Russian Church. During the time
when the Papacy tried to establish itself in Russia it spawned a whole series
of Uniate churches (Churches that owe submission to Roma but carry on a a form
of Bizantine Liturgy.) The Uniate Churches in Ukrain, finally forsook the Pope,
but refused to submitt to Moscow, that was why both Moscow and Constantinople,
considered then heretical and had no communion with them. A few years after the
fall of the Soviet Union the present head of the so called Ukranian
Autocephalosus Church split from the ex Uniates and formed His own Church ,
When Moscow and Constantinople refused to acceot this church as part of
Orthodoxy, He decalred it as Unicephalos or Independent . Then after the
Russian invasion of Crimea, he started , repeatedly to ask Constantinople to
interfere and recognize this church.
Many Ukranian nationalists, most of them not
even practicing Christians; joined his church, and the Ukranian Government
joined in the claims for an officially recognized Church independent of the
Russian Patriarchate. Finally Constantinople switched sides, supposedly under
pressure from both Ukraine and the West. But the point is, that the Echumenical
Patriarchate has no power to recognize an schismatic church without calling an
Ecumenical Council; neither can he apoint any officers in the territory of
another bishop. The whole thing is a power play by both the Constantinople and
the Ukranian Goverment and its clearly against Orthodox canon. You have to
understand the Echumenical Patriarch is not the Pope he has no authority other
than mediate disputes, these mediations are not binding and his only other
function is as a ceremonial head of Orthodoxy. Even in this regard he is
oversteped his bounds with the Echumenical reapproachment with Rome.
Reconciliation is only possible if Rome returns to the way the church was structured and functioned until the Papacy went its way. In other way as the Pope as a first among equals and not as somesort of an Absolute and Infallible Monarch, with total authority over all bishops and churches.
Reconciliation is only possible if Rome returns to the way the church was structured and functioned until the Papacy went its way. In other way as the Pope as a first among equals and not as somesort of an Absolute and Infallible Monarch, with total authority over all bishops and churches.
your valuable comments and sharing is expecting
No comments:
Post a Comment