Philosophy and Theology: The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy

Print Page | Close Window

The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21045
Printed Date: 20-May-2024 at 23:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy

Posted By: Akolouthos
Subject: The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 23:13

The understanding of the role of the Pope in the Church is a major bone of contention, not only between the Eastern and Western Churches, but also between the various Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI said that the issues surrounding the papacy represented "undoubtedly the greatest obstacle in the path of ecumenism." The debate revolves around Scripture, Patristics, and theology throughout the ages. This issue seems to come up time and again on All Empires and often diverts threads from their original topics. I propose, therefore, that any further discussion of the Papacy take place in this thread. This is a contentious issue, and thus I will propose a set of guidelines which I believe will help the keep the discussion civil and intelligent. Here are the guidelines with brief explanations below them:

1) Introduce yourself.

Please say hello and, in the interest of intellectual honesty, state your religious affiliation.

2) Post something substantive or don't post at all.

One liners profit nobody. If you feel something is wrong, you must clearly and intelligently state why.

3) Be original.

Please do not simply copy and paste source material. At least make the effort to connect it to a point you are trying to make. Explain how material from other websites, books, ancient documents, Scripture, etc. fits into the discussion.

4) Research, then write.

This discussion could provide us all with an opportunity to engage and learn from the writings of the Church Fathers, the Scriptures, etc.; there is an enormous amount of scholarship on this topic. Unfortunately there is also a wealth of polemical material. This thread, if we decide to behave like children, could degenerate into a flame war, which brings me to the most important point...

5) Be respectful.

If we respect others we stand to learn more than if we view them with haughty disdain. Pride is almost certainly a sin of which we have all been guilty--I know I, myself, have. Insults, trolling, etc. would be both unprofitable and un-Christian.

So here we go. I am Akolouthos. I am an Orthodox Christian. I have high hopes for this thread, and look forward to discussing this issue with all of you. Smile

-Akolouthos

P.S. If anyone notices discussion of this topic in other threads, please refer/link the parties involved to this one. Wink

Replies:

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 02:05

secondly, i don't understand the hesitancy of affirming papal infallibility while asserting the infallibility of councils.

as regards papal infallibility, scripturally, was it just honor?

keys of the kingdom

akolouthos mentioned the papacy being monarchic - not an invalid point: peter keys' following upon the passage from Isaiah 22:20 and following, where it talks of the key to the House of David.

strengthening brethren

Lk 22:31-32 when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. Can't think of a time in history that this is more appropriate, where some of our Christian brethren have been shaken more than others, and a time when strong Christian leadership is needed.

Primus inter pares - the honor part is clear and uncontested, the authority is the rub.

here is another explanation of the Greek Orthodox view of papal primacy:

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 03:29

Originally posted by The Jackal God

secondly, i don't understand the hesitancy of affirming papal infallibility while asserting the infallibility of councils.

as regards papal infallibility, scripturally, was it just honor?

Well, when Vatican I defined the doctrine there was a fair amount of hesitancy. It is quite the touchy subject, and has become an insurmountable impediment to union; so long as the concept of papal infallibility exists, no matter how narrowly it is defined and redefined, the Orthodox will be unable to recognize the Roman bishop.

We accept the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils because they are the vehicles through which the Holy Spirit has directed the Church--guiding it into all truth according to the promise of Christ--since its inception (See John 16 and the Council of Jerusalem). We cannot accept the infallibility of any individual. Even Roman theologians admit that the idea that the pope--or any other individual--can ever speak infallibly was unknown in antiquity.

In addition to these general problems, one pope (Honorius I) was anathematized as a monothelite by the Sixth Ecumenical Council for his heretical correspondence with Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Some of the most respected Roman historians, and most Eastern scholars believe his letter constitutes an ex cathedra document, being, as it was, a definitive doctrinal statement issued in response to a request for theological definition. The supporters of infallibility, of course, do not believe that his letter is an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

keys of the kingdom

akolouthos mentioned the papacy being monarchic - not an invalid point: peter keys' following upon the passage from Isaiah 22:20 and following, where it talks of the key to the House of David.

The gift of the keys to Peter (Matthew 16) does signify a special authority given to Peter. Indeed Peter generally speaks for the rest; still, we must remember that Peter's status cannot be separated from his confession. If his successor falls into error, he cannot exercise the prerogatives that rightly belong to the See of Peter.

That said, each of the Patriarchal sees possesses certain prerogatives. Rome's include, among other things, the right to hear appeals, the right to sit in the first seat at an ecumenical council, etc. The gift of the keys and ancient Roman prerogatives cannot, however, be taken to imply an absolute monarchical authority. Indeed Peter himself never presumed to act in an authoritarian fashion. While he spoke first, he spoke with the Church and never in its despite.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

strengthening brethren

Lk 22:31-32 when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. Can't think of a time in history that this is more appropriate, where some of our Christian brethren have been shaken more than others, and a time when strong Christian leadership is needed.

Aye, and that is why the Orthodox earnestly await a day when the popes are once again in communion with the Church. Then, they can exercise the rights and privileges that properly belong to a canonical Bishop of Rome. From an Orthodox perspective, however, the pope can hardly strengthen Christian brethren in the orthodox faith if he does not share that faith, in every particular, himself.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

Primus inter pares - the honor part is clear and uncontested, the authority is the rub.

Aye, that is the question. We Orthodox do recognize the primacy of honor to which a canonical bishop of Rome is entitled. We also recognize that the Roman see has certain prerogatives belonging exclusively to her. We do not, however, recognize the primacy as it has been interpreted in the West--and especially as it has been interpreted by the Roman Church since the Schism.

Thank you for moving that post. Smile

I think that this has the potential to be a wonderful thread. Could you please do me one more favor and introduce yourself? I know--or at least I think I know--that you are Catholic, but I think if everyone introduces themselves and notes their religious affiliation we will be more able to respectfully relate to each other.

God bless and keep you. Smile

-Akolouthos

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 12:44

yes, i am catholic.

here's another passage supporting the Roman interpretation:

Acts of the Apostles, Peter's visit to Cornelius - Holy Spirit reveals something to Peter, and Peter alone, and Peter alone reveals it to the Church as a whole by himself, on his own authority.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 13:11

Sorry it took me so long to respond; I've been a bit strapped for time. I may or may not be able to get to the forum over the course of the next couple of days. Anyway, here we go... Smile

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God

yes, i am catholic.

here's another passage supporting the Roman interpretation:

Acts of the Apostles, Peter's visit to Cornelius - Holy Spirit reveals something to Peter, and Peter alone, and Peter alone reveals it to the Church as a whole by himself, on his own authority.

I guess my question would run thus: how does it help the Roman interpretation?

Don't get me wrong, the meaning you have ascribed to the passage would seem to support part of the Roman understanding of papal primacy, but is that the way the passage has been interpreted by the Church through the ages? I briefly skimmed what Chrysostom and Augustine had to say about the passage, and couldn't find anything that suggests the rather narrow interpretation suggested above.

Still, I think the assertion that the "Holy Spirit reveals something to Peter," and Peter subsequently reveals it to the Church on his own authority tells part of the story; I would, however, remove the word "alone" from the statement. For you see Peter, on his own apostolic authority, receives the message from the Holy Spirit on behalf of the Church; he is appointed as the one to relay this divine instruction to the rest of the early Church. But why does Peter first receive this message?

Let us engage in a bit of exegesis--and only a bit for now. Wink

You have suggested one reason why Peter is the one to receive this message--although I feel that you have read a bit much into it; Peter receives the message in the context of his role as the leader of the Apostles. Still, it is recorded in the Scriptures that Peter has a bit of trouble with this message. Indeed he receives this message in Acts 10, plays the instrumental role in the establishment of the early Gentile Church, and defends the revelation in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. In Galatians 2, however, it is noted that Peter allowed himself to fall into hypocrisy, and did not heed the spirit of the decree of Jerusalem that he, himself, had helped to secure. Paul corrected Peter, and the fullness of the revelation concerning the Gentiles, which was first committed to Peter, was preserved because of that correction.

The leadership role held by Peter in the early Church is not a matter of dispute; the nature of that leadership is. I fail to see how Acts 10, when taken in the context of Scripture, provides an argument in favor of a monarchical papacy.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:01

I am lutheran for the record and my knowledge on theology is quite poor so I'll just give my initial opinions on this rather contested topic.

I can't speak for others but for myself the one thing about the pope that is a bone of contention for me is how he was basically a king in all but name for centuries, the hypocrisy of it all is just too much. Also I don't like the idea of a hierachy in regards to religion, I believe you can pray to christ and so on by yourself without the help of other humans who are just as imperfect as yourself simply more schooled in theology. The idea that the pope is gods vicar on earth I refuse out of hand absolutely, the idea is preposterous to me.

There is a lot more I would like to add but for the moment this will have to do.

Of course if I offended anybody that is clearly not my intention.

-------------
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 18:09

Great thread Akolouthos!

I think this thread is sorely needed as many have many questions on the subject.

If we take what Christ has said in the Gospels(as most Christians do) to spell out in simple chapter and verse*sorry couldnt resist

* of Peters primacy and leadership role then why no succesor? Why would Christ set up a leadership role only to have it dissolve? Why would the Apostolic Church let something Christ has made fall into extinction?

Also other than taking from the Gospels, in the year 97 serious disagreements fell upon the Church of Corinth whereby Clement, the Bishop of Rome, wrote out an authorative letter to restore peace. At this time St. John was still alive in Ephesus and did not intercede or interfere

-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:49

Hello. For the record I am Jewish and belong to a Conservative synagogue, though my views on certain issues often fall more in line with Reform or Orthodox theology. My religious education consists of three years at a Reform Jewish day school, six years at an Orthodox Jewish Hebrew school, two years at a Catholic parish middle school and two years at a Jesuit high school (which I attend now). Outside of Jewish sources the Jesuits have particularly influenced my personal theology.

Anyhow, back on topic. In regards to Justinian's post, I would beg to differ. It was only during the Enlightenment that the doctrine of seperation of Church and State gained any real support in Europe. As such, up until the point, it was fully acceptable and indeed expected that the Pope, imbued with religious authority as he was, would also be imbued with temporal authority. The bone of contention between the Pope and Eastern Christianity (East Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Orthodox) is the insistance of the Pope to hold absolute authority as the sole head of Christianity rather than as the "first among equals". The bone of contention between the Pope and most of Protestantism is, indeed, hypocrisy, but not hypocrisy in that they held temporal as well as spiritual authority, but that they sacrificed Christian values and fundamentals for the sake of increased monetary and material holdings.

In regards to arch.buff, I would have to disagree enthusiastically with the statement that most Christians take the Gospels to spell out, well, anything in simple and plain language. Protestants and fundamentalists may try to interpret scripture in a simple manner, but Catholics and Eastern Christians, who make up by far the majority of Christianity, have a proud and vibrant tradition of interpretation. One can not take anything for granted when reading scripture, especially since plain meaning differs vastly based on who is reading the scripture. As Akolouthos has pointed out, there is significant basis on which to interpret scripture as placing the Pope of Rome as a first among equals, not the sole and omniscient head of the Church.

As for the letter, first, it is now generally dated to before the papacy of Pope Clement I, falling during the papacy of St. Peter if the numbering of Clement as the second pope is accepted, thus negating the issue of the letter taking a leadership role. Additionally, the authorisation is further doubted as Clement is never mentioned by name in the letter. Similarly, the authority and reliability of the letter was doubted enough that even though it was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation and widely circulated throughout much of the Byzantine Empire, it was not placed in the official cannon of the bible. More importantly, the letter, from what I have seen, does not take the definitive leadership role equatable to the theology of the papacy in modern Catholicism that you say it does. The letter is merely adressed as "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth". Here the pope is taking an advisory role just as any other patriarch of the Pentarchy would.

More important than any of this, however, is that at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Alexandria were placed on an equal footing. According to the sixth cannon of the Council the Pope of Alexandria and Pope of Rome are placed as having jurisdiction as first amoung equals in their respective regions. In fact, the Pope of Alexandria had in some ways a greater position than the Pope of Rome, having the authority to annually discern the exact date of Easter, making him in effect the most powerful single authority in Christendom theologically. The fact is is that the theology of the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome came about at a much later date, the early councils and theologians confirming the equality of the Pentarchy and within it the equality of the Popes of Rome and Alexandria as firsts among equals.

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 08:59

welcome to the forum B'tzalel91, your contribution is much appreciated

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 12:26

Originally posted by arch.buff

If we take what Christ has said in the Gospels(as most Christians do) to spell out in simple chapter and verse*sorry couldnt resist

Peter's place of honour did not compromise or effect to the slightest the independence of the other Apostles in the Acts. So one can only understand the nature of his preeminence as one amongst equals rather than a leader with total authority. The Latin view is simply inconsistent with how the Apostles acted and treated each other, according to the bible.

Did not Paul disagree with Peter and even James? I suspect James is completely underrated in authority by the latter Pauline Christians. I don't recall he ever agreed to the diluting of the Mosaic law and seems to be the undisputed head of all Judiac Christians in Jerusalem. This would not fit well with the Latin view of Peter.

For example; look at how the apostles consider the issue of mosiac law (circumcision) in Acts 15; the apostles gather to discuss the issue. They don't sit around Peter listening to his words. But as Peter does talk in this matter, so does James who also makes a judgment on the matter quoting the OT. Here James spoke with as much authority - Acts 15(13-21). Further, the apostles one sentence later collectively decide to send Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. If one comes up with a sentence of proof of the Latin view point, there are many others that would suggest the reality at the time was otherwise.

edit: grammar/English improvements Embarrassed

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 00:34

My apologies to you all; I have been away for a bit. I returned, however, to find that this discussion has gone on quite civilly and successfully without me--no surprise there. Smile

I will take a closer look at this thread in the next couple of days, and look forward to discussing this important topic with you all. I will also, gradually, be responding to pms; once again, my apologies for the delay.

Welcome to the thread Justinian, arch.buff, and Leonidas, and welcome to the forum B'tzalel91!

-Akolouthos

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 10:45

Hi there.

I am a Roman Catholic who studied Christian thought in college.

My professor describe the problem in the following manner, which is totally political and not theological:

the East had many great Bishops, while the West had only one, Rome. When there was a dispute among the Eastern bishops, these would take sides among themselves and Rome, the geographic outsider, often played the role of the tie breaker. As such, this did give a bit more of power to Rome. At some point, the supremacy of the Roman patriarch, the Papa of the western world, began to be assume by the Roman bishop. As such, it was a very late introduction. The Eastern patriarchs responded to this situation the way most people would do: they made it clear that the Pope was wrong.

Even as a Roman Catholic, I see that the Eastern patriarchs have been right, and the leadership of the Western Church has been wrong. And the Eastern Church has been very accommodating by conceding the point about the pope being the "first among equals," a title for which there is very weak scriptural or historical evidence. The passage of the keys of heaven is very obscure and it probably has some religious meaning rather than a political one, as Jesus in the Gospels seems to focus on spiritual teachings rather than administrative matters.

-------------

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 12:01

good posts all...

one thing that it appears to me to be an assumption, maybe we could talk about it, that the question is either papal supremacy (and infallibility) OR ecumenical decrees/councils. someone noted hesitancy something to the effect of "what if the pope interfered too much" w/ orthodox churches were they to accept papal supremacy.

first, i don't think it is a matter of one or the other. the idea of papal infallibility doesn't make Church councils obsolete in any way. In fact, Church councils and synods have been used much more than papal declarations ex cathedra (infallibility); and then if we mention the national chapters, then that really shows how much more vibrant the concept of collegiality is being used in the Western Church alongside the concept of papal infallibility. (which follows the pattern of the gospels and early church history - two modes of reaching Truth)

that Clement's letter is now not attributed to him is news to me. ofc, the last i touched on that subject was apologetics in highschool 10 years ago. i'll look into that.

finally, with the hesitancy towards roman universal immediate jurisdiction, perhaps take a look at the degree of Papal interference in the Sees of the other Western Bishops. you won't find much, even in the case of Bishops who are on the edge of the flock. i wouldn't expect more interference in the east than in the west, were they to reunite.

on the side, i went to an Abyssinian Orthodox Christmas vigil mass. very nice, very long, didn't understand a word, but very nice.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 00:29

Originally posted by The Jackal God

that Clement's letter is now not attributed to him is news to me.

It's news to me too. I knew that we had two pseudo-Clementine letters, but always thought the first (the one to the Corinthians) was authentic. But since B'tzalel91 seems to be fairly familiar with patristic scholarship (are you really in high school B'tzalel? if so, bravo! Smile

) I think we should look into it a bit. Since the content of the letter is the essence of the matter, I don't think the question of authorship should prove too contentious. I do seem to recall that there were two separate accounts of the early papacy--one placing Clement as second, and one (Irenaeus, perhaps?) placing him as fourth. Anyway, from what I have read, the content of the letter is as B'tzalel91 describes it. Admittedly I have not studied it for a good while; if anyone wishes to provide an in depth analysis supporting the Roman position, I would be willing to participate in a discussion.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

one thing that it appears to me to be an assumption, maybe we could talk about it, that the question is either papal supremacy (and infallibility) OR ecumenical decrees/councils.

An excellent point, and one that strikes at the heart of the matter. The Orthodox--and a great deal of the Roman Catholic--position re. the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils is based upon John 16 in light of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Since we believe that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into "all truth," and since the Apostolic method of discerning truth with relation to questions of universal importance involved gathering in council, the Orthodox support the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

first, i don't think it is a matter of one or the other. the idea of papal infallibility doesn't make Church councils obsolete in any way. In fact, Church councils and synods have been used much more than papal declarations ex cathedra (infallibility); and then if we mention the national chapters, then that really shows how much more vibrant the concept of collegiality is being used in the Western Church alongside the concept of papal infallibility. (which follows the pattern of the gospels and early church history - two modes of reaching Truth)

I grant that the Roman Catholic Church has held an Ecumenical Council since the solemn definition of Vatican I re. papal infallibility. Still, even before Vatican I the Roman Catholic Church asserted that a council, whether Ecumenical or local, must be recognized by the Pope to be valid. This is inconsistent with the history of the Ecumenical era; indeed the disputed canons of Constantinople I and Chalcedon, though not fully promulgated or even recognized in the west until after the fourth crusade, were in full effect throughout the rest of the Church. Could you please explain the idea of "national chapters" to me? I am unfamiliar with the term.

As far as papal infallibility goes, the Orthodox Church does not recognize any individual as infallible, no matter how narrowly this infallibility is defined. We believe that the method by which universal decrees and dogmas are promulgated is universal.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

finally, with the hesitancy towards roman universal immediate jurisdiction, perhaps take a look at the degree of Papal interference in the Sees of the other Western Bishops. you won't find much, even in the case of Bishops who are on the edge of the flock. i wouldn't expect more interference in the east than in the west, were they to reunite.

Ah, but there is interference, and from an early age. Indeed we can find evidence of the beginning of papal universal claims as early as the third century; the key issue is the degree to which they were accepted by the Church universal. Certainly there was a great deal of attempted interference during the Middle Ages, especially during the Latin Empire, which was a product of the Fourth Crusade.

The issue is not how much interference takes place; the issue is whether or not any interference is justified.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

on the side, i went to an Abyssinian Orthodox Christmas vigil mass. very nice, very long, didn't understand a word, but very nice.

I've never been to an Ethiopian Orthodox Church; I shall try not to display too openly my envy. Smile

-Akolouthos

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 12:44

Originally posted by B'tzalel91

Apologies Akolouthos for not following the rules and introducing myself.

Im arch.buff and I am Catholic. One would presume by the admission that I sternly believe in the nature of the Pope. Well....its not so cut-and-dry for me at this point in my life it is a truth, or lack there of, that I struggle with. Through prayer and a ever growing knowledge on the matter I hope to one day be fully immersed in the truth, but for now I am torn.

On the matter of the letter, Oh hello by the way b'tzale, it seems to me that the Church of Corinth itself very early on viewed this letter to be authored by Clement.

"Today we observed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your letter[Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement"

(Letter to Pope Soter from Dionysius Bishop of Corinth in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:11 - A.D. 170)

Dionysius, himself a Bishop expressing the views of the church, views the letter to be authored or at least approved and sent off to the Church of Corinth by Clement.

If we read earlier in the text:

"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city...This custom your precious Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as aloving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (ibid 4:23:9)

Again I myself, a Catholic, am on the fence about the nature of the Bishop of Rome but I can see some content that suggests it and the one thing keeping me going is the New Testament and Peters actions therein...

Also sorry for the bad grammar if there is any, blew right thru this post and to b'tzale sorry if I offended you or anyone else here on the board I guess sometimes I get a lil too tongue-and-cheek. I dont view the Bible as a simple book, it was just a corny phrase that "fit the bill" at the time....so to speak.

Peace be with you all,

Arch.buff

-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:33

ako, you seem like you studied the councils extensively. bravo! can you tell me which cannons weren't accepted in the west from Chalcedon?

by national chapters i meant to refer to councils of bishops by nations

as for ethiopian orthodox, there might be some near you. DC, Windsor-Detroit, Minneapolis, Nashville, Toronto all have ethiopian orthodox churches (well, not sure about minneapolis)

my point about interference wasn't directed along the lines of intellectual, just allaying possible worries from the "so what if then"

ako, here's a question for you: i dont understand well the relationship between the various Orthodox Churches.

for instance, i think the Copts and Abyssinians consider themselves theologically, ecclesiastically separate from the others and each other (Monophysites?)

what about the Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian...Orthodox Churches?

can you explain it bearing in mind the mindset of a Roman Catholic, where it seems on first impressions there is more unity across national boundaries?

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 23:47

Originally posted by arch.buff

Apologies Akolouthos for not following the rules and introducing myself.

No apologies necessary, arch.buff. Thanks for looking over the rules; I am convinced that you have looked over the rules both by your introduction and by the non-polemical nature of your post. Smile

Though I believe we might differ with regard to the interpretation of Clement's letter, I have always heard it attributed to Clement until very recently. It would appear, however, that B'tzalel is correct in asserting that some modern scholars have found reason to doubt Clement's authorship, but I myself will continue to hold to the majority view which affirms the traditional position asserting Clementine authorship.

Originally posted by arch.buff

Peace be with you all,

Arch.buff

Could you please elaborate as to which passages you believe support the Roman Catholic interpretation and why? It is always interesting to see how differing interpretations lead to differing theological viewpoints. In so many of these passages the separation between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology is a matter of degree; we agree on a substantial number of underlying issues.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

ako, you seem like you studied the councils extensively. bravo! can you tell me which cannons weren't accepted in the west from Chalcedon?

Thank you.

Canon II of the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) and Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) were not accepted by Rome at first. As I recall they gained eventual acceptance after the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople, but I may be wrong here--I apologize, but I do not have my books with me. I also believe that one of the canons (was it XXVIII again?) of Chalcedon granted the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to hear appeals from individuals outside of his immediate jurisdiction--a right previously granted to Rome by the local Council of Sardica (343 A.D. ?).

The canons were still promulgated in the East (and were de facto in force universally, despite the refusal of successive popes to ratify them). Still, it is important to note that Constantinople I constitutes, as near as I can figure, the first time the Bishop of Rome tried to exercise a "line-item veto." The difficult thing about this whole era is that the Roman bishops were claiming prerogatives that weren't recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs and the bishops of Constantinople were claiming prerogatives that weren't recognized by the Pope.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

ako, here's a question for you: i dont understand well the relationship between the various Orthodox Churches.

for instance, i think the Copts and Abyssinians consider themselves theologically, ecclesiastically separate from the others and each other (Monophysites?)

Well the Ethiopians and Copts are part of the Oriental Orthodox Communion, and they are monophysites--although they would prefer the term miaphysites, as they, like the Orthodox and Catholic churches, oppose Eutychian monophysitism. They are not in communion with the Orthodox Church, but there is a good deal of ecumenical dialogue going on. Many feel that the point of contention between orthodox and the monophysites was exaggerated due to the contentious nature of fifth century theological dialogue.

Originally posted by The Jackal god

what about the Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian...Orthodox Churches? can you explain it bearing in mind the mindset of a Roman Catholic, where it seems on first impressions there is more unity across national boundaries?

Well, if you ask famous Catholic apologist Scott Hahn (who, while he is extremely well versed *ahem* when it comes to Scripture and Tradition, is fairly clueless when it comes to Orthodox ecclesiology), we are exactly like Protestants only divided along ethnic lines. LOL

Actually, the Orthodox national churches are in full communion with each other--if I prepare I may receive communion in the Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc. churches. This is actually quite like the situation in the New Testament era; think of the national churches as local manifestations of the universal body (or in scriptural terms as "the Church at Russia," "the Church at Greece," and so on).

I don't know if that is very helpful, and apologize if it is not. Please let me know if I have failed to clearly present the Orthodox perspective.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2007 at 23:00

so if orthodoxy is organized around national churches, is there an american orthodox church, australian, welsh...and if not, why?

and the various national orthodox churches are in complete theological and juridical communion?

does the patriarch of Constantinople still hold his position of pre-eminence, and how does his position contend w/ that of the Russian patriarch's?

i recall the words of one Russian patriarch saying communion with Rome can never happen, while the former pope and the patriarch bartholomeos got along rather well, holding a different opinion.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 00:20

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God

so if orthodoxy is organized around national churches, is there an american orthodox church, australian, welsh...and if not, why?

and the various national orthodox churches are in complete theological and juridical communion?

I don't know about the Australians, but I would imagine that they are still subject--whether directly or as an autonomous entity--to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Leonidas, being an Australian Orthodox Christian, would know better than I. If he is unable to post, I could look into it. The situation in Western Europe and America--with the exception of Alaska-- involves diaspora communities. After the schism the Orthodox Church, out of economia stemming from a concern for Christian unity, was reluctant to plant churches in the West as a matter of policy. The Church thus spread to much of the West as a result of emigration resulting from the oppression of Christian communities in the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire.

Thus, religious refugees entered America (the example with which I am most familiar) from a number of Orthodox countries piecemeal, and still subordinate to their Old World hierarchs. This has led to a rather interesting situation which will, ideally, be taken up by the next, long-awaited Pan-Orthodox Council. In America, we have separate jurisdictions (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, OCA, Antiochian Archdiocese, etc.) in full communion with each other but subject to their own, particular episcopal hierarchies. The situation is far from ideal, and is not recognized as a permanent canonical solution. While it does not affect the Eucharistic unity of the Church universal, it does have practical ramifications which are undesirable. These jurisdictions are unquestionably in complete theological communion. By virtue of the fact that they share a common canonical tradition which extends well past the Ecumenical era, and, by virtue of the fact that their hierarchs are in communion, they are also in juridical communion.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

does the patriarch of Constantinople still hold his position of pre-eminence, and how does his position contend w/ that of the Russian patriarch's?

The Patriarch of Constantinople does, indeed, still hold his position of pre-eminence. It is likely that the next Pan-Orthodox Council will clarify the ranking of the Patriarchal sees, since several have been founded in the millenia-and-a-half since Chalcedon established their order. The Russian Patriarchs, as the leaders of the largest local Orthodox Church, understandably, are eager to have this matter dealt with by the universal Church.

It is unlikely that the Russian Patriarch would be elevated above Constantinople--note that though Rome was a shadow of its former self, the position of its bishop as primus inter pares was reaffirmed by Chalcedon. Still, it is not necessarily impossible; after all, Constantinople was elevated above Alexandria, and the decrees of an Ecumenical Council--if the Pan Orthodox Council is deemed such--are binding on the entire Church.

Originally posted by The Jackal God

i recall the words of one Russian patriarch saying communion with Rome can never happen, while the former pope and the patriarch bartholomeos got along rather well, holding a different opinion.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has, since the middle of the twentieth century, been more receptive to Ecumenical dialogue than the Russian Church. Still, unless certain underlying theological issues are addressed, this dialogue will come to nothing. The Orthodox Church cannot accept, for instance, the Roman Catholic interpretation of the primacy and belief in the infallibility of the popes. The comments of any individual Patriarch in this matter hold a great deal of weight, but the issue of reunification would ultimately need to be taken up by an Ecumenical Council.

Hope that clears things up a bit; I have never been all that organized. LOL

God bless and keep you, Jackal God. Smile

-Akolouthos

Addendum: I may post this in the Greek Orthodoxy thread tomorrow, both because I feel it would fit better there and because I think you have raised some extremely important questions which many would benefit from considering.

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 01:06

fascinating answers, thank you

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 11:31

Originally posted by Justinian

Also I don't like the idea of a hierachy in regards to religion, I believe you can pray to christ and so on by yourself without the help of other humans who are just as imperfect as yourself simply more schooled in theology.

The idea of the papacy does not imply that one cannot pray directly.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 12:10

Originally posted by Akolouthos

An excellent point, and one that strikes at the heart of the matter. The Orthodox--and a great deal of the Roman Catholic--position re. the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils is based upon John 16 in light of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Since we believe that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into "all truth," and since the Apostolic method of discerning truth with relation to questions of universal importance involved gathering in council, the Orthodox support the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils.

The Catholics further understand John 16 and Acts 15 in light of Matthew 18. I'm sure you are already familiar with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 18 and other passages supporting Petrine Primacy. The reasoning is that, even in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, the apostles could not agree. Hence, the ultimate final decision-making is neither to be determined by a majority vote (which doesn't appear to be Biblical) nor a unanimous vote (which appears impossible even in the Bible). In the Catholic intepretation, the matters were at once settled once St. Peter spoke at the Jerusalem Council, and then St. James followed up with the same opinion.

Hence, in the Catholic view, the counciliary structure of the church is combined with a "seat of final judgment", and the two -- Council and Papacy -- are not in conflict, but in harmonious coordination. In the Orthodox view, the Papacy diminishes the power of Councils, but in the Catholic view, the papacy is necessary to complete the function of councils, for reasons noted above.

In the Catholic view, it is not "one or the other," as Jackal God said. The ultimate authority is vested in the Church, as the Spirit always protects the Church from completely falling into error. This final authority is manifested, theoretically, in the Church -- here, the Church as considered as an entity, and not the combination of individuals, as it has been shown in history that, at least in the Catholic and Orthodox views, that many individuals had fallen into errors before. In practice, however, there must be some form of seat of final judgment within the Church in order to enforce the theoretical infallibility of the Church. In the Catholic view, this final seat of authority is ultimately vested in the Papacy, even though infallibility applies to the entire Church.

Another way to put it is that whenever the Church teaches something infallibly, it is the Church that teaches it. When an Ecumenical Council teaches something infallibly, it is the teaching of the universal Church itself. The Papacy, in the Catholic view, is the Biblical as well as logically necessary element that resolves a practical issue (i.e., the impossibility of unanimity) in the enforcement of the infallibility of the Church through councils.

This brings us back to the earlier part of my post. The Catholics believe that their doctrinal reasoning is manifested in Acts 15. The apostles could not agree on the issues, and St. Peter stood up to speak, and that decision was not contradicted again. The Catholics believe that this is a significant case where Petrine Infallibility was exercised.

In sum, it appears that the ultimate question is whether the pope has a passive role -- that of a court of appeal -- or more of an active role in determining questions of faith and practice. In theory at least, the Catholics and Orthodox are in agreement regarding one of what appear to be your greatest concerns -- whether the Pope is a solitary, individual monarchy, and in the Catholic view, he certainly is not such a monarchy. He is the seat of final decision in the Church, which as a whole entity has infallibility. The only issue in practice is that the Catholics believe their pope can take an active role in enforcing the infallibility of the Church. Hence, from a Catholic view, Papal Infallibility is virtually the same as the Infallibility of the Church.

The only question left is whether St. Peter passed on this authority to the Bishops of Rome. I don't think this is the chief question of debate here, so I will just reiterate what you're probably already familiar with: the early Church fathers recorded that St. Peter ended his ministry and life at Rome; the Bishops are ordained by the Apostles and succeed them, as St. Paul mentioned in one or more of his letters, and the early Church fathers noted that the Bishop of Rome succeeded St. Peter.

Please note that I personally don't really believe in any form of Christianity, so the Catholic views that I explained above are not necessarily my personal views. I'm just explaining the Biblical interpretation and logical reasoning of Catholic theology as I undestand them. Also, if I have stated the Catholic views, the Orthodox views, or any Christian views incorrectly, I'm open to correction.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 03:53

The papal doctrine is grounded on the theory that apostle Peter went and died at Rome and that he is different to the other apostles.

I am convinced, on the basis of historical and archaeological sources, that Peter never went to Rome, didn't died there and that the so called bones discovered at Rome do not belong to the apostle. I will bring all the explanation.

Also, I will show that the New Testament verses on which is based the petrine doctrine (that Peter is different than other apostles) are wrong interpreted by Catholic church.

But for now, only the first part of the arguments from the documentary sources.

I'll give evidences that the Catholic theories are contradicted by historical evidences.

A most important source is the New Testament. No where is mentioned that Peter was at Rome, on the contrary, there are elements which proofs he was not.

I'll start with one which is not mentioned in the materials usually attacking the theory of Peter's presence at Rome (I mean I discovered it myself alone):

I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.

old

Now, I'll put the arguments commonly used against Peter's presence at Rome theory. First, the biblical arguments:

With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

"There is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, i.e. circa 90-96 AD," say the editors of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, who conclude, however, that Babylon on the Euphrates was intended.

Vatican historiographers are basing the support of their theory exclusively on some passages in the writings of Fathers of the Church from 1-4th century.

Cronologicaly ordered, they are:

Clement of Rome

CHAPTER 4 -- MANY EVILS HAVE ALREADY FLOWED FROM THIS SOURCE IN ANCIENT TIMES.

For thus it is written: "And it came to pass after certain days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice to God; and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his sheep, and of the fat thereof. And God had respect to Abel and to his offerings, but Cain and his sacrifices He did not regard. And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why are you grieved, and why is your countenance fallen? If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be at peace: your offering returns to yourself, and you shall again possess it. And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field. And it came to pass, while they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and killed him." You see, brethren, how envy and jealousy led to the murder of a brother. Through envy, also, our father Jacob fled from the face of Esau his brother. Envy made Joseph be persecuted unto death, and to come into bondage. Envy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of Egypt, when he heard these words from his fellow countryman, "Who made you a judge or a ruler over us? Will you kill me, as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?" On account of envy, Aaron and Miriam had to make their home outside of the camp. Envy brought down Dathan and Abiram alive to Hades, through the sedition which they excited against God's servant Moses. Through envy, David underwent the hatred not only of foreigners, but was also persecuted by Saul king of Israel.

CHAPTER 5 -- NO LESS EVILS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME SOURCE IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES. THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL.

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. 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 finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

two pillars of the church

Ignatius of Antioch

Chapter IV.-Allow Me to Fall a Prey to the Wild Beasts.

I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain.

Irenaeus of Lyon

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Dyonisius of Corynth

You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.

I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.

Clement of Alexandria

"Marcus, my son, saluteth you." Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar's equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews.

.......................

I shall continuate later with Fathers of the Church from later periods and with the proofs that the so called tomb of Peter in Rome is a bluff.

____________________________________

Complete (or partial) textes of the Fathers of the Church quoted above
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html - Clement of Rome

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-longer.html - Ignatius

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html - Irenaeus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_of_Corinth - Dyonisius

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html - Clement of Alexandria

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 00:13

good effort, but here's what i found weak:

1. you interpreted that prophecy according to your pre-conceived premise that Peter was never in Rome. that prophecy mentions no place about location, so to divine a location from it is invalid.

hence, for those who affirm Peter was in Rome, it fits. that prophecy neither validates nor invalidates either affirmation.

2. while you do venture into the early fathers, you still reveal a protestant flare for sola scriptura - a 'if it's not in the scriptures, then it didn't happen' attitude. on many levels, that approach is illogical and simplistic; here, moreso, since we know that the gospel writers didn't attempt to document Christ's every geographical footstep, and at least half the time, we can only guess where things happened.

3. so you turned to tradition, part of which is recorded in the writings of the church fathers. find one father that says Peter did not die at Rome, and you will have something. tradition has always maintained that Peter died at Rome, and your quotes do not disestablish that.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 06:23

hence, for those who affirm Peter was in Rome, it fits. that prophecy neither validates nor invalidates either affirmation.

I repet, expressed different: John was thinking at the way Petere have died when he was mentioned that prophecy, because he was knowing about the way Peter died he was thinking it coresponds with the prophecy.

From the phrase someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go we see is not about a long distance movement, because the asociation between dressing and leading doesn't sugest a journey over sea. Actualy, saying that Peter will be leaded means he will executed or killed, not that he will be moved, as John himself explain. The sense of the passage is that due to the lack of physical condition, Peter was not able to evittae being catched and killed.

Lets supose John was knowing that Peter was leaded to Rome.

2. while you do venture into the early fathers, you still reveal a protestant flare for sola scriptura - a 'if it's not in the scriptures, then it didn't happen' attitude.

I didn't have the protestant belief and I sayed If such thing would have happened, is hard to believe it would not be mentioned somewhere. .

Peter moving to Rome would have been an important event and should have been recorded in the books of the New Testament writen after the date of his death.

find one father that says Peter did not die at Rome, and you will have something. tradition has always maintained that Peter died at Rome, and your quotes do not disestablish that.

And which is the source of traditon? The Ftahers contemporary with the Apostles says nothing about Peter being at Rom eat the later Fathers were saying what they have read in early Fathers or what they have heard from oral tradition. Or the oral tradition in early Church was full of legends and fake things.

As I promised, I'll come further with explanation about the so called tomb of Peter and about the strange history of discovering what is suposed to be his bones.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 13:02

2. while you do venture into the early fathers, you still reveal a protestant flare for sola scriptura - a 'if it's not in the scriptures, then it didn't happen' attitude.

Who are you to say what should be included in the New Testament? Who is anybody to make such a claim?

The simple fact is that this tradition of Peter dieing in Rome has always been believed by the early church, if it had not and some other city could make claim for Peters death dont you think they would have? It was an issue that was not under dispute in the church, a fact that if another city did infact have proof or a shread of evidence to calim Peters martyrdom they most certainly would. No other See took claim, which they definately would have had they the opportunity

-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 14:55

he simple fact is that this tradition of Peter dieing in Rome has always been believed by the early church, if it had not and some other city could make claim for Peters death dont you think they would have? It was an issue that was not under dispute in the church, a fact that if another city did infact have proof or a shread of evidence to calim Peters martyrdom they most certainly would. No other See took claim, which they definately would have had they the opportunity

Only the generations contemporary with the Apostles could known directly what happened. The others just were basing on the writing or oral tradition of the anterior generations.

In the conditions of Christian communities in Rome in the first century, the story that Peter the apostle died there would spread without checking and at the next generations it would became a strong belief, like we see totday, e.g., with the belief that bones of Peter have been discovered at Rome, which is in opostion with the opinions of scholars from the field of archaeology and not only.

We see how distorted these traditions were perpetuating in the early Church period if we look at what Dyonisius of Corinth (and examples are much many), who says the community in Corinth was planted by apostles Peter and Paul, which we know sure is not true because in Acts of Apostles and in the epistles to the Corinthians of Paul there is not mentioned the presence of Peter at Corinth.

The myth about the presence of Peter at Rome appeared, I think, at Corinth, the Christians from here often reading , among other apostolic and early Fathers letters, the epistle send to them by Clement, in which is that juxtaposing of Peter and Paul. Sometime, they started to believe Clement is refering to the death in Rome of the two Apostles, which is not true, the passage in Clement's letter proving on the oposite that he was having in mind that the two have died in different locations.

From Corinth the legend arrived at Rome and was adopted by the communities in this city, which were numerous and having not a coordination of their activities and teaching sources (actualy, until 120 Rome haven't a bishop).

The Vatican historians and contemporary apologets are defending the theory about Roman sojourn of Peter exclusively by the texts of Fathers of the church, which I demonstrated that were basing each one on the writings of anterior Fathers and that the story linking Peter and Rome appears not earlier than ~170 and that this story is enriched with details with getting farther to the initial, apostolic period.

You can see which are the Vatican's explanations here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV

Just an example of the 'exactitude' of that article:

Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles � St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

Wee se how the author of this text make connections without any ground. And like that are many.

.....................

Now I'll show that the so called discoveries of the tomb and bones of Peter at Rome are not in acordance with scientifical opinions.

First, some details about the real things we know about apostle Peter.

Peter was the founder and spiritual patron of the Christian community in Antioch. The period he spend in this city is disputed. I present some versions I found on internet:

37-53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch)

Not at all

, from 30 to 67 he was at Rome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes)

37-67, says the Syrian church http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html - http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html

The fact is Peter surely was at Antioch (galatians 2: 11) and there is a church in this city which dates from the apostles' time and is sayed to be dug by the Apostle himself. This is the oldest church in the world:

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_Kilisesi - http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_Kilisesi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8szY6dDOOc - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8szY6dDOOc

So, about Peter's sojourn in Antioch we have documentary mentionts in New Testament and also material profs.

What about the so called discovery of Peter's tomb and bones in Rome?

Let's see what sources which are not Catholic says:

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-5632 - Encyclopedia Britannica :
The excavation of this site, which lies far beneath the high altar of the present Church of St. Peter, was begun in 1939. The problems encountered in excavation and interpretation of what has been discovered are extremely complex. There are some scholars who are convinced that a box found in one of the fairly late sidewalls of the Aedicula contains fragments of the remains of the Apostle, fragments which at an earlier time may have rested in the earth beneath the Aedicula. Others are most definitely not convinced. If a grave of the Apostle did exist in the area of the base of the Aedicula, nothing identifiable of that grave remains today. Furthermore, the remains discovered in the box that until comparatively recently rested in the sidewall do not lead necessarily to a more positive conclusion. Archaeological investigation has not solved with any great degree of certainty the question of the location of the tomb of Peter. If it was not in the area of the Aedicula, perhaps the grave rested elsewhere in the immediate vicinity, or perhaps the body was never recovered for burial at all.

A scholar from
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=794 - Alberta University :
This is what Pope Pius XII said in his radio broadcast:

The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labour and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle.

Little did he know what a bizarre episode in Christian archaeology lay ahead when he spoke these words. The whole subsequent story has been clearly set out by Dr. J. Curran in the journal Classics Ireland but I will summarize it here. Although the scant remains of bones found in the tomb were initially identified as those of a man in his late sixties, more extensive study later revealed that they actually belonged to an older man, a younger man, a woman, a pig, a chicken, and a horse.

See also
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200310/mueller - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200310/mueller

But what realy happened? Where did Peter died and where is buried, if his body realy was obtained by the Christians?

This article can make some sugestions:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm - http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Is more acceptable to think Peter died in Palestina and he was buried in Jerusalem than he was at Rome and died there.

In 62 AD he was over 80. What should look for an old Jew at Rome?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 01:13

the backseat driver, armchair general, and now, the internet historian...

first, menu, tradition never holds that Peter was taken to Rome like Paul was; as far as i know, Peter was simply arrested in Rome, and executed there - so your whole geographical insinuations of that prophecy go nowhere, as i said before. if Peter was arrested in Rome, he would not be lead very far, if distance is even a consideration - are you reading the original language of the prophecy, or are you reading a translation in your own language? you can infer too much if you're not using the original language.

where does the bible expressly enumerate everything? where is the word Trinity in the bible? then you puzzle me with this logic:
1. if peter was in rome, that important information would've been provided in the bible.
2. hence, peter's place of death and burial are important.
3. yet, peter's place of death and burial are not provided in the bible.

therefore, Peter must not have died, nor been buried, for such important information would've been mentioned in the Bible if they happened.
and we can list many more important things that were not included in the bible.

but how can i discuss with someone who has the audacity to say a historian living 1500+ years closer to the event was just making myths, as well as the contemporaries of the Peter and their posterity.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 03:50

Yes, is true, I don't drive. if you are a driver, I maybe hire you. Send me a PM.

A.first, menu, tradition never holds that Peter was taken to Rome like Paul was; B. as far as i know, Peter was simply arrested in Rome, and executed there - so your whole geographical insinuations of that prophecy go nowhere, as i said before. C. if Peter was arrested in Rome, he would not be lead very far, if distance is even a consideration - are you reading the original language of the prophecy, or are you reading a translation in your own language? you can infer too much if you're not using the original language.

where does the bible expressly enumerate everything? where is the word Trinity in the bible? then you puzzle me with this logic:
1. if peter was in rome, that important information would've been provided in the bible.
2. hence, peter's place of death and burial are important.
3. yet, peter's place of death and burial are not provided in the bible.

D. therefore, Peter must not have died, nor been buried, for such important information would've been mentioned in the Bible if they happened.

E. and we can list many more important things that were not included in the bible.

F. but how can i discuss with someone who has the audacity to say a historian living 1500+ years closer to the event was just making myths, as well as the contemporaries of the Peter and their posterity.

A. Writen tradition, as I sayed, begin from 170. Not any earlier mention of Peter at Rome. And from 170 on, in the texts there are also mentioned other 'historical' traditions which are surely false, I gived the example from Dyonisius.

B. From where fo you know that? Another legend?

C. If your explanation is correct, that the prophecy is refering to a movement of Peter inside Italy, than which is the sense of the prophecy? John was including only important things if his gospel. Why did he mentioned that prophecy?

Anyway, you theory is against the Petrin doctrine, I mean: if the movement of Peter to Rome was insignifiant and Jesus mention a detail like moving on a small distance, not the movement from Palestine to Rome, it seems that linking Peter with Rome has not theological importance.

D. The cult of martyrs and their bodies appeared later, not in 1st century. So, your temptative of logic demonstration is falling down.

E. If Peter was at Rome, he may have been after 62, because is not mentioned in the epistles writen by Paul in his first sojourn at Rome, 60-62. In II Tim. 4:11 and 4: 16 he says: Only Luke is with me and No man stood with me, but all men forsook me. Is hard to believe Peter was then at Rome, as long as Peter express about Paul with "beloved brother Paul" (II Pet. 3:15).

So, give me a reason that an over 80 Jew, non-Roman citizen go to Rome, leaving his territory of authority (the circumcised ones) and entering over the territory of authority of Paul (the Gentiles)? He was not knowing Latin or Greek, he was iliterate, not an educated man like Paul.

F. Don't say the word historian. It sounds like that person has some scholar authority. And they were not chroniclers at all, but priests or bishops and they were writing what they have heard or read. And in the oldest records, Peter didn't appears at Rome, on the oposite, that first records sugest he was not dying in the same place as Paul and at considerable distance to Rome.

Clement says about Paul that he died under the prefects and give something is not in NT: he was impridoned for seven times. This surely was a result of Clement speaking with Paul. Why Clement doesn't give details about Peter's death, as long as he should be more acute in his memory, because Peter could have been only after 62 at Rome?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 14:52

Originally posted by Menumorut

If, nevertheless, Peter would have been taken to Rome, John would expressed different. The association between the fact Peter is dressed and the fact he is driven somewhere leave the impression of a movement on a small distance, not a big distance as Rome. There is nor possible that John to be refering to a movement of Peter within the Italian territory (this woukld be a detail John would not mention without suplimentary explanation).

Another aspect is that the fact that dressing and movement for execution are linked lead to the idea that there wasn't a long interval between the arest of Peter and his death. This alone destroys the myth about Peter contributing at the founding of the church in Rome.

The total lack of references in New Testament about Peter living and preaching at Rome. If such thing would have happened, is hard to believe it would not be mentioned somewhere.

Even granted that the New Testament did not mention it, it is not follow that it did not happen.

The fact that in 58, when Paul writes the Epistle to Romans, he salutes 27 figures from the Roman church, among whom there is not mentioned Peter

The fact that in the epistles Paul has writen at Rome (2 Timothy, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon) he mention many figures from the church in Rome, but no Peter. These epistles have been writen in 60-62 and (2 Timothy) 64.

58-64 AD is too small window of time to eliminate the possibility that Peter was in Rome. Rome was certainly not the only place that the Catholics have alleged Peter to have been (e.g., he was also said to have been in Antioch.) Your example here is not without merit, but it suffers from the defect of a negative proof -- showing that he was likely not there between 58-64 does not show that he was never there.

There are two posibilities:

1. He refers to the presence of the two apostles at Rome.
2. He generaly refers to the teaching gived by apostles to the world.

Be the fact that in context he speak about general things, is more reasonable to believe he generaly refers about the teaching of apostles to the world, not to the presence of the two apostles at Rome.

That's not a reasonable reading of the statement. Immediately after "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you," he said, "They were apostles," "they" was said in the immediate context of "Peter and Paul." It makes little sense that he would introduce a narrower context and suddenly, without any indication, go back to the earlier, more general context. Moreover, in the earlier, more general context, there was no reference to the apostles in general. But there was a narrower reference to two particular apostles, Peter and Paul, hence "they were apostles" almost certainly refers to the two particular apostles.

We see that at the time the theory about the authority of church in Rome appeared. The afirmations are fake because the church in Rome was not founded by the two apostles, the Christian community existed before Paul coming to Rome.

There's a difference between 1) a collective of believers who have received the Gospel, and 2) establishment of the various levels of structures of church adminstration. The "founding" and "organizing" that Irenaus mentioned appear to reflect the latter, the more formal level of organization. Peter and Paul could well have been the first to establish ecclessial structures in Rome after some have already accepted the Gospel there.

You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.

This surely is fake because in the Acts of Apostles is not mentioned the presence of Peter at Corinth and because Paul says about the community in Corinth:

I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. (1 Corinthians 3:6).

"Planting" and "watering" are metaphors that can be defined differently and loosely when used by different authors. Where Paul meant the very initial beginning by "planting," Dionysius could use the phrase in a more general sense. If the "watering" by the apostles was done in the fundamental stages of the building-up of a congregation, there's no reason to forbid Dionysius from calling it "planting." There is no absolute definitions for these metaphorical terms. Mere differences between two usages of these terms do not show that one usage is fake, but that different authors use the same phrases differently.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2007 at 23:09

You've answered your own dilemma. Whether Peter was executed in Rome does not contradict what you are saying here. If a person is already in Rome prior to his execution, and was also executed in Rome, then he would indeed have been brought through a small distance to the execution place, because he was brought from his place of arrest in Rome to his execution site also in Rome.

You start by suposing that Peter was at Rome. This is just a legend, there are not historical proofs for it.

Now, about this prophecy: in his gospel, John mention only the esential things and with a dramatic economy of words. John surely was knowing where Peter died, also some details about his death.

Jesus' words in that prophecy are symbolic, is about Peter's constraint due to his elderness, not about a specific geographical movement:

I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God

This prophecy contradict the posibility that Peter died at Rome because if Peter would have died at Rome John would hear about the death and details from a letter which crossed the sea from Rome to Ephesus. And such thing he would not put in relation with a prophecy made by Jesus due to the solemnity of the gospel. He should have heard from some eye witnesses which arived at him (Ephesus) from Palestina.

Your interpretation of the prophecy would contradict the Catholic beliefs only if the Catholics believe that Peter was brought from to Rome from outside of Rome for the purpose of execution, but the Catholics do not suggest that. Instead, the Catholics believe that Peter went to Rome to evangelize there and passed on his apostolic authority to the 2nd bishop of Rome, and was martyred only afterwards. In such a view, he would have only been brought through a short distance to his execution place, exactly fitting your interpretion of the prophecy. If both the place of arrest and the site of execution are in Rome, then the distance between them would be a short distance.

Again, you speak having in mind that Peter was at Rome. What Catholics are saying, that Peter was at Rome, is grounded only on a tradition like many traditions which were spreading among early Christians, many of them being not true.

Catholics doesn't have a clear statement about how much what they believe Peter was at Rome. Some are saying he lived 30 years at Rome: the most accepted among them is, I think, the theory that Peter lived for more than 10 years, which is surely impossbile because he is not mentioned in Paul's letters writen to Rome or from Rome.

Even granted that the New Testament did not mention it, it is not follow that it did not happen.

The date at which the books of NT were writen is disputed and the paternity of them too. Many scholars believe that some letters, like those of Peter, were not writen by Apostles and actualy are writen in the second half of second century.

If Peter went to Rome this would be reflected in the writings of Clement of Rome. Clement knows details about Paul (details which are not in any of the NT books) but don't know any details about Peter. About Paul, Clement says that the apostle died "under prefects" but about Peter's death he gives not any detail. And he was contemporary with the Apostles.

Again, you start by believing Peter was at Rome.

And:

Paul says in the Epistle to Romans: "...by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit (of God), so that from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum I have finished preaching the gospel of Christ. Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation,...".
So, Peter wasn't at Rome before 58 AD.

That would be improbable also because Peter's jurisdiction was the Jews, as was established at the Council from Jerusalem, see Galatians chapter 2: "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles,and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, 8 who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised".

Peter was in 62 over 80 years old. He would not leave his jurisdiction, the near East. He was not knowing Latin.

Why would Peter went to Rome and not in another place?

Again, you start by thinking Peter was at Rome.

Now, about Ignatius. He compares his addressement to Romans with Peter and Paul's adresement to Romans. The addressement of Peter and Paul to Romans that Ignatius mention could be by distance, from another place from where the two apostles sent epistles to Romans, or could be made directly, by their physical presence at Rome.

Because his addressement to Romans is not by physical presence but writen (as himself says in the same passage at the beggining: "I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me"), appears logical that he refers not to a physical presence of the apostles at Rome but to their epistles.

This epistle an the one of Clement of Rome are at the begining of the birth of the legend about Peter's presence at Rome, by the same confussion you make.

I repeat the passage:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

From the bombastic language you should see how the legends were becaming reality at that time. And Irenaeus is speaking clearly about the foundation, in the proper sense. Else, he would sayed just "organized".

Dionysius was speaking about the "planting and watering" by both Paul and Peter.

So, you believe Peter was at Corinth too? When was that? He organized rapidly the churches in Corinth and Rome at over 80, knowing not Latin? If he didn't this until that time, what reasons for starting moving inside the Latin speaking territories would have him after 62 AD?

Anyway, suposing Peter was at Corinth, your interpretation is wrong. Dionysius clearly speak about the founding of the community. Another clear example of imaginary legend.

You seem to miss a thing known by scholars: between the Latin speaking and Greek speaking emispheres of the Empire was a strong difference and scission. This would have been a strong impediment for an analphabet, not Latin-knowing old Jew.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 00:47

peter didn't know latin or greek, wasn't educated, so he couldn't communicate in Rome...

uh, hello, Pentecost.

i think your grasp of the scriptures is weak. you are unaware of your assumptions about the scriptures - like the scriptures hold everything, or everything that's important, and you try disproving tradition - with assumptions that Peter's contemporaries and the first generation of christians didn't know better, and that the scriptures are what remain of the oral stories that were written down, and we can't assume all the oral stories were transcribed, and that all the written records have survived up till today.

see how many plays of sophocles have survived up to today compared to how many he wrote - and he was much more famous during his lifetime than peter.

and if your gonna do exigesis, better know the original languages - you proficient in Aramaic or Greek?

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2007 at 03:41

No. I explained what I sayed. I took Scripture as a historical document.

I remember for you what I sayed concerning the Scriptures:

-John was knowing how Peter died and the prophecy in John 21, 18-19 shows that Peter didn't died at Rome because John wouldn't relate with a prophecy something he heard about from a messenger.

-Paul address to 27 persons in Rome in the Epistle to Romans and didnt' mention Peter, also he says that he never built on a foundation other one have built out.

-The epistles writen by Paul from Rome shows that at that time, 60-62 doesn't mention Peter but mention many figures of the Roman church.

Ofcourse, the books of New Testament are presenting only few of the events, but in our case is hard to believe that he Peter was at Rome together with Paul in 60-62 and Paul didn't mention this.

This about Scripture.

From the books which are not in the canonic Bible, the epistle of Clement to Romans shows that Clement have met Paul but not Peter.

Also, other arguments for what Peter would not went to Rome are:
-his jurisdiction was the Jews. As John and Jacob haven't go into the Latin world, Peter also should not have go.
-he was not a Roman citized as Paul and he was not cultivated or speaking Latin.

So, these are logical reasons for which Peter wasn't at Rome. Should I know Aramaic or Greek for this?

Let me asking something you, and I would like to receive a not joking answer:

1. On what is grounded the believe that Peter was at Rome?

2. Was Peter at Corinth too, as Dionysius of Corinth was believing?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 18:36

Dear Menumorut,

Disclaimer: I don't really believe in Catholicism or Christianity, and I don't personally insist that Peter was or was not in Rome. My point is not to prove that Peter was or was not in fact in Rome. Rather, I'm only pointing out the problems in your argument.

Allow me to dissect your argument a bit: basically what you're saying is that, based on circumstantial evidence, Peter could not possibly be in Rome. My point was not to show that Peter was in fact in Rome. My point was only to show that you have not sufficiently proved the impossibility, or even improbability, of Peter's presence in Rome.

Originally posted by Menumorut

You start by suposing that Peter was at Rome. This is just a legend, there are not historical proofs for it.

My point is not at all based on whether Peter was in fact in Rome. In other words, whether Peter was in fact in Rome does not affect my point at all. Your argument regarding the prophecy is that Peter could not possibly have died in Rome because doing so would require him to travel a long distance. If Peter was not in Rome, then going to Rome would indeed be a long distance -- this is a fair point. But your argument made the conclusion its premise and the premise its conclusion: that is, you argued that since Peter had to travel in a long distance, he was therefore not in Rome -- this is a circular argument.

My point is a roundabout way of saying that it was really you who have started with the supposition that Peter was not in Rome to begin with. Having a supposition is fine, except that your supposition is also your conclusion. When your supposition is your conclusion, then you have a circular argument.

Again, my point is not at all based on the assumption that Peter was in fact in Rome. See above. My point was only to show that your argument regarding the prophecy is circular.

Again, you start by believing Peter was at Rome.

No. My starting point is not whether Peter was in Rome. My point was simply that Peter's absence between 58 - 64 AD was too short a time to show that he was never there. In other words: I am not saying that Peter was in Rome, I am saying that just because he was not there between 58 - 64 AD, it does not therefore follow that he was never there.

And:

Duly noted. It remains to be said what happened after 64AD.

Peter was in 62 over 80 years old. He would not leave his jurisdiction, the near East. He was not knowing Latin.

I am very interested to see where you find the information about Peter's age.

(Regarding my comment on your point about Ignatius, you said):

Again, you start by thinking Peter was at Rome.

As I stated, none of the my points rests on the assumption that Peter was in fact in Rome. My point regarding Ignatius was about the immediate context of his statement "they were apostles," not the assumption of his whereabout.

Because his addressement to Romans is not by physical presence but writen (as himself says in the same passage at the beggining: "I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me"), appears logical that he refers not to a physical presence of the apostles at Rome but to their epistles.

This is a fair point, but I fail to see the relevancy. Just because they wrote to Rome, doesn't mean that they were not, at some point, in Rome. Again, you tend to read too much into my point: I'm not saying Peter was in Rome. I'm saying that your argument doesn't show that he could not be in Rome.

From the bombastic language you should see how the legends were becaming reality at that time. And Irenaeus is speaking clearly about the foundation, in the proper sense. Else, he would sayed just "organized".

I don't think you understood my point regarding this. My point is that there's a different between a collective of believers and a formal church structure. The arrival of settlers is not the same as the foundation of a nation. Likewise, the arrival of the Gospel and/or of believers to Rome is not the same as the founding of a church -- at least, without more, we cannot be sure whether Irenaeus conflated the two.

Dionysius was speaking about the "planting and watering" by both Paul and Peter.

You have also missed my point here. My point was not whether Dionysius is talking about both Paul and Peter. My point was whether Dionysius mean the same metaphor by "planting" as Paul did when using the same phrase. Your argument insists that they were using the term to mean the same thing, but there is no warrant at all that they did.

So, you believe Peter was at Corinth too?

I can assure you that this has little to do with what I believe. Like I said, I don't really believe in Catholicism or Christianity. I personally don't have an opinion about whether Peter was in fact in Corinth, just as I don't really have an opinion whether Peter was in Rome. I don't think looking at Dionysius' writing alone is enough to make a compelling case for he was or was not in Corinth.

You seem to miss a thing known by scholars: between the Latin speaking and Greek speaking emispheres of the Empire was a strong difference and scission. This would have been a strong impediment for an analphabet, not Latin-knowing old Jew.

I am certainly aware of the fact that Latin and Greek posed a great obstacle between Western and Eastern Europe. After all, one speculated reason for the split of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was precisely the language difference. it's quite presumptuous of you to assume that I had missed the difference between the Latin and Greek halves of the empire.

Your argument here is that Peter would not possibly go to Rome because he could not speak the language there. But this is refuted by the sheer number of missionaries in history who have travelled to places that do not speak the missionares' language. If Francis de Sales did not find it too difficult to go to Japan, I don't see why Peter would find it too difficult to go to Rome.

One thing to note is that all of your arguments are based on impossibility and improbability of Peter's presence in Rome. Improbability is much easier to prove, and your argument does a better job in that regard. But to prove impossibility means you need to prove that there is no other possibility, and that the possibility in question is also non-existent. You have not done that at all. While I admire your effort, I'm sorry to say that your argument does not prove what you wish to prove.

Let me make a few suggestions: it is ultimately difficult to prove a case from negative, circumstantial evidence. Your argument about the prophecy is, I'm sorry to say, entirely circular. Your arguments from silence are stronger, but still too focused on where Peter could not have been. You should instead focus on positive evidence of where Peter in fact was. This is because, if you can positively prove that Peter spent his last years in a specific location, you would have a stronger case.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 02:08

This topic appears to be going wonderfully!

Still, I would be most grateful if we stopped stating that others possessed a weak grasp of the Scriptures. If it can be shown, then show it; there is no point in attacking others. While I do, unquestionably, hold the traditional position of the Church (that Peter was martyred in Rome). I think that the issue is a matter of Scriptural interpretation that will not be resolved by criticizing the ability of others to seek wisdom from the Holy Scriptures.

Meng Tzu:

You are doing a wonderful job of presenting information in a non-polemical fashion. Keep it up. While I tend to question the Roman interpretation of the Jerusalem Council (more on this later), I think you have outlined the Roman perspective well. God bless.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 04:38

Allow me to dissect your argument a bit: basically what you're saying is that, based on circumstantial evidence, Peter could not possibly be in Rome.

I repeat some of my ideas, trying to make them a little clear:

1. There is not any historical proof that Peter was at Rome. We heard so many times it was that we started to take this as true. We have to cure as of prejudices.

2. The passage from Clement of Rome (the earlier text refering to Peter and Paul's death):
Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours [this refers to what is in Acts of the Apostles], and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects

Why Clement doesn't say about Peter he travelled, as he says about Paul?

Why Clement doesn't speak more about Peter, if he had met him?

Why say about his death such a thing as "departed to the place of glory due to him", which denote not a particular knowledge about Peter's death, as he says about Paul's death?

Why he is knowing about Paul details which are not in the Scriptures?

3. In the early Christian communities, the spreading of untrue legend was inevitable. A clear example is the epistle of Dionysius of Corinth to Romans:

You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.

We know surely that the community in Corinth was planted by Paul:

Acts of Apostles, Chapter 18:
1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.

3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

18:12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, 13 Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.

14 And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: 15 But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.

16 And he drave them from the judgment seat.

17 Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

Dionysius is also the first who says that Peter and Paul died together. If they died together, why Clement doesn't mention this?

Duly noted. It remains to be said what happened after 64AD.

Is hilarious to think Peter went to Rome before Paul because he was not a Roman citizen (like Paul), he was not literated, knowing not Latin and first of all, his jurisdiction was the Palestine and Near Orient.

We may presume that Peter went to Rome after 63, but the same arguments are against this, and also I don't see the reason of such a visit.

I am very interested to see where you find the information about Peter's age.

Peter was the oldest from the apostles, this is why Jesus is sometimes addressing him as to a symbol of all the apostles (including Mattew 16, 18-19 which is interpreted by Catholics as being a statement of Peter's difference from the other apostles).
Peter was arround 50 when Jesus called him, this is the opinion of the exegets of the New Testament. I found this on some web pages, for example this one:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm - http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Likewise, the arrival of the Gospel and/or of believers to Rome is not the same as the founding of a church -- at least, without more, we cannot be sure whether Irenaeus conflated the two.

No. Irenaeus lived in a period when the doctrine about the church as an institution was not yet developped. For him, there were only local communities of Christians, called churches (see how begin the fragment quoted by me). When he says "organized", he refers to the making of the structures of the community and when he says "founded" he refers to the apparition of the first Christians there.

My point was whether Dionysius mean the same metaphor by "planting" as Paul did when using the same phrase. Your argument insists that they were using the term to mean the same thing, but there is no warrant at all that they did.

Yes, he means the same thing.

I don't think looking at Dionysius' writing alone is enough to make a compelling case for he was or was not in Corinth.

We know surely that Paul founded the community in Corinth, that before him there were not Christians in Corinth. So, how could Dionysius says that Peter has founded something there?

Again: if Peter was at Rome (at Corinth even much), we may question what make him to change the decisions from the council in Jerusalem (Galatians chapter 2, see also Acts of Apostles chapter 15)?

One thing to note is that all of your arguments are based on impossibility and improbability of Peter's presence in Rome. The later -- improbability -- is much easier to prove, and your argument does a better job in that regard. But to prove impossibility means you need to prove that there is no other possibility, and that the possibility in question is also non-existent. You have not done that at all. While I admire your effort, I'm sorry to say that your argument is still too weak.

How could be Peter at Rome?

The only way is that he went after 63 (he is not mentioned in the epistles writen by Paul from Rome) and he died in a very obscure way (Clement doesn't seems to know something). At an advanced age, he suddenly broke the common establishment of the Apostles, abandoning his area of jurisdtiction. What called him at Rome so strong?

You should instead focus on positive evidence of where Peter in fact was.

What you think about this:
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm - http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

He should have remained in the Palestine and nearby parts and died with the Neronian persecution (in the time of the same persecution, apostle John was exiled at Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation book).

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 06:03

Originally posted by Menumorut

I repeat some of my ideas, trying to make them a little clear:

I assure you that I already understood your points, because each time you repeat them, you reaffirm my understanding of them. The issue is with your not recognizing some of the problems in your argument. More on this later.

2. The passage from Clement of Rome (the earlier text refering to Peter and Paul's death):

We've already dealt with this. My response was: the absence of Clemente's writings about Peter alone cannot be construed to mean that Clemente had never known or written about his knowledge of Peter. That we have little writings from him about Peter is a good circumstantial evidence undermining the probability of Peter's presence in Rome, but without more, it does not show the impossibility of Peter's presence in Rome.

3. The epistle of Dionysius of Corinth to Romans

I don't understand why you feel the need to repeat yourself. My point about Dionysius was regarding the usage of the word "planting." See my last response.

(Regarding what happened after 64AD, you wrote:)
Is hilarious to think Peter went to Rome before Paul because he was not a Roman citizen (like Paul), he was not literated, knowing not Latin and first of all, his jurisdiction was the Palestine and Near Orient.

I asked what happened after 64AD, not whether he went to Rome before Paul, so I'm not sure what you wish to address here.

A note about Paul's statement that he was to evangelize the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews: I don't think we have to insist that Paul meant this as an inflexible program. After all, the Christian community went through a series of changes, gradually shifting from Jerusalem to Antioch. There is no reason to insist that Peter also participated in evangelizing the Gentiles. He was the first to preach to the Gentiles, after all. (Act 10). Seeing that the Jews were much less receptive than the Gentiles to Christianity, it wouldn't surprise me that Peter decided to shift focus. Conversely, if there is a greater need to evangelize to the Gentiles, I don't see why the initial apostles would not assist in that regard. To construe Paul's statement as a strict, inflexible program would imply that none of the original apostles evangelized at all to the Gentiles, which I find difficult to believe, given that there were significantly more Gentiles than Jews. Finally, a minor, less compelling point: there were Jews in Rome.

We may presume that Peter went to Rome after 63, but the same arguments are against this, and also I don't see the reason of such a visit.

Peter was the oldest from the apostles, this is why Jesus is sometimes addressing him as to all the apostles (including Mattew 16, 18-19 which is interpreted by Catholics as being a statement of Peter's difference from the other apostles).

What makes you think that Peter's age was the reason that Jesus addressed him "as to all the apostles"? Age isn't the only explanation. The "favorite pupil" of a teacher is not always the oldest.

Peter was arround 50 when Jesus called him, this is the opinion of the exegets of the New Testament. I found this
on some web pages, for example this one:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm - http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Can you point to me where the article offers evidence of Peter's age? I've only done a cursory word search of it. It seems to only say that all evidence points to Peter being 50 when called by Jesus, but no discussion of evidence was found in the article. It is a good place to start though, I suppose.

No. Irenaeus lived in a period in which the doctrine about the church as an institution was not yet developped. For him, there were only local communities of Christians, called churches (see how begin the fragment quoted by me). When he says "organized", he refers to the making of the structures of the community and when he says "founded" he refers to the apparition of the first Christians there.

Your argument here is very speculative. The quote by Irenaeus that you quoted began with "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches...." Which part are you referring to that speaks of an "non-institutional" structure? But the structure of the church was apparent from the Acts of the Apostles, with the appointment of the seven servants, the overseers and elders, so it's strange to assume that Irenaeus was not aware of such social structures within the Church. A collective of believers without these ranks is certainly different from a church structure complete with these roles.

(Regarding whether Dionysius meant the same thing as Paul with the word "planting", you wrote:)
Yes, he means the same thing.

Evidence and/or proof? I'm not being rhetorical here. You need to make a good faith effort that involves more than making a blanket assertion that is not supported by any evidence, in order to make your case.

Again: if Peter was at Rome (at Corinth even much), we may question what make him to change the decisions from the council in Jerusalem (Galatians chapter 2, see also Acts of Apostles chapter 15)?

Already addressed. See above.

What you think about this:
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm - http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

I think this is certainly an interesting counter argument to Peter's stay in Rome, but it isn't conclusive. On the "Peter was in Rome" side of the argument, there are likewise archeological findings in support of Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome. See "The Bones of St. Peter", written by John Evangelist Walsh. (I haven't read this book, so you might want to ask somebody else about it, or read it yourself. May be you can tell me what it talks about.)

By the way, for future reference, there is no need to recapitulate your arguments. I only need to read them once.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 10:01

Is not about the absence of reference of Clement about Peter. Is about how Clement speaks about Peter, in comparison with how he speaks about Paul. You say that I am uselessly repeating points but I see is necessary:

Clement says about Paul that he travelled but doesn't say the same about Peter. CLement says that Paul died under prefects but about Peter speaks vaguely that he "departed to a place of glory". Clement gives non-Scriptural details about Paul but about Peter he knows only from the Acts of Apostles.

There is no reason to insist that Peter also participated in evangelizing the Gentiles. He was the first to preach to the Gentiles, after all. (Act 10). Seeing that the Jews were much less receptive than the Gentiles to Christianity, it wouldn't surprise me that Peter decided to shift focus. Conversely, if there is a greater need to evangelize to the Gentiles, I don't see why the initial apostles would not assist in that regard. To construe Paul's statement as a strict, inflexible program would imply that none of the original apostles evangelized at all to the Gentiles, which I find difficult to believe, given that there were significantly more Gentiles than Jews. Finally, a minor, less compelling point: there were Jews in Rome.

The Council at Jerusalem is in the 15th chapter of Acts and you speak about what is in the 10th chapter. It was a solemn decision. It is considered the first Council of the Church, even not a general (Ecumenic) council. The decisions of the Councils were and are the laws of the Church. Let's look one more time at Galatians chapter 2:

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, 8 for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, 9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, 8 who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

The One in the bolded selection is the Holy Ghost.

What makes you think that Peter's age was the reason that Jesus addressed him "as to all the apostles"? Age isn't the only explanation. The "favorite pupil" of a teacher is not always the oldest.

You are very right and the favorite disciple of Jesus was John, not Peter.

But as you see in the gospels, Peter is always treated with a special atitude.

Let's look just at Mattew 16:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

We see how Jesus ask all the apostles what people are saying, they answer together, but when Jesus ask what is the believe of the apostles, Peter answer in the name of them.

Can you point to me where the article offers evidence of Peter's age? I've only done a cursory word search of it. It seems to only say that all evidence points to Peter being 50 when called by Jesus, but no discussion of evidence was found in the article. It is a good place to start though, I suppose.

I can't find again that reference (maybe I have read on another website) but look a paragraph from this webpage:

The Vatican and others have calculated through all existing evidence that Peter lived to be around 80 and 82 years, and that he died around the years of 62 or 64 A.D.
Go to the third paragraph starting from the end of the webpage.

Your argument here is very speculative. The quote by Irenaeus that you quoted began with "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches...." Which part are you referring to that speaks of an "non-institutional" structure? But the structure of the church was apparent from the Acts of the Apostles, with the appointment of the seven servants, the overseers and elders, so it's strange to assume that Irenaeus was not aware of such social structures within the Church. A collective of believers without these ranks is certainly different from a church structure complete with these roles.

I didn't sayed that the Church hasn't structures but that the doctrine about Church-institution was not yet born in the conscience of the Christians.

You sayed that "planted" and "organized" can both refer to the organizing, not to the apparition of the first believers in that town. Your assertion is wrong because is not logical that a structure can first be implemented and than organized. If is not organized, is not a structure.

Also, Irenaeus speaking about two etaps of the proces of founding the eclesial system in Roma's church would necesitate an elaborate doctrine,about the Church as institution, which missed at the time.

On the "Peter was in Rome" side of the argument, there are likewise archeological findings in support of Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome. See "The Bones of St. Peter", written by John Evangelist Walsh. (I haven't read this book, so you might want to ask somebody else about it, or read it yourself. May be you can tell me what it talks about.)

The story of discovering what is presented as bones of Peter is nebulous and byzare:

In 1942, the Administrator of St. Peter's, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, found remains in a second tomb in the monument. Being concerned that these presumed relics of a saint would not be accorded the respect they deserved, and having little understanding of correct archeological procedures, he secretly ordered these remains stored elsewhere for safe-keeping.

After Kaas' death, researcher Margherita Guarducci discovered these relics by chance. She informed Pope Paul VI of her belief that these remains were the those of St. Peter. Bone testing revealed that the remains belonged to a man in his sixties. On June 26th 1968 Paul VI announced that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peters_tomb - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter's_tomb

The Catholic representants are not convinced that these bones are of Peter. Because these bones were discovered in the site of a pagan cemetery, were parts of a animal and other human (including female) skeletals have been discovered, the Vatican preserrves these animal and human skeletals together with the ones pretended of being of Peter, in the crypt of the altar of St. Peter's cathedral:

Down in the basement of the Vatican, less than twenty feet beneath the high altar of St. Peter�s Basilica, there is an ugly, graffiti-covered brick-and-plaster wall. Inside the wall there is a rectangular cavity containing nineteen clear Plexiglass boxes filled with old bones, some of which are claimed to be the mortal remains of St. Peter himself. A small breach in the wall allows two of the boxes and their bony contents to be seen through the open bronze work of a gate set some distance in front of the wall. Ten of the bones thus carefully preserved at this most holy focal point in all of Christendom, however, are the remains of domestic animals � goats, sheep, cows, swine, and a chicken.

http://www.americanatheist.org/spr97/T2/bones.html - http://www.americanatheist.org/spr97/T2/bones.html

Why don't the Vatican representants throw away these animal and pagan remains? Because doing this would lead to consider the bones pretended to be of Peter to be considered as authenticaly belonging to the apostle, and they are dpubting on this.

Also, there is a skull of Peter at the John in Lateran church and remainings from another skull in St. Peter cathedral. See the same webpage above and this photo:

Also, for fourtheen years, another bones were considered to be of Peter:

In 1949, Vatican archaeologists discovered a different skeleton of the bony saint, several yards away from the wall in which the bones presently worshipped reside. The bones were reported to have been found in a �hypogeum� � apparently a rough cavity hollowed out at the base of a wall coated with red plaster. They were reported to have been found in �a sepulchral urn of plain terra cotta.� The bones were kept for fourteen years by Pope Pius XII himself, in his private apartment. Although he later hedged somewhat concerning the authenticity of the bones, it is obvious that privately he felt they were genuine.

But that bones were containing three fibulas, five tibias, see the article.

This about the so-called bones.

Now, concerning the historical realities, mentions of a cult of a place considered tomb of Peter exists.

"Around AD 200, a Roman churchman called Gaius wrote to a correspondent:

I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you would go to the Vatican, or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church".

Under the actual cathedral was discovered an aedicula, a small construction which is the monument mentioned by Gaius.

This was built in ~150 AD in a pagan cemetery:

A cult of this places existed in 3rd century and in 4th century Constantine has built the great basilica (which was replaced in the Renaissance period with the actual one).

Look the plan of Constantine's basilica and amplacement of the pagan necropolis:

I think the legend about Peter's presence at Rome appeared in the first decades of 2nd century AD and, as the Christians in Rome considered that the martyrdom should leave a body (even actualy would be hard that the body of a condemned to be recuperated), it was "identified" some unknown tomb with the one of the apostle. Is possbile too that such a confussion to be premeditately created, as in middle age when, for example, existed in Europe twelve skulls of Saint John the Baptist or in Germany 27 skeletons of Peter.

See more links:

http://www.romanguide.com/vaticancity/vatican-scavi-tour.html - http://www.romanguide.com/vaticancity/vatican-scavi-tour.html

http://www.hissheep.org/catholic/the_bones_of_peter.html - http://www.hissheep.org/catholic/the_bones_of_peter.html

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 12:48

menumorut, before you again say Peter didn't know Latin, plz reread the account of the Pentecost, in the beginning of Acts.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 13:00

menumorut, before you again say Peter didn't know Latin, plz reread the account of the Pentecost, in the beginning of Acts.

This happened only with that ocasion.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 13:21

Just a word or two on the matter of Peter's tenure at Rome.

I could not hope to keep up with the archaeological and textual evidence you guys are bringing to bear in the conversation over whether or not Peter was ever actually at Rome. I can, however, attempt to present the authentic tradition of the Church regarding this matter.

All of the holy Fathers are in agreement when it comes to the subject of Peter playing a leading role in the missionary work in Rome; I cannot think of a single one who opposed this view. There has been some modern criticism, even from some Orthodox scholars. Most of it, however, is derived from late 19th century flirtations with radical--and often anti-Christian--forms of the spiritually and intellectually bankrupt historical-critical method. For me, this closes the case.

Even so, the point is really moot. After all, the Petrine heritage of the Roman bishops was not a primary basis for their increasing claims to authority until the fifth century. When Irenaeus refers to the prestige of the Roman Church, he links it to the fact that in Rome the faith of Christians everywhere is reflected. In the fourth century, the Council of Constantinople was very clear that Rome's special status was due to her position as the capital of the oikoumene.

One more thing...

Originally posted by Menumorut

Irenaeus lived in a period when the doctrine about the church as an institution was not yet developped. For him, there were only local communities of Christians, called churches (see how begin the fragment quoted by me). When he says "organized", he refers to the making of the structures of the community and when he says "founded" he refers to the apparition of the first Christians there.

That is at best misleading; at worst it is simply untrue. The episcopal system of Irenaeus' time was very similar to that of the later Ecumenical Era, and if you read Adversus Haereses (specifically Bks. 3 and 4) you will note that he has a well developed concept of what it means to be part of a universal, institutional Church. While his writings are often quoted out of context and distorted to support papal universal claims, one cannot read them without recognizing his awareness of the fact that he was a member of a divine institution, founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Spirit.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 14:37

All of the holy Fathers are in agreement when it comes to the subject of Peter playing a leading role in the missionary work in Rome; I cannot think of a single one who opposed this view

The Fathers were grounding their believe on the tradition of the Church, that Peter was at Rome.

Excepting the earliest Fathers, the ones contemporary with the apostles, who seems to have a different opinion.

If Peter and Paul would died at Rome Clement would have
mentioned that. Actualy, in the passage from the Epistle to Corinthians, he just give an example with the two pillars of the Church. This is the only reason for Clement speaks about them together.

Even so, the point is really moot. After all, the Petrine heritage of the Roman bishops was not a primary basis for their increasing claims to authority until the fifth century. When Irenaeus refers to the prestige of the Roman Church, he links it to the fact that in Rome the faith of Christians everywhere is reflected. In the third century, the Council of Constantinople is very clear that Rome's special status was due to her position as the capital of the oikoumene.

The so-called Petrine heritage was the first basis of Rome bishops' claim for their supremacy.

In 3rd century Constantinople didn't yet existed but you are true: the way in which Rome's bishops started to be seen as having a sort of special honour (without any executive atributes) derived from that Rome was the center of the empire. This is why the honourific title "primus inter pares" was atributed. But the Rome's clerics and Christians always stated, since the second half of 2nd century on, that their special characyter is because Peter was the founder of their church.

Anyway, the claim that Peter was different from the other apostles is, I think, not grounded. This theory is based only on the interpretation of the versets from Mattew 18 and in this cCatholics (also in the Eastern church this theory existed before 1054) seems to behave like the Protestants, founding their principles on Bible, not on the living tradition of the Church which were transmited directly, unwriten, from the time of the apostles.

The passage from Mattew 18 has corespondence in Luke:

18 Once when Jesus was praying in solitude, and the disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"

19 They said in reply, "John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, 'One of the ancient prophets has arisen.'"

20 Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God."

21 He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone.

But is missing the part with the change of apostle's name.

A vast theological literature exists on this changement of name.

Actualy, the change of name was having the semnification of a new life. In the book of Revelation is sayed that the ones who will overcome will receive a new name.

Changing the names of all apostles would have created confussion, so he changed only the name of Peter, the oldest of them.

And even if Peter would hve been a super-apostle, I see not reason for this to be transmited to the bishopry he founded, I mean to Antioch.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 15:16

Originally posted by Menumorut

The so-called Petrine heritage was the primary basis of Rome bishops' claim for their supremacy. You can read in the passage of Irenaeus I gived.

Quite incorrect, actually. Your interpretation of the passage from Ireneaus is flawed in two ways. First, as you will notice, it mentions both Peter and Paul; this mention is simply an account of the glorious apostolic foundation of the Roman Church. Secondly, you're reading the passage, ironically enough, as the Roman Catholics do. As I have noted elsewhere, this oft-cited quote is much better known than the rest of Adversus Haereses Bk. 3, Chs. 3 and 4, which provide the context for it. In lieu of reposting a large amount of material in this thread, I will refer you to the link below, which will take you to a discussion in which I explained the aformentioned passage in the proper context.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16338&PN=2 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16338&PN=2

Originally posted by Menumorut

In 3rd century Constantinople didn't yet existed but you are true: the way in which Rome's bishops started to be seen as having a sort of special honour (without any executive atributes) derived from that Rome was the center of the empire.

Obviously I should be a bit more careful when I type. Yes, yes; the Council of Constantinople was held in 381 A.D., which would actually be the fourth century. My apologies for the typo; I will correct it once I have finished this post.

Originally posted by Menumorut

But the Rome's clerics and Christians always stated, since the second half of 2nd century on, that their special estate is because Peter was the founder of their church.

They had, indeed, always cited the roles of both Peter and Paul in the foundation of the Roman Church as historical factors which enhance the dignity of that church. They had not, however, cited these historical factors as justifications for papal authority. They certainly hadn't done so "since the second half of the 2nd century," for we do not even hear papal absolutist claims until the middle of the third.

I was referring to the middle of the fourth century because this was the first time that the role of Peter in founding the Church at Rome was cited as the primary justification behind papal claims to extra-jurisdictional primacy. As the Petrine argument developed, the role of Paul in the founding of the Roman Church was gradually deemphasized.

Originally posted by Menumorut

Anyway, the claim that Peter was different from the other apostles is a huge mistification. This theory is grounded only on the interpretation of the versets from Mattew 18 and in this Catholic church (also in the Eastern church this theory existed too before 1054) seems to behave like the Protestants, founding their principles on Bible, not on the living tradition of the Church which existed from the time of the apostles.

Actually, it is based on much, much more than that; Peter's special status among the Apostles is amply demonstrated many, many times throughout the Scriptures (and I believe it is Matthew 16 to which you intended to refer). This has always been accepted as a part of the living tradition of the Church. No Christian, Orthodox, Protestant, or Catholic can dispute the fact that Peter possessed a leadership role in the early Church. The dispute is over the nature of that leadership role. The Eastern Church still holds to the Biblical and traditional assertion of Peter's leadership role among the Apostles.

Originally posted by Menumorut

And even if Peter would hve been a super-apostle, I see not reason for this to be transmited to the bishopry he founded, I mean to Antioch.

That is a question now, isn't it?

Still, I think we have adequately established--at least from the perspective of Christian tradition--that Peter was, in fact, involved in the foundation of the Roman Church, so you may now refer the same question to Rome after Antioch.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 15:55

Actually, it is based on much, much more than that; Peter's special status among the Apostles is amply demonstrated many, many times throughout the Scriptures (and I believe it is Matthew 16 to which you intended to refer). This has always been accepted as a part of the living tradition of the Church. No Christian, Orthodox, Protestant, or Catholic can dispute the fact that Peter possessed a leadership role in the early Church. The dispute is over the nature of that leadership role. The Eastern Church still holds to the Biblical and traditional assertion of Peter's leadership role among the Apostles.

Which is exactly this special status? John says nothing about such a status but says that him (John) was the favorite disciple. The others evangelists too doesn't say that Peter would have a special status.

Paul doesn't say about Peter, but about Peter, James and John that are pillars of the Church.

Peter was the oldest and for that he was the most respected and as in many traditional communities was considered somehow a leader. And in his presence, for the sake of modesty, the other apostles were more moderated in actions, so this is why Peter appears as subject in more of the events.

This is the reason too for Jesus chosen Peter to change his name: he was the symbol of the apostles. Is not a mysterious difference between him and the others apostles or other humans. Christianism is not a religion of mysteries, every principle has a motivation which can be explained, described.

You should agree that Catholic Church doesn't have a clear doctrine about Peter and Mary. Mary is considered the greatest Saint but Peter is seen somehow like a man with super-human attributes.

That is a question now, isn't it? Still, I think we have adequately established--at least from the perspective of Christian tradition--that Peter was, in fact, involved in the foundation of the Roman Church, so you may now refer the same question to Rome after Antioch.

I don't agree. I disagree even that Peter was ever at Rome. If you mantain this, please tell an aprovimativ date at which Peter was at Rome.

About Antioch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

Or you are saying that the presence of Peter at Rome is a doctrinar, not historical point? If yes, I answer that a theory implying a historical event cann't be a doctrinar point. Christianism is not a set of irational rules, it is meant to lead the men to the truth.

Anyway, remember that at the Council in Jerusalem Paul sayed that was established that Peter would preach among the Circumcised and this was considered the work of the Holy Ghost in them.

And please, offer a reason for which he would go to Rome, as the center of Christianism was the East Orient* until late.

_____________
*The vast majority of Christians were living in the East. Even at Rome, Christianism was seen as an Eastern phenomenon even in 3rd century. There is a Saint (don't remember the name), a man from Rome who wished to see the martyrs, fleed to the Minor Asia and died there as a martyr. In 3rd century, I think 90% of the Christians were in East.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 16:29

Originally posted by Menumorut

Is not about the absence of reference of Clement about Peter. Is about how Clement speaks about Peter, in comparison with how he speaks about Paul. You say that I am uselessly repeating points but I see is necessary:

I understood your point. My point is that just because Clemente didn�t talk about it here, it doesn�t mean that he didn�t know about it or talked about it in another instance. The lack of mentioning is certainly probative, but not conclusive. There are many reasons that a person would refer to someone but not go into the same great detail as he would another person, and �not knowing� is only one possible reason, not the only possible reason. For example, one possibility is that Clemente could have felt the greater need to describe Paul if the audience are already more familiar with Peter than with Paul.

Some ecclesial decisions are made for specific circumstances. The separate missions to Gentiles and Jews appear to be more of a organizational arrangement, a division of tasks. The division doesn�t appear to be an inflexible dogma � after all, it concerns the arrangement of the works of the apostles, which appears to be different from unchangeable dogma of faith. Alternatively, as I noted, though this is a weaker point, there were Jews in Rome. Peter could have evangelized to them.

The decisions of the Councils were and are the laws of the Church.

The laws of the Church, unlike the Law of Moses and the Gospel, are not said to be unchangeable.

You are very right and the favorite disciple of Jesus was John, not Peter.

What you said here doesn't really address my point. The point is not whether Peter was the favorite, but why Jesus spoke to him as the representative of the other apostles. What makes you think that Jesus chose Peter as the representative of the apostles based on age?

But as you see in the gospels, Peter is always treated with a special atitude.

Let's look just at Mattew 16:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

We see how Jesus ask all the apostles what people are saying, they answer together, but when Jesus ask what is the believe of the apostles, Peter answer in the name of them.

What you said here still doesn't address my point. What makes you think that he was treated specially because of his age? Furthermore, even if he was the oldest, his being the oldest doesn�t tell us exactly how old he actually was.

I hope you can discuss these evidence. Since I don�t really believe in Catholicism, I�m not going to accept something as true simply because the Vatican and others have said so.

I didn't sayed that the Church hasn't structures but that the doctrine about Church-institution was not yet born in the conscience of the Christians.

You have not shown evidence that church-institution was not yet born in the consciousness of the Christians. Further, the New Testament already discusses some institutional structures of the early church, like ranks of the servants, overseers, and elders.

You sayed that "planted" and "organized" can both refer to the organizing, not to the apparition of the first believers in that town. Your assertion is wrong because is not logical that a structure can first be implemented and than organized. If is not organized, is not a structure.

You misread me. I did not say that �planting� and �organizing� can both refer to �organizing�. In fact, what I said was the opposite: that �planting� and �watering� can both be seen as a part of �planting,� depending on whether one uses the word �planting� in a strict sense or in a broad sense. In other words, �planting� can be seen, in a stricter sense, as the initial beginning, but can also be seen, in a broader sense, as including both the initial beginning and the early stages of organizing. In a broad sense, one can say that the initial founder as well as other early organizers together participated in �planting.� These words such as �planting� and �watering� are simply metaphorical, there are not definite, restrictive ways to use them.

Also, Irenaeus speaking about two etaps of the proces of founding the eclesial system in Roma's church would necesitate an elaborate doctrine,about the Church as institution, which missed at the time.

We have seen such ranks and positions already in the New Testament. Whether you call the New Testament �elaborate doctrine,� it is very authoritative to the Christians. Even if you don�t consider the New Testament �elaborate doctrine,� there is no need for elaboration � any simple, non-elaborate institutionalized church structure is different from a collective of believers.

Regarding your discussion about archeology:

Interesting discussion about archeology! Since I'm not a student of archeology myself, I don't feel qualified to discuss my opinions on archeology. I will leave it to you and the archeologists who believe that Peter went to Rome to debate which side has stronger evidence. Looking at the archeological findings alone: there appear to be evidence on both sides of the argument, so I don�t think I would draw my own conclusion about the archeological factual findings specifically. In any event, I again suggest that you read "The Bones of St. Peter", written by John Evangelist Walsh, which presents the archeological evidence supporting Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome.

My interest was only to point out the illogical and invalid inferences that you have made thus far about the evidence you have presented, and so far, you have made quite a lot of illogical and invalid inferences. While I can't comment on the archeological findings, I will continue to point out the illogical and invalid inferences made by you and others. And so far as I'm capable, I would even point out illogical and invalid inferences any of you make regarding the archeological findings themselves.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 16:29

Originally posted by Menumorut

Which is exactly this special status? John says nothing about such a status but says that him (John) was the favorite disciple. The others evangelists too doesn't say that peter would have a special status.

Paul doesn't say about Peter, but about Peter, James and John.

Peter was the oldest and for that he was the most respected and as in many traditional communities was considered somehow a leader.

This is the reason for Jesus chosen Peter to change his name. Is not a mysterious difference between him and the others apostles. Christianism is not a religion of mysteries, every principle has a motivation which can be explained, described.

As I said, and as has been repeatedly noted, both in this thread and others, the role is one of leadership. This is amply attested to--as even you have noted--in the Gospels, and in the book of Acts. His role as leader was based on more than his age; it was based on his faith. The Scripture (Matthew 16) is very simple and straightforward.

Originally posted by Menumorut

I don't agree. I disagree even that Peter was ever at Rome. If you mantain this, please tell an aprovimativ date at which peter was at Rome.

My dear fellow, it isn't as if the historical narrative is a secret. Tradition holds that he was martyred during the reign of Nero in 67 A.D. (or, less commonly, 64 A.D.). The exact date of his arrival in Rome is unknown, and while it could have been as early as 50 A.D., most scholars would place it much later (with many placing it shortly before his martyrdom).

Originally posted by Menumorut

Or you are saying that the presence of Peter at Rome is a doctrinar, not historical point? If yes, I answer that a theory implying a historical event cann't be a doctrinar point. Christianism is not a set of irational rules, it is meant to lead the men to the truth.

If you are unwilling to admit that the overwhelming testimony of the Fathers (including the historians among them), and the complete lack of any opposing tradition makes it remarkably unlikely that Peter died anywhere except Rome, then I fail to see how you ever manage to accept anything at all. The conclusion that Peter spent time in Rome is not the product of a set of "irrational rules" ; rather it is the truth to which men have been led by their reason. I would refer you to the Eusebius' Church History in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers set, Ser. 2, Vol. 1. In the footnotes for Bk. 2, Chs. 14 and 25, the authors conduct a detailed analysis of the historical record of Peter's presence in Rome.

At this point, Menumorut, I think we would all benefit if you took the time to explain your religious background, as everyone else in the thread has done.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 18:17

You have to chose: or Clement wished to emphasize on Paul but then why he mention the both apostles and not just Paul, or you say that he wished to present the two in equal way but lacked details about Peter.

When at the council was decided that Peter to be the apostles of the Circumcised and Paul of the Gentiles, it was a rather geographical arrangement: Peter remained in the area of the Jewish concentration: Palestine, Syria and Paul obtained the rest of the territories. Paul was commonly preaching to the Jewish communities of the diaspora even before the council in Jerusalem, see Acts 14.

I remember you that in Galatians Paul says that Peter and the other two (James and John) recognized that the One who worked in them was God:

...when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles...

So, I think is not such a flexible thing. I don't consider that at that time apostles were having an understanding about what a council is, but the way Paul speaks shows that it was a decision considered to be of God, not of the humans.

Also I remember (or inform) you that the Near East was the area where were most of the Christians at that time (and later too) and I still wait to give a reason for which Peter would leave Near Orient and come to Rome. And a possible date of such a visit, in your opinion.

It was not chosed by Jesus for this, it was the acceptance among the apostles. Peter was speaking in the name of others. If a younger one would have done this, it would have been considered a daring.

Furthermore, even if he was the oldest, his being the oldest doesn�t tell us exactly how old he actually was.

You maybe have the image of a group of young apostles. Is a clichee. Maybe the apreciation of Peter's age was made by explaining his behaviour from psychanalitic and sociologic points of view. He is daring and is not apostrophated for this. At an age of 20, 30 or 40, a behaviour like his would be considered daring, but if he was 50 his daring was considered correct.

ou have not shown evidence that church-institution was not yet born in the consciousness of the Christians. Further, the New Testament already discusses some institutional structures of the early church, like ranks of the servants, overseers, and elders.

You have to understand that people absorb information and form principles hardly, because they progress starting from nothing. Jesus several times apostrophated his audience for lack of understanding. Or you can look how hard the apostles progressed in undertanding the sense of Jesus' mission. A sophisticated concept like that of church-institution appeared only after the First ecumenical council, when the Church started to be seen not as the summe of the Christians but as a divine-human institution.

The evolution of the Christian church principles is reflected in the theological literature, which in the first centuries is simple and then became more and more elaborated, even its esence remained fundamentaly the same.

In any event, I again suggest that you read "The Bones of St. Peter", written by John Evangelist Walsh, which presents the archeological evidence supporting Peter's presence and martyrdom in Rome.

I prefer to read what several scholars (or other informed people) are saying, even there are small remarsk found on internet pages.
I don't see how a single person could be more authoritative than several.

Also, from some description of this Walsh, I'm afraid is a kind of "popularising" historian (even more: in a romanticised way!). I prefer the ones who are addressing to specialists.

As I said, and as has been repeatedly noted, both in this thread and others, the role is one of leadership. This is amply attested to--as even you have noted--in the Gospels, and in the book of Acts. His role as leader was based on more than his age; it was based on his faith. The Scripture (Matthew 16) is very simple and straightforward.

Peter didn't act as a leader. He didn't ordered something. It was a natural atitude to consider him the representant of the apostles. Or you sugest that Peter was invested with a kind of "he is different" among the apostles?

Could you explain in simple words what is at Matthew 16?

Is the founding of some Mysteries? Is the Church founded on Peter? If yes, why Paul says that the Church is founded on the apostles, as in Ephesians 2, 19-22?

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Where is the special role of Peter here?

Tradition holds that he was martyred during the reign of Nero in 67 A.D. (or, less commonly, 64 A.D.). The exact date of his arrival in Rome is unknown, and while it could have been as early as 50 A.D., most scholars would place it much later (with many placing it shortly before his martyrdom).

Tradition is a social phenomenon in which each generation take the stories from the precedent one.

So, you say that the tradition says that Peter was at Rome but the scholars doesn't know when he came. So this tradition is an oral transmitting proces, which may have fake origins and is hard to believe it escaped to enrichments.

Speaking about scholars, you may know that they think that the less rich in details, the older a source is, when comparing sources about the same thing.

And the way that the story of Peter at Rome is enriched in each century from the 1st to the 3rd is conclusive for this general statement in historiographical science.

If you are unwilling to admit that the overwhelming testimony of the Fathers (including the historians among them), and the complete lack of any opposing tradition makes it remarkably unlikely that Peter died anywhere except Rome, then I fail to see how you ever manage to accept anything at all.

I didn't contradicted you, I agree that is a general consense. I sayed that this consense has not any authority because each generation grounded on the convinctions and documents of the anterior ones.

Do you know that Rome haven't a bishop until few decades of the second century?

Ofcourse, if Peter would have been at Rome is possbile that he not invested a bishop, but then why he should have left his jurisdiction and come to Rome?

See this material about the fact that Rome haven't bishop until few decades of the second century:

While there were bishops in the first century in Jerusalem, and at the latest, by the early 2nd century in Asia Minor, this was not the case in Rome.

When Ignatius of Antioch wrote eight epistles just prior to his martyrdom, he mentioned bishops in many areas--the bishop of Smyrna (Polycarp) mentioned the most. His style was to address his letters to the leaders of the various areas, and in areas that had bishops, he mentioned them. However, unlike most of his letters, his Epistle to the Romans never mentions a bishop in Rome by either name nor title.
...
We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).

http://www.cogwriter.com/clement.htm - http://www.cogwriter.com/clement.htm

Paul didn't invested a bishop at Rome perhaps due to the heterogenousness of the Christian communities, but with his authority (as one who was the direct disciple of Jesus) Peter would have done this.

The fact that Rome didn't had a bishop even few decades in the second century, is a proof that Peter wasn't at Rome.

At this point, Menumorut, I think we would all benefit if you took the time to explain your religious background, as everyone else in the thread has done.

I'm Christian Orthodox.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 19:08

Originally posted by Menumorut

Observe that Peter is described first, but with lack of details. You have to chose: or Clement wished to emphasize on Paul but then why he mention the both apostles and not just Paul, or you say that he wished to present the two in equal way but lacked details about Peter.

I don't have to choose from these two possibilities, because there is a third one that I already proposed: that the audience already knew the details of Peter.

When at the council was decided that Peter to be the apostles of the Circumcised and Paul of the Gentiles, it was a rather geographical arrangement

That's not the point. The point is that you haven't shown that this arrangement is inflexible and permanent.

I remember you that in Galatians Paul says that Peter and the other two (James and John) recognized that the One who worked in them was God:

...when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles...

So, I think is not such a flexible thing.

The Scriptures you quoted does not show that the arrangement is inflexible and permanent.

Also I remember (or inform) you that the Near East was the area where were most of the Christians at that time (and later too) and I still wait to give a reason for which Peter would leave Near Orient and come to Rome.

Missionaries tend to go to places where there are few believers in order to find more converts.

And a possible date of such a visit, in your opinion.

No clue. Like I said, I'm not here to argue that Peter was in Rome. I'm here simply to point out any illogical and invalid inferences you've made.

It was not chosed by Jesus for this, it was the acceptance among the apostles. Peter was speaking in the name of others. If a younger one would have done this, it would have been considered a daring.

This is pure speculation. Where does Scriptures say Peter was chosen by consensus of the group and not by Jesus? I haven't studied the Bible for quite a long time, so my memory might be failing me, but I don't remember Scriptures ever saying that Peter was chosen by the apostles as their head. On the other hand, Jesus clearly treated him in a special way and as representative of the others. Where does Scriptures say that such a selection is based on age? Didn't Paul say that Timothy shouldn't be despised by others because of his young age? It is pure speculation that the respresentative was chosen by the apostles based solely on age.

No, my point is not based on whether the apostles were young. It doens't matter what my mental image of them is, because I am not arguing that they are young. Rather, you are the one who is trying to prove that Peter was old, so you are the one who needs to prove the apostles' age to show that Peter was at the old age you insist that he was at. You should know by now that I have no stance in this -- I don't believe that they were young or old. It is you who are suggesting that Peter was old, so you need to show that he was old. My mental image of their age is absolutely irrelevant here. You still haven't provided proof that, even if Peter was the oldest, then his age would be what you suggest it to be.

Speaking of daring: his apparently reckless behavior (like cutting someone's ear) tends to show youth more than elderliness.

But we are only talking about simple church structure here. Even the simplest structure is different from a collective of believers. The New Testament already has some form of church-structures, and it is absurd to think that Irenaeus wasn't aware of them.

Just because I only named him, it doesn't mean he is the only person in the camp that supports Peter's presence in Rome. There are many archeologists who support the "Peter was in Rome" argument, and Walsh is only one of them. It's absurd to avoid reading him just because I suggested him without expressly mentioning the others -- with the power of google, you should have the ability to find the others without my help. It is also absurd for you to think that I'm suggesting that he and he alone is to be pit against the other scholars who don't support "Peter was in Rome." Again, as I said, there are many archeologists who support the belief that "Peter was in Rome", and Walsh is only one of them. In addition, one book contains many references -- even just by reading Walsh book might lead you to find references to numerous other scholars, much better than a handful of small remarks you find online.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 07:57

I don't have to choose from these two possibilities, because there is a third one that I already proposed: that the audience already knew the details of Peter.

The epistle of Clement is not with an informational purpose, it gives examples of the malice of envy. The examples are first from the Old Testament and then from the recent history of the Church.

Why you say that the audience (the Corinthians) were knowing the details of Peter? Why these details haven't arrived to us, as arrived the ones about Paul?

The Scriptures you quoted does not show that the arrangement is inflexible and permanent.

To change arrangement would mean to consider that God's plans are changing and this is contrary to the beliefs of the apostles.

Missionaries tend to go to places where there are few believers in order to find more converts.

Not all the apostles were having the task of converting by journeys. John lived at Ephesus, Peter lived more than 15 years at Antioch. We see from Scriptures that Peter has not made converting journeys, he was moving in the same space, between Palestine and Antioch.

1. I haven't studied the Bible for quite a long time, so my memory might be failing me, but I don't remember Scriptures ever saying that Peter was chosen by the apostles as their head.

2. On the other hand, Jesus clearly treated him in a special way and as representative of the others.

3. Where does Scriptures say that such a selection is based on age? Didn't Paul say that Timothy shouldn't be despised by others because of his young age? It is pure speculation that the respresentative was chosen by the apostles based solely on age.

1. I didn't say it was chosen. It was a spontanous behaviour of the apostles, like in a family with many children, were the oldest is respected and obeyed in a measure.

2. Why do you say Jesus treated Peter in a special way? which was this special way?

3. I didn't speaked about a special arrangemen among the apostles but about the common way East Orient people were behaving socialy.

Rather, you are the one who is trying to prove that Peter was old, so you are the one who needs to prove the apostles' age to show that Peter was at the old age you insist that he was at.

I don't try to prove. I have met this asertion about Peter's age in some webpages. Is the common believe of the exegets. you may know that in visual represetations, Peter is presented aged and gray-haired, while the other apostles are younger.

Speaking of daring: his apparently reckless behavior (like cutting someone's ear) tends to show youth more than elderliness.

This reckless was not spontanous but demonstrative, deliberated.

There are many archeologists who support the "Peter was in Rome" argument, and Walsh is only one of them.

Is Walsh archaeologist?

The archaeologists are not divides in the ones who support and the ones who don't support the theory of Peter being at Rome.

Their activity consists in excavating sites, analysing the discoveries, publish them, comment on them.

Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 12:20

it would seem otherwise, that the apostles did have the ability to communicate with whomever they met - Peter was at the Roman Cornelius' home, Philip explained scriptures to an Ethiopian - that is your mere assumption that the apostles could only speak in tongues on one occasion, and that goes against the tradition of the Pentecost - what, did the Holy Spirit take off after that one event?

second, can you prove that the apostolic writings we have today are the only writings that the first Christians had around in the beginning of the Church? it could be that we are missing texts mentioning Peter in Rome, hence why what you are arguing against was painfully obvious to them.

also, like the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria would allow Rome a seat of honor at the Councils if Peter didn't die in Rome, like they didn't have an interest in the truth, or were too dumb to figure it out...

sounds like hubris when you dismiss out of hand the intelligence of the ancients.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 14:02

1. it would seem otherwise, that the apostles did have the ability to communicate with whomever they met - Peter was at the Roman Cornelius' home, Philip explained scriptures to an Ethiopian - that is your mere assumption that the apostles could only speak in tongues on one occasion, and that goes against the tradition of the Pentecost - what, did the Holy Spirit take off after that one event?

2. second, can you prove that the apostolic writings we have today are the only writings that the first Christians had around in the beginning of the Church? it could be that we are missing texts mentioning Peter in Rome, hence why what you are arguing against was painfully obvious to them.

3. also, like the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria would allow Rome a seat of honor at the Councils if Peter didn't die in Rome, like they didn't have an interest in the truth, or were too dumb to figure it out...

4. sounds like hubris when you dismiss out of hand the intelligence of the ancients.

1. I never heard that the gift of speaking in tongues is permanent.

Cornelius would speak Aramaic, ofcourse, the Ethiopian was knowing Greek or Hebrew because he was reading the Judaic Scriptures.

I think speaking in tongues was a gift manifested only in some ocassions, like the propheting too, for example, or the making of miracles.

The gifts of the Holy Ghosts are not ireversible gived to people, on the contrary, in Orthodoxy is a rich theology about that any quality of someone is a gift from God and could be taken back. This due to the fact that God is Persons, has free will, not something authomatic.

Anyway, the tradition is that St. Mark was the translator of Peter at Rome.

2. I'm sure that existed much more than this.
But is hard to believe that from the tradition preserved at Rome and Corinth vanished the parts about Peter and remained the ones about Paul. The Acts of Apostles are ending saying that Paul remained for two years at Rome (this was in 61-63). Nothing about Peter.

For the Paul journey in Rome we have several sources: The Acts of Apostles, the epistles writen by Paul from Rome, the epistle of Clement.

Is hard to believe what you say, that for the contemporaries were obvious the thing about Peter, wihtout these obvious things to be put somewhere in writen.

3. The tradition that Peter was at Rome was general in 3-4th centuries and later. This wasn't the the reason for which Rome's bishop obtained the honourific "primus inter pares", but stopped the posibility that the other churches to rise this claim. And the missionary work of Peter at Antiochia was not well known to the generations of Christians from 3-4th century, as probably they were not having sources for this presence. Even today, this presence and activity is presumed as the most acceptable variant, but is not sure.

The death of Peter should took place during Neronian persecution. It was executed by crucifixion (this is the sense of the prophecy in John 28) in Jerusalem and buried there. With the destruction of this city in 70 AD and the disparition of the Christian community here, the tradition about Peter's death remained an oral transmitted phenomenon, which weakened and after two generations started to be replaced by the rumour that Peter died at Rome.

4. I dont know about which ancients you speak.
The early Christians were groups of people among who legends apeared freqeuently, spreaded, enriched, became truth. There are tons of such untrue traditions.

For example, is enough to compare the Martyric Acts (which are Roman cancelary documents, presenting correct the events) with the Lives of the Saints which are the product of oral traditions and transcribers' "contributions".

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 15:21

Originally posted by Menumorut

The epistle of Clement is not with an informational purpose, it gives examples of the malice of envy. The examples are first from the Old Testament and then from the recent history of the Church.

Actually, examples of Peter and Paul were specifically to show that they were heroic in the face of jealous persecution. In any event, whether it was about malice of envy, or heroic suffering, my point remains the same: lack of detail does not necessarily mean lack of knowledge.

Why you say that the audience (the Corinthians) were knowing the details of Peter? Why these details haven't arrived to us, as arrived the ones about Paul?

You missed my point. My point is that "lack of knowledge" is not the only possibility for lack of mentioning, which you alleged. Whether the Corinthians in fact knew is not my point: the possibility that they knew more than suffices to demonstrate my point.

To change arrangement would mean to consider that God's plans are changing and this is contrary to the beliefs of the apostles.

No, the apostles certainly believed that God's plan could change in some aspects. Remember the dream of Peter in which God declared food that was previous thought unclean to be clean. Some believe that this is the fulfillment of the Law and not its change, but regardless of how one sees this, the point is that even such a fulfillment entails a change in some aspects (e.g. from unclean to clean), and the apostles certainly recognized that fact. Paul's letters are filled with such discussions. Such matters as task division is not nearly as fundamental as the eternal laws of God about cleanliness of animals. If unclean animals can be declared clean, such arrangement of task division certainly does not have to be permanent.

In addition, there were Jews in Rome that Peter could administer to. Finally, a more realistic assessment of the early Christian communities is that the Gentiles and Jews could not forever be in separation. Eventually, the few Jews who accepted Christianity became fully integrated with the Gentiles (the distinction between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians was eventually lost -- those who insisted on keeping the Law of Moses strictly were considered heretic.) The merging of the separate missions was inevitable.

Still no proof that these are permanent arrangements.

1. I didn't say it was chosen. It was a spontanous behaviour of the apostles, like in a family with many children, were the oldest is respected and obeyed in a measure.

Pure speculation, as I said already. There is no indication that Peter's role was the result of a spontaneous, familial setting.

2. Why do you say Jesus treated Peter in a special way? which was this special way?

You yourself already stated more than once what this "special way" was -- that Jesus spoke to Peter as though spoking to all of them, treating him as their representative. It does not matter why Jesus chose to do so -- my point is that age is not the only possibility.

As I said before, all of your arguments is based on elimination of possibilities, including this one. Your point is that age is the only possibility for such arrangement, but there are numerous possible criteria. I don't need to prove which possibie is in fact the criterion used -- the simple fact that there are other possibilities other than age suffices to demonstrate my argument.

3. I didn't speaked about a special arrangemen among the apostles but about the common way East Orient people were behaving socialy.

Your reasoning operates on a groundless assumption that this particular arrangement resulted from the "common way" of East Orient culture. Again, there is no indication that this particular arrangement was a spontaneous, cultural effect.

This reckless was not spontanous but demonstrative, deliberated.

In any event, we can't conclusively estimate a person's age by a few singular, extraordinary events. Many people act in ways we don't expect them to based on their age and other characteristics. I pointed out about his recklessness not to conclusively prove his age, but to show precisely that his behavior cannot conclusively prove his age.

This is all the more why you have no reason to avoid reading Walsh. If the archeologists are not divided into camps, then reading any archeological writings can only add to your objective knowledge. Walsh is a distinguished historian, and whether or not Walsh himself is an archeologist, his books might have enough references to the works of archeologists to make it more worthwhile to read than finding short remarks here and there on the internet. Being arbitrarily selective about your sources can only undermine the objectivity of your argument.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 17:08

In any event, whether it was about malice of envy, or heroic suffering, my point remains the same: lack of detail does not necessarily mean lack of knowledge.

Depends of context. If is a retoric reference, like in this case, normal would be Clement to refer equaly to the two.

No, the apostles certainly believed that God's plan could change in some aspects. Remember the dream of Peter in which God declared food that was previous thought unclean to be clean.

The way Peter was thinking before that dream was his Judaic belief. The moment of that dream is important for the history of Christianity because it marks the separation of the Judaic religion.

So, it was a debarasement of the old and "not valid" doctrine.

As for what was decided at Jerusalem, it was considered to be the wish of God of the New Testament, so a change of their convinction on that decision would occur if they would change the doctrine, which didn't happened.

Such matters as task division is not nearly as fundamental as the eternal laws of God about cleanliness of animals.

I repeat: a change in that division would occur only if they considered that they received a sign of God that that arrangement should be changed. They were not acting from their initiative, there are several examples for this, including what Paul says about the meeting at Jerusalem.

So, they could change the arrangement only if they would considered that God changes his mind, and this seem little possible.

In addition, there were Jews in Rome that Peter could administer to.

I answered at this: it was not an ethnic but geographical division at the council in Jerusalem. Paul were going usualy to the sinagogues before and after the council. Peter too were converting Gentiles, wee see what Paul says about Peter with the ocassion of the meeting at Jerusalem, that Peter was eating with the Gentiles.

Pure speculation, as I said already. There is no indication that Peter's role was the result of a spontaneous, familial setting.

There is not indication for everything in Bible. Some things you should presume.

About the age of Peter, the text of Jesus' prophecy is interesting:

I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

You yourself already stated more than once what this "special way" was -- that Jesus spoke to Peter as though spoking to all of them, treating him as their representative.

I sayed that only about the event from Matthew 16.

Peter was not an exception, sometime Jesus is addressing to Philip as to all the apostles:

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

I don't state something. Just offering my opinion about what I consider the most acceptable explication.

Again, there is no indication that this particular arrangement was a spontaneous, cultural effect.

Try to see the ensamble picture. If you took, for example, each verse of Bible separately, you'll get to strange things.

I live in Romania were there are not such books, nor in the bookshops or in the public libraries. If I would live somewhere were I could obtain, I would prefer read specialised academic works, because they are usualy lacking interpretations, as I presume is the case with Walsh. Also, an archaeologist has a incomparable more vast knowledge of the specific of material cultures than a general historian as Walsh. And the idea of "making accesible to large masses" scientifical concepts is erroneous, it generates a wrong understanding of the matters.

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 19:16

Originally posted by Menumorut

Depends of context. If is a retoric reference, like in this case, normal would be Clement to refer equaly to the two.

That context doesn't change anything. Again, the point is that "lack of knowledge" is not the only possibility. The context of Clement's statement does not show that "lack of knowledge" is the only possible reason that he omitted the details of Peter's life. It's possible that he expected the audience to know; it's possible that Peter's life was more widely circulated than particular details of Paul's experience.

I have a new observation: after reading Clement' words, I've found that his description of Paul doesn't refer to any particular incidents beyond what we can generally infer from Scriptures. His captivity, fleeing, and being stoned are all found in the Bible -- Paul himself wrote in great details of his sufferings. The only detail in Clement's letter probably not in the Bible is the exact number of times he was imprisoned, but this hardly proves the depth of his knowledge about Paul. I had previously not examined the passage more closely and simply assumed you were right in the inference you drew from it, but now I realized your inference is incorrect: his recounting of Paul's life is only longer than Peter's life, but is so general that it doens't show that he has more insight about Paul's life than Peter's.

That is not to say that he has little insight into both apostles' lives. My point is only to show that your logic is incorrect here: your argument was that since he described Paul's life in greater details than Peter's, and since he would discuss both with the same details if he could, his lack of mentioning of details of Peter's experience shows that he was unfamiliar with Peter's life. But this comparison that you have made is flawed because a closer look at the passage shows that his description of Paul's life is very general, just longer. Again, what he wrote doesn't necessarily mean what he knew -- he could have known great details about both saints, but if he had intended only to give a brief description of each apostle, as is now clear from the passage, there is no reason to think that the brevity of his description of Peter indicates lack of knowledge.

The point here is that your original contention is problematic, and I'm only attacking that point specifically: that the details he gave about Paul were significantly more detailed than about Peter and thus shows that he has greater knowledge about Paul. However, the details he gave about Paul was so general, most of which can be found in Scriptures, that this comparison doesn't prove what your intend to prove.

The way Peter was thinking before that dream was his Judaic belief. The moment of that dream is important for the history of Christianity because it marks the separation of the Judaic religion.

Not only is it important, it shows a clear change in as aspect of God's plan. The Christians recognized the Law of Moses. They recognized it to be part of God's plan. Animals that were unclean and now were clean shows that some aspect of God's plan has changed.

So, it was a debarasement of the old and "not valid" doctrine.

The Christians recognized the "Old Law" was valid. Jesus said as much, that not a dot of the Law should be taken out unti fulfillment. If his fulfillment of the Law brought about changes to some aspects of God's plan, then it is clear that the apostles understood that some aspects of God's plan could change.

Your argument is based on an elimination of possibility -- namely, your point that God's plan COULD NOT change in the minds of the apostles. But here you already admitted that change of some aspects of it in some circumstances is possible (such as if they believed they have recieved a sign for such change.) Whether such a sign in fact occurred does not affect my point: my point is that by your own admission, you have stated that they believed change of some aspects is possible.

Even if you're just arguing that it is unlikely but no impossible, you have shown no proof of that this lack of likelihood. There is no need to have always a formal meeting to decide the current status of God's plan. Peter believed that God can pronounce something as significantly as declaring unclean animals clean to him personally, and he accepted the message without the need of a council. The geographical arrangement of missions is so practical a matter, and so different from fundamental questions of doctrines, morals, and pracitces, that there is very little reason to think that the aposetles would only believe God to have new plans for their mission strategies if there is something as prominent as the Jerusalem Council.

There is not indication for everything in Bible. Some things you should presume.

But your assumption here is purely speculative. If there's no indication that one possibility is greater than the other, then the question is entirely moot, and we should leave it at that, rather than to read into the Bible and impose any presumption.

Peter was not an exception, sometime Jesus is addressing to Philip as to all the apostles:

Remember you said previously that Peter is the oldest because he represents the apostles. Now you're saying that he doesn't have this unique role of representing the apostles, so you're now admitting that you have less reason to think he is the oldest. You're now contradicting what you said earlier. When you were trying to prove that Peter was the oldest, you gave this example: "We see how Jesus ask all the apostles what people are saying, they answer together, but when Jesus ask what is the believe of the apostles, Peter answer in the name of them."

Now you're saying that other apostles, like Philip, can fill this representative role. Hence what you're saying now contradicts the evidence that you previously presented. In other words, you are now contradicting your previous argument that "Peter is the oldest because he is the representative of the others."

I trust you to be have the ability to filter fact findings from interpretations. What you're doing now is purposefully avoiding potential facts that can contribute to the discussion, and such avoidance is arbitrarily selective and undermines the objectivity of your argument.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 03:54

1. It's possible that he expected the audience to know; it's possible that Peter's life was more widely circulated than particular details of Paul's experience.

2. The only detail in Clement's letter probably not in the Bible is the exact number of times he was imprisoned, but this hardly proves the depth of his knowledge about Paul.

3. But this comparison that you have made is flawed because a closer look at the passage shows that his description of Paul's life is very general, just longer.

1. Let's put again the passage:

Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

I think the difference between how he refers to each one is great. And I think that is not acceptable to think that Peter died at Rome and Clement gives not details.

There are these variants:

a. Peter died in Near East and Paul died in the extreme West

b. Both died at Rome

c. Peter died in Near East and Paul died at Rome.

d. Peter died at Rome and Paul in extreme West

Variant a. is matching the best Clement's description. Variant b. is contradicted by the facts that he make alusion to where Paul died, but doesn't make the same for Peter. If they both would died in the same place, such a differentiation would not have made.
Variant c. is also possible.
Variant d. has a problem with the word "finally". As was not characteristic for Peter to journey, coming at Rome and dying would be mentioned both as a finality, not just his death.

2. That detail is very signifiant. Another one is that he says Paul died under prefects. Bible says nothing about Paul's death. And also the mentioning of Paul going to the extreme west is found only at Clement. But all these are normal, as is sure that Paul lived for more than two years at Rome, see the end of Acts of Apostles.

3. Is longer both also gives details. Three details that are not in Bible.

No, God's plans never changed. In the epistle of James is sayed "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

It was a stepped revelation of God to mankind. The Mosaic Law was a prefiguration of the thrue Law. This was planned by God before the centuries.

Apostles understood this only after Peter's dream. Actualy, it was oficially established at the council in Jerusalem that the Gentiles would be accepted too, because the apostles initialy believed that only the Jews are called for the salvation.

So, the acceptance of Gentiles was not because God changed his mind.

Jesus said as much, that not a dot of the Law should be taken out unti fulfillment. If his fulfillment of the Law brought about changes to some aspects of God's plan, then it is clear that the apostles understood that some aspects of God's plan could change.

Jesus sayed that about the prophecies of the Olt testament, not about fulfiling the rituals of the Mosaic law. Because He broken that religious precets, curing people in the Sabbath etc.

Your second phrase is in contraiction with the way apostles were thinking. A God changing his mind and plans was the oposite of the way Apostles believed and teached.

1. Your argument is based on an elimination of possibility -- namely, your point that God's plan COULD NOT change in the minds of the apostles. But here you already admitted that change of some aspects of it in some circumstances is possible (such as if they believed they have recieved a sign for such change.) Whether such a sign in fact occurred does not affect my point: my point is that by your own admission, you have stated that they believed change of some aspects is possible.

2. There is no need to have always a formal meeting to decide the current status of God's plan. Peter believed that God can pronounce something as significantly as declaring unclean animals clean to him personally, and he accepted the message without the need of a council.

1. If a vision in which God would asked a change of one of his previous indications would occured, the apostles would get such a belief, that God is changing his plans.

But this is missing from the Bible and from the belief of Christians in all the times.

There are passages in the Old Testament, like the one with Jonas and the condemnation of Ninive by God (followed by his change of mind) but it have to be seen as an educative manifestation, God knowing the reaction his acts will generate.

The conception that God is changing his plans is totaly contrary to Christian belief.

So, it was not any change at the council of Jerusalem. Apostles passed from some principles which were prejudices, to the right understanding of God's plans.

2. The understanding of the apostles evolved gradual and their principles of activity too.
It was not a declaration of God and it was not about animals. It was a revelation of what God always thinked (I remember that the Christian God is personal) and Peter understood that his anterior belief was wrong.

The Mosaic Law was symbolic. The choice of Jews and their guidance by the Mosaic Law has had the purpose of preparing the humanity for the embodiment of Jesus. It was not the true Law of God, because the humankind could not understand the truth in its initialy estate. The thousand and more years of Mosaic Law prepared the humankind for the revelation of a personal God in Jesus.

There were not rules, just a natural way of behaviour. Peter often was speaking in the name of Apostles because he was considered somehow their representant, being the oldest. But it was not a rule.

The discussion with Philip started from an intervention of Philip. But the discussion from Matthew 16 started from Jesus ask to all of the apostles.

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 13:45

I think the difference between how he refers to each one is great. And I think that is not acceptable to think that Peter died at Rome and Clement gives not details.

mailto:cng@gglt.com - Your comparison about their lives is irrelevant because your comparison Clement's knowledge about the two saints' deaths, not details about their lives. Details about their lives prior to their deaths are irrelevant to the comparison (it�s possible that Clement met Paul earlier on and only met Peter near Peter�s death) - "Went to the extreme west of the empire and suffered martyrdom under prefects" is hardly sign of having more personal, eye-witness knowledge. Again, the lack of details about both saints' deaths does not necessarily show lack of knowledge -- if he did not intend to go into details, but only to mention the heroic examples of martyrdom, he needed not describe in details. The point is that your conclusion about the comparison is faulty because the comparison does not necessarily show that Clement knew more about Paul's death than about Peter's death.

An example of information that would show personal knowledge is if Clement discussed the details of when and where, the instruments of execution, words that Paul uttered before death, etc.

Thus, the passage did not describe in details the deaths of both Peter and Paul. This either means he did not know, or that he did not intend to describe the details. My point is not to show whether he knew. Rather, my point is only to show that your comparison did not necessarily show that he knew more about Paul's death than of Peter's death. -

3. Is longer both also gives details. -
mailto:cng@gglt.com -

mailto:cng@gglt.com - The additional details are so general that they do not show superior personal knowledge. -

No, God's plans never changed. In the epistle of James is sayed "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

God�s Mind is not the same as series of stages of implementation of his plan. Under the Biblical view, God�s Mind doesn�t change, but his plan is implemented through a series of stages. More about this below.

mailto:cng@gglt.com -

It was a stepped revelation of God to mankind. The Mosaic Law was a prefiguration of the thrue Law. This was planned by God before the centuries.

In the Biblical view, God can plan ahead of time that a person should go to place A and then go to place B. It doens't mean that God has changed his Mind. Rather, God already has this entire plan before it was implemented. He already knew that in the year 2000, he would send a person to place A, and later in the year 2001, he would send a person to place B. God has already planned all of this out before they are implemented. I did not say that God changed his Mind and created new plans as the plans were implemented. Everything in the "plan of salvation" described in the Bible has been implemented through a progression of stages. These stages do not involve changes in God's Mind; rather, they involve the changes of the situations that people experience through. There was a time when certain animals could not be eaten. There was later a time these animals are revealed to be clean. These changes are within God's plan. None of this means that God changed his Mind. It doens't mean that God changed his plan as time went. Rather, he already planned this progression of stages ahead of time. Thus, just because God intends a person to go to place A in 2000, it doesn't mean he intends him to stay there permanently.

God didn�t reveal his plan all at once. If God always revealed his plan all at once, then the Christians wouldn't need two testaments. It's obvious that even prefigurement is not the same as full, express revelation. Hence, what makes you think that Peter would know from God the plan for his entire life mission?

mailto:cng@gglt.com -

mailto:cng@gglt.com - -

So, the acceptance of Gentiles was not because God changed his mind.

mailto:cng@gglt.com - mailto:cng@gglt.com -

Your second phrase is in contraiction with the way apostles were thinking. A God changing his mind and plans was the oposite of the way Apostles believed and teached.

mailto:cng@gglt.com - mailto:cng@gglt.com - -
mailto:cng@gglt.com -

The bottomline is that you insist without proof that God intended Peter's mission to be permanent. God does not change his Mind, but God can make a plan that is carried out through stages. In the Biblical view, God's plan indeed is carried through a series of stages. Fulfillment precisely shows such progression of stages. It is obvious that God often intends one arrangement for one stage and a different arrangement for a later stage.

Note to Jewish readers of this thread: I recognize that the Jews subscribe to a different view from Christians. When I refer to the "Biblical view" in this post, I am referring to the Christian Biblical view that includes both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Jews do not believe, as Christians do, that the Old Testament is a prefigurement of the New, and they dod not believe God's plan is implemented through fulfillments of the Mosaic Law. This is irrelevant to our discussion, of course, because the apostles are Christians and, according to the New Testament accounts of the apostles, they believe in this fulfillment. (E.g., Peter believed that in the New Law, unclean animals are clean.)

mailto:cng@gglt.com - There were not rules, just a natural way of behaviour. Peter often was speaking in the name of Apostles because he was considered somehow their representant, being the oldest. But it was not a rule.

You're still speculating without proof. You have failed to provide a proof that "being oldest" is the standard by which Peter became the representative.

The discussion with Philip started from an intervention of Philip. But the discussion from Matthew 16 started from Jesus ask to all of the apostles.

This doesn't change the fact that you have undermined or perhaps contradicted a point you made previously. Your point that Peter was the oldest relied on the evidence that he was the representative of the apostles, and then all of a sudden you said that Philip also had an instance of representing the apostles.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 14:35

Unfortunately, I do not possess the ability to keep up with the conversation here--honestly, do you guys ever sleep?

Still, in lieu of addressing anything specifically, I will raise a couple of general objections to things I have read above. I apologize for not quoting, but as I said, I have little time.

First, as to the accordance of a place of honor to the Roman bishops at the Councils of the ancient Church, mentioned by The Jackal God:

The councils are very clear that Rome is accorded her place of honor and her prerogatives as a result of her status as the capital of the oikoumene; the fact that Peter died in Rome--which he did--was not used as a justification for universal claims until the middle of the fifth century, when it represented the chief objection of the papal legates to the 28th canon of Chalcedon.

Secondly, as to the matter of whether or not there were bishops in ancient Rome, the question of Peter's leadership role, and the presence of Peter at Rome, raised by Menumorut:

Although historical evidence does indeed indicate that the primitive Roman Church was governed by a council of presbyters, this does not exclude the possibility of the presence of a bishop. It is altogether likely that, though the bishops had less authority in the primitive Roman Church than their counterparts in other areas, they nevertheless presided in love over the assemblage of priests.

Peter's leadership role is outlined clearly in the Matthean passage where Christ speaks of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," which represent a special authority given to the Apostle Peter. Peter's leadership role consists of being a sort of spokesperson for the Apostles, and a catalyst around which consensus can be formed. While we may be sure that his particular commission does not involve him being granted authority over the apostles--for such authority was never exercised; indeed, quite the opposite is seen from the Scriptures--we cannot minimize his role in the Early Church.

Though the other Apostles are given the power to bind and loose, they never received "the keys." This much has never been disputed, even in the Orthodox Church. We Orthodox do, however, point out the fact that there is no evidence that "special charisms" were passed down from the individual Apostles to their particular Churches--a point which represents the key to the Petrine claim. Ephesus, for instance, did not become the "Church which Jesus Loved," any more than the Church in India became the "Doubting Church."

As for the scholarship surrounding the study of Peter's tenure at Rome, I would refer you again to that passage I suggested earlier from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers set. Though it does not delve into great detail, it presents a fairly good outline, and it is generally written from a fairly Protestant point of view, so you can be assured that you will not imbibe any Roman bias. Anyway, the key to the whole argument is that there is not a single conflicting tradition, upon which to base the overthrow of that which has always been piously held by the Church, both in the East and in the West: Peter was martyred in Rome.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 16:18

1. "Went to the extreme west of the empire and suffered martyrdom under prefects" is hardly sign of having more personal, eye-witness knowledge.

2. Again, the lack of details about both saints' deaths does not necessarily show lack of knowledge -- if he did not intend to go into details, but only to mention the heroic examples of martyrdom, he needed not describe in details.

3.The point is that your comparison is irrelevant because it does not show that Clement knew more about Paul's death than about Peter's death.

1. "Went to the extreme West" is either the result of a journey of Paul to Spain about which Clement has heard, or the result of reading the Epistle to Romans (15: 24, 28). This could remained just an intention of the apostle.

"Suffered martyrdom under prefects" is a sign that Clement was knowing how and where Paul died. I think that this refers to Paul's death at Rome, because of the plural prefects, which seems to indicate a more complex administrative aparatus concentrated in one geographical point.

2. Then why he gives details about Paul?

I think is good to read the passage in the context of the whole epistle:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html

In this epistle is an interesting passage:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. (chapter 47)

Actualy, in the first epistle to Corinthians Paul says:

4 Whenever someone says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not merely human?

5 What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one.

6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.

This confussion made by Clement is very clear to be the source of the belief among Corinthians that Peter was among them.

We know that the Corinthians were often reading Clement's epistle and in time appeared the confussion that Peter was at Corinth.

Then, ~170 Dionysius of Corinth is proudly writing to Romans:

You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.

3. Again and again: why he mention a detail about Paul's death and not about Peter's? This could be explained only by:
-that he had lack of knowledge about Peter's death
-he had met Paul and he was more impressed by the personality of Paul
-both of the above

Because in the same Chapter 15 is
Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death.

They both constitute a ingle subject and the logic of rethoric is that both should be presented equaly.

My point was not whether the apostles believed that God changed his Mind. My point was, rather, that they did not believe God to intend every arrangement to be permanent. Assuming that the Gospel is all true, then God already knew that

Apostles were doing only what they considered is Holy Ghost working in them, nothing else. They were not guiding their acts with some principles but permanently by what they considered to be the divine inspiration.

From how Paul speaks about the decision at Jerusalem wee see that is a solemn thing.

That the Holy Ghost could change what was arranged then would generate confussion, even everything would have been planed by God before the centuries. It would introduced the belief of a God which is not as majestuous as he is.

You have failed to provide a proof that "being oldest" is the standard by which Peter became the representative.

As the principles of Christ were that the humility is the supreme virtue and that one should be the servant and behave like the last among the others, the only criterion by which one of the apostles could act as a representative of the others remains the age difference.

Your point that Peter was the oldest relied on the evidence that he was the representative of the apostles, and then all of a sudden you said that Philip also had an instance of representing the apostles.

I repeat that was not something established among them, just a behaviour generated by decency and the value of morality.

About Philip: I speaked about two different things:

1. How Peter was talking in the name of apostles
2. How Jesus addressed not only to Peter but also to other apostles as that one is representing all.

The fact that Clement was writing to the Corinthians in the name of the church in Rome (without mentioning his name) could be explained only he was considered the representant of Rome's church. If a bishop existed, he would not leave this to a priest, as Clement was.

Actualy, what Irenaeus says about the bishops of Rome until him is phantastic: he numbers symbolicaly twelve bishops of Rome from Peter to his time. The sixth is called Sixtus:
http://www.ancientpapacy.org/articles/succession1.htm - http://www.ancientpapacy.org/articles/succession1.htm

From this writing (which may have been invented by him for polemic use) has started all the tradition about the pretended bishops of Rome.

Though the other Apostles are given the power to bind and loose, they never received "the keys." This much has never been disputed, even in the Orthodox Church.

The power was promised then (remarks the future of the verb at Matthew 16) to the apostles (not only to Peter) and was gived after the Ressurection:

22. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

23. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20)

There is not any difference between the gift promised at Matthew 16 and what the apostles received after Ressurection.

And there is not any theology about "Peter's" key (at least not in Orthodoxy), as it is about the power of binding and loosing which is the fundamental Mystery (Sacrament in the Catholic church) of the Christian church.

Though it does not delve into great detail, it presents a fairly good outline, and it is generally written from a fairly Protestant point of view, so you can be assured that you will not imbibe any Roman bias.

The fact that is not Roman doesn't mean is correct. All of us are under the effect of being tell that Peter was at Rome. Most of people believe even that Papacy was always how it is today.

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 16:58

Originally posted by Menumorut

"Suffered martyrdom under prefects" is a sign that Clement was knowing how and where Paul died. I think that this refers to Paul's death at Rome, because of the plural prefects, which seems to indicate a more complex administrative aparatus concentrated in one geographical point.

A general detail as "under prefects" hardly shows that he had more detailed knowledge about Paul's death than about Peter's death. Such a general detail doesn't require personal acquaintance, and doesn't prove that Clement hadn't met Peter just because Clement didn't say something similar to that type of description about Peter.

2. Then why he gives details about Paul?

As said before, the actual reason is not important: what is important is that "lack of knowledge about Peter's death" is not the only possible reason.

3. Again and again: why he mention a detail about Paul's death and not about Peter's? This could be explained only by:
-that he had lack of knowledge about Peter's death
-he had met Paul and he was more impressed by the personality of Paul
-both of the above

It's still possible that he was more impressed by Paul even if he had met both of them. In addition, there is no reason to limit the possibilities. It's also possible that he found that Paul's example can demonstrate his lesson better. It's even possible that he had reasons, unknown to us, to expect his audience to already know more about Peter. Note again that what the actual reason is is unimportant: my point is to only to show you that "lack of knowledge" or "lack of acquaintance" are not the only possibilities, because your argument relies on them being the only possibilities.

Again, my argument is not about what the actual reason was, hence I don't need to prove which reason was the actual one in order to support my point. All I'm saying is that "lack of knowledge" and "lack of acquaintance" are not the only possible reasons.

As stated, God could've planned them to go to A at an earlier point and then to B to a later point. This does not mean God changed his Mind. He could inspire them to go to place A now and go to place B later. Divine inspiration does not necessarily imply permanent arrangement.

1) This further undermines your argument: perhaps the youngest should be first because he is conventionally considered, as you said, last in Near East culture.

2) Again you have arbitrarily excluded yourself to one or two possibilities. Personality and experience are often reason people choose representative, without the chosen person accepting the role out of pride.

I repeat that was not something established among them, just a behaviour generated by decency and the value of morality.

It appears that you're now changing what you said. I went back to what you said:

I sayed that only about the event from Matthew 16.

Peter was not an exception, sometime Jesus is addressing to Philip as to all the apostles

Unless I've misunderstood your argument, it appears that you mentioned Philip because you want to say that Peter's representative role is limited to Matthew 16. That means you're now saying that Peter is not always the established representative. This completely contradicts a previous evidence you presented for your argument.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 17:11

Originally posted by Menumorut

The fact that Clement was writing to the Corinthians in the name of the church in Rome (without mentioning his name) could be explained only he was considered the representant of Rome's church. If a bishop existed, he would not leave this to a priest, as Clement was.

You will need to support your theory that Clement is a priest rather than a bishop; in light of all the documentary evidence to the contrary, we must interpret his letter in the context of the accepted historical narrative which presumes his episcopal status. Once again, if you wish to question this narrative, you must provide documentary evidence.

Originally posted by Menumorut

Actualy, what Irenaeus says about the bishops of Rome until him is phantastic: he numbers symbolicaly twelve bishops of Rome from Peter to his time. The sixth is called Sixtus:
http://www.ancientpapacy.org/articles/succession1.htm - http://www.ancientpapacy.org/articles/succession1.htm

From this writing (which may have been invented by him for polemic use) has started all the tradition about the pretended bishops of Rome.

As your article notes, the successors to Peter were entrusted with the episcopate. I don't really see why you linked to it; it would appear to refute your assertion that Clement was not, indeed, a bishop. You may wish to read it again. If you consider the works of Irenaeus to be fantasy, then why not those of Ignatius, which represent an account of the ancient, episcopal nature of the Church, and which represent early documentation of Eastern ecclesiology?

Originally posted by Menumorut

The power was promised then (remarks the future of the verb at Matthew 16) to the apostles (not only to Peter) and was gived after the Ressurection:

22. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

23. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20)

There is not any difference between the gift promised at Matthew 16 and what the apostles received after Ressurection.

And there is not any theology about "Peter's" key (at least not in Orthodoxy), as it is about the power of binding and loosing which is the fundamental Mystery (Sacrament in the Catholic church) of the Christian church.

First, there is a theology of the keys in Orthodoxy; you will notice Peter depicted with them in iconography. Second, you are confusing the more general power--that to bind and loose--with the more specific Petrine comission, of which the keys represent a part. You have misinterpreted the passage no less than have the Roman apologists. The correct, Orthodox interpretation is that the keys are bestowed upon Peter as recognition that he is a source of unity in the early Church; his position, however, is derived not from his person but from his confession of faith. This is what is meant by the "keys." You might look to Cyprian of Carthage's On the Unity of the Church if you wish to learn more. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew also provides us with an orthodox perspective, in that it links the gift of the keys with Peter's confession, and delineates between it and the later, more general gift to the Apostles. While the powers associated are the same, Peter's role in proclaiming the foundational profession of Christian belief must not be de-emphasized.

Originally posted by Menumorut

The fact that is not Roman doesn't mean is correct. All of us are under the effect of being tell that Peter was at Rome. Most of people believe even that Papacy was always how it is today.

Well, have you read it?

I agree: the validity of the historiographical analysis does not derive from its lack of Roman bias, but from its meticulous documentary study. Until you read it, I fail to see how you can criticize it.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 19:45

Divine inspiration does not necessarily imply permanent arrangement.

Than it would not be as solemn as Paul stated what he stated. Remember his words: "The one who worked in me..."

God has an absolute majesty, he is not just a simple being.

1) This further undermines your argument: perhaps the youngest should be first because he is conventionally considered, as you said, last in Near East culture.

2) Personality and experience are often reason people choose representative, without the chosen person accepting the role out of pride.

1. This is a sophism and even (no ofence) a pervert idea. The virtue of humility is not irational and is not contrary to the common moral.

2. You see the things like the apostles were a team of workmen. The values of intelligence or experience were null for the disciples of Jesus. It was a spiritual brotherhood and their head was being Jesus, not some of them.

Peter was not the representative but in some discutions or situations he was acting as a leader, especialy after the Ressurection.

.........................

At the church of Corinth apeared troubles and one of the priests of Rome, the most representative (probably) sent a letter to Corinthians. If he would have been a bishop he would have mentioned this.

The investment of a bishop by the apostles was a clear act, assuming the ritual of puting the hands.

And by the way, the Apostolate and Bishopry were two different tasks in the early Church. The apostles were not bishops and the bishops were not apostles.

Peter could not have been bishop and to think that the two were at Rome and Peter was the bishop of Paul is also hilarious.

1. As your article notes, the successors to Peter were entrusted with the episcopate. I don't really see why you linked to it; it would appear to refute your assertion that Clement was not, indeed, a bishop. You may wish to read it again.

2. If you consider the works of Irenaeus to be fantasy, then why not those of Ignatius, which represent an account of the ancient, episcopal nature of the Church, and which represent early documentation of Eastern ecclesiology?

1. That web page is reflecting the Roman-Catholic claims. I gived the link because is presenting more clear the list of the twelve bishops Irenaeus has put on list.

2. There is not a rule. If Irenaeus was having the inclination to fabultion and exageration, is not a rule that all the Fathers were being the same. About Ignatius I know almost nothing, but from the little I have read it seems he was not having that sort of inclination.

The episcopal nature of the church in Rome is contradicted even by Ignatius, as I quoted when I sayed about the fact that Rome hasn't bishop until the half of the second century.

Not all the churches were having bishop.

There is not a special theology about Peter's difference to the other apostles in Orthodoxy.

The keys are the gift promised to all the apostles. In Matthew 18: 18 Jesus says to the apostles:

Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The correct, Orthodox interpretation is that the keys are bestowed upon Peter as recognition that he is a source of unity in the early Church; his position, however, is derived not from his person but from his confession of faith. This is what is meant by the "keys." You might look to Cyprian of Carthage's On the Unity of the Church if you wish to learn more.

Is the first time I heard about such thing. Anyway, it is not true, because we don't see at Paul or other figures that Peter was considered a source of unity. Is something that started from the (wrong) interpretation of that verse in Matthew and this is all.

What Cyprian says are speculations.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 00:24

Originally posted by Menumorut

2. There is not a rule. If Irenaeus was having the inclination to fabultion and exageration, is not a rule that all the Fathers were being the same. About Ignatius I know almost nothing, but from the little I have read it seems he was not having that sort of inclination.

The episcopal nature of the church in Rome is contradicted even by Ignatius, as I quoted when I sayed about the fact that Rome hasn't bishop until the half of the second century.

Not all the churches were having bishop.

The episcopal nature of the Church is well attested to, both by the Fathers and the Scriptures. As noted above, the collective government of the Roman Church does not preclude the possibility of a bishop.

Originally posted by Menumorut

There is not a special theology about Peter's difference to the other apostles in Orthodoxy.

The keys are the gift promised to all the apostles. In Matthew 18: 18 Jesus says to the apostles:

Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Ok, so you have repeated yourself without offering any justification for your position or addressing any of the issues raised above. Bravo. You will forgive me if I refer you back to my outline of the theology of the "keys" earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by Menumorut

Is the first time I heard about such thing. Anyway, it is not true, because we don't see at Paul or other figures that Peter was considered a source of unity. Is something that started from the (wrong) interpretation of that verse in Matthew and this is all.

Well, it is not the first time such a thing has been bandied about. And as I have stated above, this anti-Petrine misinterpretation is just as egregious as that of the most misinformed papal apologist.

Originally posted by Menumorut

What Cyprian says are speculations.

Let us try this then. Why don't you explain to me precisely what about Cyprian's statements are speculation, and why you have arrived at that conclusion. Obviously you are intimately familiar with the text, if you are willing to treat it so dismissively. Why don't you tell me what you find particularly speculative and unfounded about On the Unity of the Church, Ch. 4, hm?

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 02:32

The episcopal nature of the Church is well attested to, both by the Fathers and the Scriptures. As noted above, the collective government of the Roman Church does not preclude the possibility of a bishop.

The differentiation of the bishop of the priest was not yet manifested at the churches in Rome and Corinth. Look how Clement speaks:

CHAPTER 42 -- THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

.................

CHAPTER 44 -- THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

In the Eastern churches such differentiation may have existed, Ignatius in his letter to Eastern churches is speaking about the bishops of the cities.

But in Clement's time, there was not a superior of the local church at Rome and Corinth. We see that the presbyters in Corinth were deposed by the whole church, not by a bishop, and this was the reason for Clement sending the epistle. Is hard to believe that Corinth was having a bishop, a superior of that church and Clement doesn't refer to that.

Clement speaks about bishops only on the ground of what he has had read in Paul's epistles. And he speaks from memory, as we see from the mistake he makes, saying that in the epistle to the Corinthians Paul told them about him, Cephas and Apollos, when in reality Paul writen only about him and Apollos (chapter 47).

There is not a unitary theology. There are some disparate speculations made by a Father or other. What Cyprian says is not found at other Fathers (Origen is not a Father but a heretic). More common was to later Fathers, (e.g.: Maximus the Confessor) to elogiate the bishopry of Rome on the basis of the Petrine pretended superiority. But all these theories are grounded only on the interpretation of a verse in the gospel of Matthew, interpretation which is wrong because, I repeat, few days later (chapter 18) Jesus says that all the apostles will receive the power to bind and loose and after Ressurection (John 20: 22) He fulfill his promise.

But in an Orthodox Catechism you cann't find that Peter has a special atribution.

You try to built an idea for sustaining your theory about Peter's speacial role. You sayed earlier

Peter's leadership role is outlined clearly in the Matthean passage where Christ speaks of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," which represent a special authority given to the Apostle Peter. Peter's leadership role consists of being a sort of spokesperson for the Apostles, and a catalyst around which consensus can be formed.

which is wrong, because Jesus says clearly that the keys are a symbolic speaking about the power to bind and loose:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

and then you say

You might look to Cyprian of Carthage's On the Unity of the Church if you wish to learn more. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew also provides us with an orthodox perspective, in that it links the gift of the keys with Peter's confession, and delineates between it and the later, more general gift to the Apostles.

Is obvious that you try to argue it was a point of faith that Peter was the catalyst. And is a strange idea too, this throws us in a sort of a theory about Christians which have some personal attributes in the plan of God. Is a depersonalizing theory and is not found anywhere in the books of New Testament.

These theories with Peter-catalyst were not present at other Fathers (than Cyprian and Origen) and much (most) of Origen theories are heretical or simple speculations.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 11:34

Originally posted by Menumorut

The differentiation of the bishop of the priest was not yet manifested at the churches in Rome and Corinth. Look how Clement speaks:

Already addressed above. For further reference on the development of the episcopal role and the beginnings of differentiation between the episkopoi and the other orders of clegry, see I Tim 3: 1-13, 4: 14, 5:17 ; Ignatius (Ep. to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, to the Trallians, to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrneans, and to Polycarp). You seem to be taking what is commonly known to be the history of the Roman Church (and the Churches of the West), where the development of the episcopal office was more gradual, and distorting it to fit the preconception that "the Church in the West was not hierarchical."

Originally posted by Menumorut

In the Eastern churches such differentiation may have existed, Ignatius in his letter to Eastern churches is speaking about the bishops of the cities.

But in Clement's time, there was not a superior of the local church at Rome and Corinth. We see that the presbyters in Corinth were deposed by the whole church, not by a bishop, and this was the reason for Clement sending the epistle. Is hard to believe that Corinth was having a bishop, a superior of that church and Clement doesn't refer to that.

You are partially correct; Clement is writing his letter to reprove presbyters who have deposed those first among them. He uses the terms "presbyter" and "bishop" interchangably because in some areas of the early Church--and particularly in the West--the duties of both offices were ill-defined; the terms were, in fact, largely synonomous. As we have noted above, the development of the episcopal office in the west--which was, on the whole, missionary territory long after the Church had been well-established in the East--was gradual. Still, the office was developing, and a definite episcopal concept existed; indeed some wonder that the individual parishes were not "episcopalized."

Here I wish to note one issue raised by this letter where you have touched on the truth, and then obscured it by misinterpretation. Yes, the episcopal office was something separate from the Apostolic office; the episcopal office was a continuation of the Apostolic office. As Clement notes, the Apostles appointed leaders of individual churches to succeed them, and to carry on their ministry. It is in this sense that we, as Orthodox Christians, understand "Apostolic Succession."

Anyway, all that really needs to be said is that Clement, being of the generation of Christians which succeeded the Apostles, was using the term "bishop" in a manner consistent with its Scriptural foundation.

Originally posted by Menumorut

Clement speaks about bishops only on the ground of what he has had read in Paul's epistles. And he speaks from memory, as we see from the mistake he makes, saying that in the epistle to the Corinthians Paul told them about him, Cephas and Apollos, when in reality Paul writen only about him and Apollos (chapter 47).

I am afraid--and it is really no surprise--that it is not the holy father Clement who is making a mistake, but you. Paul clearly speaks of himself, Cephas, and Apollos. Read I Corinthians again, if you please:

For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." [I Cor 1: 11-12]

I am guessing that you overlooked this and skipped straight to I Cor. 3, where Paul speaks directly only of himself and Apollos--although Peter and other church leaders could certainly be included by implication. You see, both Paul and Clement are speaking against discord and underlying the need for unity; they are speaking against contention based upon human loyalties.

I think this mistake of yours, more than anything else, demonstrates incontrovertibly that if we think we have found error with something a certain father wrote concerning the early Church, it is our duty to thoroughly examine the documentary evidence before assuming that we are in the right.

Originally posted by Menumorut

There is not a unitary theology. There are some disparate speculations made by a Father or other. What Cyprian says is not found at other Fathers (Origen is not a Father but a heretic). More common was to later Fathers, (e.g.: Maximus the Confessor) to elogiate the bishopry of Rome on the basis of the Petrine pretended superiority. But all these theories are grounded only on the interpretation of a verse in the gospel of Matthew, interpretation which is wrong because, I repeat, few days later (chapter 18) Jesus says that all the apostles will receive the power to bind and loose and after Ressurection (John 20: 22) He fulfill his promise.

First on the subject of Origen (and an interesting subject it is

). While Origen was indeed anathematized posthumously by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, we cannot forget that the early Church owed much to him. Indeed many of the early fathers idolized him, foremost among them Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzos, and Gregory of Nyssa. He is in a special class; he is a father, not a saint. This is evidenced by a particularly rare icon of "Origen Teaching the Saints," whereing Origen is depicted haloless, instructing an assemblage of haloed saints. That said, we must remember that Origen was anathematized for his views concerning apocatastasis, the pre-existence of the soul, and certain other positions held by those calling themselves "Origenists" ; it would be a great disservice to ignore his orthodox views, which provided a foundation for early patristic theology.

Maximus the Confessor represents an interesting case as well. Many of the quotes attributed to him are derived from later western forgeries, and while he may have possessed a semi-maximalist *ahem* view of the position of the bishop of Rome, the opinion of one father is not binding in light of so much contradictory patristic evidence.

As for your concerns regarding the interpretation of Matthew 16 and 18, I have already addressed them.

Originally posted by Menumorut

Is obvious that you try to argue it was a point of faith that Peter was the catalyst. And is a strange idea too, this throws us in a sort of a theory about Christians which have some personal attributes in the plan of God. Is a depersonalizing theory and is not found anywhere in the books of New Testament.

The question actually deals with the issue of the "Rock" upon which the Church is built, and from which Peter takes his name. This "Rock" is seen by the fathers alternately as either a) Christ (obvious), b) Peter (by virtue of his confession of the true Rock that is Christ), or c) the confession of Peter (of the true Rock that is Christ). Your minimalistic and, frankly, misleading interpretation of the Matthean passages, done outside of the context of the faith and interpretations held by the early fathers, is dangerously inadequate. Look to the sources; it really is a fascinating study.

Originally posted by Menumorut

These theories with Peter-catalyst were not present at other Fathers (than Cyprian and Origen) and much (most) of Origen theories are heretical or simple speculations.

Really? Really? Would you like me to present a fraction of the well-nigh limitless documentary evidence to the contrary?

Just to get this straight, you are actually arguing that fathers other than Cyprian and Origen did not possess an idea of Peter as the catalyst? While I am pressed for energy, I would be willing to do so, pending your request. Really, all you would need to do is study Patristic interpretations of Matthew 16; it isn't as if the information would be difficult to find.

As for your concerns about the value of Origen in this matter, we have already addressed them.

-Akolouthos

P.S. Just to make myself perfectly clear, if you are unable to find the opinions of the fathers regarding Peter, Peter's confession, and Christ as catalysts of unity in the Church, I would be more than happy to help you.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 14:00

You seem to be taking what is commonly known to be the history of the Roman Church (and the Churches of the West), where the development of the episcopal office was more gradual, and distorting it to fit the preconception that "the Church in the West was not hierarchical."

As I sayed, I believe that until ~130 AD the Church of Rome was not having a unique representant, what we call a bishop. But from Anicetus (155-165) onward Rome was having bishop.

You are partially correct; Clement is writing his letter to reprove presbyters who have deposed those first among them. He uses the terms "presbyter" and "bishop" interchangably because in some areas of the early Church--and particularly in the West--the duties of both offices were ill-defined; the terms were, in fact, largely synonomous. As we have noted above, the development of the episcopal office in the west--which was, on the whole, missionary territory long after the Church had been well-established in the East--was gradual. Still, the office was developing, and a definite episcopal concept existed; indeed some wonder that the individual parishes were not "episcopalized."

Let's refer to functions, not to words, for avoiding the confussion between what we understand by bishop and episcopacy and what the apostles and the Church was understanding by that in the beggining of its history.

The apostles ordered simple priests and diacons. It was not other hierarchy than that between the two categories. Later, appeared a representant of the Church of each important town and appeared the difference between bishop and priest.

At the beginning and as late as Clement's time (as we see in his epistle) the ordering of a priest and his deposition was made usualy by the college of the other priests but in some cases by some not priest but eminent people of the community.

There are not other way in which the epistle of Clement can be interpeted.

Yes, the episcopal office was something separate from the Apostolic office; the episcopal office was a continuation of the Apostolic office. As Clement notes, the Apostles appointed leaders of individual churches to succeed them, and to carry on their ministry. It is in this sense that we, as Orthodox Christians, understand "Apostolic Succession."

You interpret wrongly what Clement says. He says that the apostles And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe..

There was not a representant of the apostles else than the priest, as is today in the Church. There was not a third category.

So, there is not any leader appointed by the apostles, just the priests who received from the apostles the power gived them by Jesus.

Actualy, Clement was contemporary of the apostles. His epistle is dated between 70 and 96.

You are right that he has the same use of the words as in Scripture: bishop, priest, presbyter, episcopacy were refering to priesthood, not to what we call today bishop.

I think this mistake of yours, more than anything else, demonstrates incontrovertibly that if we think we have found error with something a certain father wrote concerning the early Church, it is our duty to thoroughly examine the documentary evidence before assuming that we are in the right.

No, is not what I think. I think each man should ground his/her belief not on ideas or information but on asking God what he/she should do.

On this topic, I just debate some confussions, mistakes and wrong traditions.

What you say about my mistake doesn't eliminate the confussion made by Dionysius, who shows that Corinthian church (or only Dionysius) taking the epistle of Paul and maybe that of Clement has got to assert that Peter was at Corinth and even founded and organized the church.

Because a correct interpretation of Paul's epistle shows he speaks about some parties in Corinth, of which one was of Jesus, which surely wasn't at Corinth.

irst on the subject of Origen (and an interesting subject it is Wink). While Origen was indeed anathematized posthumously by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, we cannot forget that the early Church owed much to him. Indeed many of the early fathers idolized him, foremost among them Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzos, and Gregory of Nyssa. He is in a special class; he is a father, not a saint. This is evidenced by a particularly rare icon of "Origen Teaching the Saints," whereing Origen is depicted haloless, instructing an assemblage of haloed saints. That said, we must remember that Origen was anathematized for his views concerning apocatastasis, the pre-existence of the soul, and certain other positions held by those calling themselves "Origenists" ; it would be a great disservice to ignore his orthodox views, which provided a foundation for early patristic theology.

When I sayed Origen is heretic I was not refering (only) to his condemnation by the Church but to his spirit and teaching which are the emanation of a sick spirit. He was a rationalist and has had other heresies too than the apocatastasis.

The question actually deals with the issue of the "Rock" upon which the Church is built, and from which Peter takes his name. This "Rock" is seen by the fathers alternately as either a) Christ (obvious), b) Peter (by virtue of his confession of the true Rock that is Christ), or c) the confession of Peter (of the true Rock that is Christ). Your minimalistic and, frankly, misleading interpretation of the Matthean passages, done outside of the context of the faith and interpretations held by the early fathers, is dangerously inadequate. Look to the sources; it really is a fascinating study.

The Rock are the apostles, they are the foundation of the Church.

Christ too is compared with a Rock (even in his own words), the one that the builders omited.

I think Peter has had not any special atribution. He behaved as the leader of the community after the Ressurection because it was the need and for that and because others, being younger, were not having his authority. Later, in the time of the council in Jerusalem, when John and James wee no more such young, they started to be considered pillars of the Church but the prestige of Peter as being the leader of the Church preserved and it was, I think, the explanation for that the authors of the gospels are presenting more often his acts than of the ones of the other apostles.

Really, all you would need to do is study Patristic interpretations of Matthew 16; it isn't as if the information would be difficult to find.
...
P.S. Just to make myself perfectly clear, if you are unable to find the opinions of the fathers regarding Peter, Peter's confession, and Christ as catalysts of unity in the Church, I would be more than happy to help you.

I know that there was even in East a great cult and the belief that Peter is somehow superior to the other apostles.

In Romania only in 1930 were changed the Mineas (the books with chants for services of the days of the eclesial calendar), because these chants have been writen in the Byzantine period and were refering to Peter as the head of the apostles and other wrong concepts.

And I know many Fathers, especialy in the iconoclast period, exalted the role of Peter. But they are not authoritative if we want know the historical events. I have read such passages extracted from Fathers' writings, so I don't need to read again.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2007 at 16:25

These are all the mentions in the gospels of the promise and of the fulfilment of the promise about the gift to bind and loose:

Mark 8

27 Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?"

28 They said in reply, "John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets."

29 And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said to him in reply, "You are the Messiah."

30 Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

31 He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and rise after three days.

32 He spoke this openly. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

33 At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

Matthew 16

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

22 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you."

23 He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

Matthew 18

17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 9

18 Once when Jesus was praying in solitude, and the disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"

19 They said in reply, "John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, 'One of the ancient prophets has arisen.'"

20 Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God."

21 He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone.

John 6

67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

John 20

21 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.

23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 13:45

Originally posted by Menumorut

Than it would not be as solemn as Paul stated what he stated. Remember his words: "The one who worked in me..."

God has an absolute majesty, he is not just a simple being.

My point remains the same: God can work through the apostles through a plan that is a progression of stages. None of these stages has to be permanent. After all, God's plan of salvation, which the Christians believe that he predestined with his supreme authority, works through a progression of stages.

1. This is a sophism and even (no ofence) a pervert idea. The virtue of humility is not irational and is not contrary to the common moral.

No offense taken. First of all, there is nothing irrational about basing representation on factors other than age. Secondly, if Jesus disagreed with many of the Jews' interpretation of the Law, and therefore disagreed with many Jews about matters of everyday religious life, there is no reason to believe that he or his followers necessarily made their decision based on a convention at the time.

2. You see the things like the apostles were a team of workmen. The values of intelligence or experience were null for the disciples of Jesus. It was a spiritual brotherhood and their head was being Jesus, not some of them.

You didn't address my point at all. If the values of intelligence, something so evidential of one's character, was null and void, why did age stand alone as the determining factor? You can't simply presume that without proof. Remember that it does not matter what criterion was actually used: the point is that YOU need to prove that it was age that was the detemining factor. You have shown absolutely no concrete evidence except your own assumption. It would seem that holiness, faithfulness, etc, are far more significant than age in the context of the apostolic community.

Peter was not the representative but in some discutions or situations he was acting as a leader, especialy after the Ressurection.

So you have now undermined your own point about his age even more. What you're saying is now that sometimes he is the leader, sometimes not. You've said that Philip was representative in one instance. This means that you're saying that Peter is not the established representative of the apostles. But "Peter is the established representative" is one of your proofs for your conclusion "Peter is the oldest." Since you've basically retracted your proof by admitting that he is only occasionally the acting leader, then your conclusion is even weaker.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 14:43

There is an infinit difference between God and creatures. yes, he may act like you say but this would be damaging for the men, making them get a wrong understanding of God.

You see the community of the apostles as one of common people. It was actualy a community of a total devotion and ascetic principles.

I repeat that was not an established code. It was like in a family, where without words all are behaving with respect and decency.

If the values of intelligence, something so evidential of one's character, was null and void, why did age stand alone as the determining factor? You can't simply presume that without proof. Remember that it does not matter what criterion was actually used: the point is that YOU need to prove that it was age that was the detemining factor. You have shown absolutely no concrete evidence except your own assumption. It would seem that holiness, faithfulness, etc, are far more significant than age in the context of the apostolic community.

Yes, age was the most signifiant when someone was needed to act as a leader or representative. Because all the apostles were considered brothers, the qualities that each one was having were considered gifts from God, not their merit and their guidance was not conform the human wisedom, which Jesus was considered am obstacle in obtaining the thrue knowledge from God:

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Peter is considered by the scholars as the oldest of the apostles, search the web (Google: the oldest apostle).

Why is considered like this? Because it was the leader after the Ressurection, because he is the apostle being most presented in gospels, because his behaviour was the most daring. If another apostle would have been older, scenes like that with the cuting of an ear would have been inadequate. I mean: Peter is much too demonstrative, so daring in his acts as to think that another apostles would have been older.

What you're saying is now that sometimes he is the leader, sometimes not. You've said that Philip was representative in one instance. This means that you're saying that Peter is not the established representative of the apostles. But "Peter is the established representative" is one of your proofs for your conclusion "Peter is the oldest." Since you've basically retracted your proof by admitting that he is only occasionally the acting leader, then your conclusion is even weaker.

The Scripture shows that Peter was acting sometimes like a representative. Not always, mostly he behaved like the other. No other one was acting like a leader. They were considering that Jesus is their Master, but sometimes, when they have to answer at a question of Jesus to them all, Peter is answering, being the oldest.

Tha ancient societies were conservatives in such things.

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2007 at 18:32

Originally posted by Menumorut

There is an infinit difference between God and creatures. yes, he may act like you say but this would be damaging for the men, making them get a wrong understanding of God.

By saying "he may act like you say" you've conceded your point and admitted that it is possible that God's plan involves progression of stages, so I probably need not go further. Although my point is only to show that this is possible, the in the Biblical view, this is not only possible, but is in fact what God's plan is, i.e., progression of stages. If such progression is confusing or damaging, then why did God make an old covenant and a new covenant? Why did God make some animals unclean at one point, and later declare them clean? It's clear that the apostles did not find the progression of stages a damaging matter.

I repeat that was not an established code. It was like in a family, where without words all are behaving with respect and decency.

I don't see how your point is relevant at all. You have no shown proof or evidence that age was, in fact, the criterion used. I am still waiting for something more than assertions.

This begs the question: if gifts and qualities are given by God, why isn't the representative role also considered a gift from God? By the same token, you have offered no proof that age, as opposed to other factors, is in fact the standard. You have merely asserted so.

Peter is considered by the scholars as the oldest of the apostles, search the web (Google: the oldest apostle).

But we are talking about the argument that YOU provided. It's best for you to either concede that you have no evidence for your particular point, or find some proof for it.

I mean: Peter is much too demonstrative, so daring in his acts as to think that another apostles would have been older.

His daring acts, as stated, are not at all conclusive proof. There is no reason to insist some isolated acts to adequately reflect one's age (e.g., many act "older" or "younger" than their actual age.) These acts can also be used to demonstrate that he was young (there is no proof that these acts were deliberate as you said, and there is further no reason to believe that "deliberation" reflects age.)

Another thing is that, even if Peter is the oldest of the apostles, you still haven't shown how old he was in fact.

the Scripture shows that Peter was acting sometimes like a representative. Not always, mostly he behaved like the other. No other one was acting like a leader. They were considering that Jesus is their Master, but sometimes, when they have to answer at a question of Jesus to them all, Peter is answering, being the oldest.

Tha ancient societies were conservatives in such things.

Then what was the purpose of your example about Philip? Wasn't it to show that, sometimes, someone else can be representative of the apostles? If so, then you undermined a previous argument you've made.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 01:23

If such progression is confusing or damaging, then why did God make an old covenant and a new covenant? Why did God make some animals unclean at one point, and later declare them clean? It's clear that the apostles did not find the progression of stages a damaging matter.

Paul is saying in the Epistle to Hebrews (chapter 10):

1 Since the [Mosaic] law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of them, it can never make perfect those who come to worship by the same sacrifices that they offer continually each year.

So, the stages consisted in one which was not true and one which was true.

It was not a continuous stage evolutions, Jesus is saying (at John 10)

8 All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.

9 I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.

What you sustain would be correct if the stage at which apostles have been at Jerusalem was not a stage considered definitive.

If a change like that you propose (that after Jerusalem, apostles could received a sign for changing again the arrangement of their areas of activity) would have occured, this would have an impact on the characteristics of their teachings, they would preach a God who don't acts with absolute majesty, or all the New Testament shows the oposite.

You have no shown proof or evidence that age was, in fact, the criterion used. I am still waiting for something more than assertions.

I have sayed that sometimes, it was needed that one of the apostles to speak in the name of others, to be their representative. If not any other criterion exists, age is the one which "chose". If would have existed another establishment among them, like the one sustained by Catholics, that Peter would have been superior or have received a special mission among them, this would have been mentioned.

I have put together the mention of the moment with Peter's confession in all four gospels and is clearly seen that is not about some special mission attributed to Peter.

The gifts and qualities are concrete things, a representative role is not something which can be called a gift because the superiority to others would make a differentiation which is oposed to the love preached in NT.

These acts can also be used to demonstrate that he was young (there is no proof that these acts were deliberate as you said, and there is further no reason to believe that "deliberation" reflects age.)

John and James sometimes asked Jesus the places at right and left of him in the skies empire. This was a spontanously manifestation and a proof of their youth and imaturity.

At Peter there is a more complex thinking: he ask Jesus to not support the Passions, he promiss to die for him, he hav the initiative to built three huts (one for Jesus, one for Moses and one for Elijah, Matthew 17: 4). Such initiatives would allow only the oldest of them, because are refering to Jesus (not to the apostles, like in the case of the ask of John and James).

Philip was asked something Jesus, he hasn't an initiative toward Jesus, so he hasn't acted like a representative.

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 17:03

Originally posted by Menumorut

So, the stages consisted in one which was not true and one which was true.

It was nonetheless a progression of stages: if an earlier stage was a stage of "image of what it to occur", that is nonetheless a stage, albeit one in which the entire truth wasn't yet revealed.

It was not a continuous stage evolutions, Jesus is saying (at John 10)

8 All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.

9 I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.

In the Biblical view, God himself gave Israel the Law, formed a Covenant with them, and sent prophets to them. When Jesus referred to "thieves and robbers," he could not possibly be discounting that first stage itself as false or non-existant, as discounting that first stage would mean discounting God himself. God revealed the covenant to Israel and gave them the Law regarding matters including unclean animals. There is no way that Jesus would discount the entire Old Testament stage. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said that the entire Law must be kept until he fulfills it. Jesus also quoted the Old Testament prophecies to prove that he is the Messiah. Hence, Jesus could not possibly discount the veracity of the Old Testament stage of God's plan.

In fact, Jesus clearly saw the plan as a progression. In saying that the Law is to be kept until fulfilled, he clearly explained that God's plan was in stages. He noted that clearly that there was a prior situation (to keep the Law), and a new situation (the Law is fulfilled.)

If a change like that you propose (that after Jerusalem, apostles could received a sign for changing again the arrangement of their areas of activity) would have occured, this would have an impact on the characteristics of their teachings, they would preach a God who don't acts with absolute majesty, or all the New Testament shows the oposite.

Your argument does not follow. Their understanding of God's majesty is not at all affected just because he planned a progression of impermanent stages, as he in fact did regarding the plan of salvation. If the apostles never understood the arrangement to be permanent -- and there is no reason to think that they understood it to be permanent -- then this has absolutely no impact on their concept of God's majesty.

I have sayed that sometimes, it was needed that one of the apostles to speak in the name of others, to be their representative. If not any other criterion exists, age is the one which "chose".

Your logic here is faulty for two reasons:

1) You haven't shown at all that there are no other criteria.

2) Even if there is no other known criteria, it does not therefore follow that age is, in fact, the criterion.

This is a pure conjecture. Other than your own subjective evaluation, you have shown absolutely no objective basis for why a representative role is not a gift. Having a leadership role does not therefore mean it is an unloving position: Jesus said the first shall be last. This only means a leader in the Christian context must be humble like a servant, but is not therefore non-existent. Jesus did not say "let there be no 'first'."

Also, if such a representative role is opposed to love, then Jesus would not at all allow there to be representative role for any reason, whether for age or any other criteria. Do you want me to believe that Jesus would preach love but make an exception for something against love because he takes "age" into such an esteem, to the point that he allows something unloving on the account of "age?" That's entirely absurd.

In other words, you're telling me that a representative role is an unloving thing, and therefore cannot be a gift, but nonetheless Jesus allowed this unloving arrangement out of consideration of age. That makes absolutely no sense. Why would Jesus not allow differentiation as a gift, but allows it based on age?

There is nothing less mature about sitting at the left and right of Jesus in the kingdom than setting up tents for Jesus and the prophets. (By the way, "skies empire" is a very unusual translation!) Disputing over whether one would sit at Jesus' left or right is not necessarily a sign of immaturity -- it depends on the purpose behind their fight. if they fight over this because out of desire of having a higher position or being the favorite of Jesus, then you should note that old and mature people often fight over higher positions or being favorites of someone they deem important. It does not necessarily demonstrate age and maturity.

Second, you're missing my point. My point is that behavior is not conclusive proof of age, as people regularly act outside of their age. Further age is not the same as maturity.

Third, saying "such initatives would allow only the oldest of them" is precisely the issue disputed here. By asserting the conclusion to a dispute as your reason, you're using your conclusion as your premise, which is circular reasoning.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 03:28

1. In the Biblical view, God himself gave Israel the Law, formed a Covenant with them, and sent prophets to them.

2. When Jesus referred to "thieves and robbers," he could not possibly be discounting that first stage itself as false or non-existant, as discounting that first stage would mean discounting God himself.

3. God revealed the covenant to Israel and gave them the Law regarding matters including unclean animals.

4. There is no way that Jesus would discount the entire Old Testament stage. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said that the entire Law must be kept until he fulfills it. Jesus also quoted the Old Testament prophecies to prove that he is the Messiah. Hence, Jesus could not possibly discount the veracity of the Old Testament stage of God's plan.

In fact, Jesus clearly saw the plan as a progression. In saying that the Law is to be kept until fulfilled, he clearly explained that God's plan was in stages. He noted that clearly that there was a prior situation (to keep the Law), and a new situation (the Law is fulfilled.)

1. The idea of a Covenant was a strategy for preparing their conscience for the coming of Mesia. It was not a true covenant. The role of the prophets was the same.

2. He makes the distinction between him and other religion founders and I think he includes too the Judaic religion, not in the sense of negating that it is from God, but in the sense that that religion was relative.

3. I don't understand your point.

4. I have sayed that when Jesus says Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. is about prophecies.

About the necesity of fulfilling the precepts of Moses' Law, sometime Jesus sayed "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others.

But more often he was saying things like You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things." He summoned the crowd again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile."

Overall, Jesus teached that the Law should not be obeyed. But he did that not in a radical manner, for not creating the confussion, because the objectives of his teachings were not a revolt against the Moses Law but the achievement of the mystical knowledge about God and the achievement of the virtues of humility and love, through a life of asetism.

Also, a much to radical separement from the Moses' Law would have created greater problems for his mission.

If what you say would be correct, finding in New Testament something like "The Holy Ghost worked in us that Peter to be the apostle of the Circumcised and me, Paul to be the apostle of the Gentile for a while, then Holy Ghost changed this" would not shock us, as actualy it is doing.

I think the apostles believed it's permanent, that it was not only the task for doing some things but the fact that Paul becames the representative of Christians from the Gentiles and Peter of the Christians from the Jews. This is the way the passage from Galatians should be interpreted.

Your logic here is faulty for two reasons:

1) You haven't shown at all that there are no other criteria.

2) Even if there is no other known criteria, it does not therefore follow that age is, in fact, the criterion.

If other criteria would have existed, this would have been mentioned in the gospels.

Age would could not have been ignored.

1. Other than your own subjective evaluation, you have shown absolutely no objective basis for why a representative role is not a gift.

2. Having a leadership role does not therefore mean it is an unloving position: Jesus said the first shall be last. This only means a leader in the Christian context must be humble like a servant, but is not therefore non-existent. Jesus did not say "let there be no 'first'."

3. Also, if such a representative role is opposed to love, then Jesus would not at all allow there to be representative role for any reason, whether for age or any other criteria.
........
4. Why would Jesus not allow differentiation as a gift, but allows it based on age?

1. Jesus sayed sometime: As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.

A representative role could not be a gift, because a gift is a value and for that being a representative to be considered a value is necesary that someones to be considered inferior.

2. Actualy, Jesus didn't meant that someone should or would be the first. He only advised that everyone should strive to be the servant of the others.

3. A representative role would have been attributed by Jesus to one of the apostles not as a gift, but as a necesity. But this didn't happened.

As I sayed, the fact that Peter was sometimes speaking in the name of others was not a rule, but a momentarly spontanous manifestation.

4. The representative of the apostles was Jesus himself.

And sometimes, when the apostles should address in ensamble to Jesus, only one of them is speaking. Is a simple way of not creating disorder, nothing else. The apostles are equal.

1. There is nothing less mature about sitting at the left and right of Jesus in the kingdom than setting up tents for Jesus and the prophets.
.......
2. Disputing over whether one would sit at Jesus' left or right is not necessarily a sign of immaturity -- it depends on the purpose behind their fight. if they fight over this because out of desire of having a higher position or being the favorite of Jesus, then you should note that old and mature people often fight over higher positions or being favorites of someone they deem important. It does not necessarily demonstrate age and maturity.

3. Second, you're missing my point. My point is that behavior is not conclusive proof of age, as people regularly act outside of their age. Further age is not the same as maturity.

4. Third, saying "such initatives would allow only the oldest of them" is precisely the issue disputed here. By asserting the conclusion to a dispute as your reason, you're using your conclusion as your premise, which is circular reasoning.

1. I used wrongly the word mature.

I say it in another way: the ask of John and James proves a way of thinking characteristic to young people, without the experience of life and with energetic personalities. An older man would not make such an ask because the age is diminishing the enthuziasm and the phantasms.

2. What you say is appliable to concrete realities, not to some promised for a not yet seen world. And the apostles were not so ignorant to not know that a fight for power is against God's and Jesus' principles. It was only a naive manifestation of their wish to demonstrate their devotion to Jesus.

3. Yes and not. Age brings anyway an experience, people are no more impressed, less interested, more eficient in administrative things. Peter initiative of building huts is rather the expression of a mind of someone wit a longer experience of life, than of the mind of a young man.

4. This is another aspect. In their community, initiatives from the part of younger would be considered unadequate daring.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 09:40

Catholic apologets sustain that the end of first Epistle of Peter shows it was writen from Rome, because it says

12 I write you this briefly through Silvanus, 6 whom I consider a faithful brother, exhorting you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Remain firm in it.

13 The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

14 Greet one another with a loving kiss. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

They support this with another statement, that the Babylon in Revelation is Rome too.
This is strange because is puting Rome in a negative light, but they make this for sustaining that Rome is the Babylon from I Peter.

On Catholic Encyclopedia at the article about Apocalypse, most is dedicated to the interpretation of Babylon as Rome:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

But, if ever Peter would have been at Rome, is not reason for naming this city as Babylon in the context of mentioning the church from there.

It was argued that for the Jews from antiquity, Rome was compared with Babylon and this is true, but in such solemn writing as the Epistle of the most respected apostle or in a cryptic writing as Apocalypse, the Babylon could not refer to Rome.

In both, by "Babylon" is designated Jerusalem.

Peter was witness of Jesus' humiliation and kill by the will of Jerusalem people.

John, the author of Apocalypse, too. In John's gospel there is a big negative feeling against the Jews, as far it was considered an anti-semite writing:

Jews

The Gospel�s treatment of the role of the Jewish authorities in the Crucifixion has given rise to allegations of anti-Semitism. The Gospel often employs the title "the Jews" when discussing the opponents of Jesus. The meaning of this usage has been the subject of debate, though critics of the �anti-Semitic� theory cite that the author most likely considered himself Jewish and was probably speaking to a largely Jewish community. Hence it is argued that "the Jews" properly refers to the Jewish religious authorities (see: Sanhedrin), and not the Jewish people as a whole. It is because of this controversy that some modern English translations, such as Today's New International Version, remove the term "Jews" and replace it with more specific terms to avoid anti-Semitic connotations, citing the above argument. Most critics of these translations, conceding this point, argue that the context (since it is obvious that Jesus, John himself, and the other disciples were all Jews) makes John's true meaning sufficiently clear, and that a literal translation is preferred.

Other critics go further, arguing that the text displays a shift in emphasis away from the Roman provincial government, which actually carried out the execution, and to the Jewish authorities as a technique used to render a developing Christianity more palatable in official circles.[citation needed] Nevertheless, these passages have been historically used by some Christian groups to justify the persecution of Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Jews - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Jews

In gospel, Jesus prohetizes the destruction of Jerusalem:

Mark 13
1 As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him, "Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!"

2 Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down."

Matthew 23
19 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!

38 Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate.

Matthew 24
1 Jesus left the temple area and was going away, when his disciples approached him to point out the temple buildings.

2 He said to them in reply, "You see all these things, do you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down."

Luke 21
5 While some people were speaking about how the temple was adorned with costly stones and votive offerings, he said,
6 "All that you see here--the days will come when there will not be left a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down."

Luke 21
20 "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand.

21 Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Let those within the city escape from it, and let those in the countryside not enter the city,

22 for these days are the time of punishment when all the scriptures are fulfilled.

23 Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days, for a terrible calamity will come upon the earth and a wrathful judgment upon this people.

24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken as captives to all the Gentiles; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

And as we know, Jerusalem have been completely destroyed in 70 AD.

The Apostles were identifying Jerusalem with the city that have killed Jesus and that is condemned to destruction.

In Apocalypse we are told about the city cryptic named Babylon:

CHapter 17
4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.

5 This title was written on her forehead:
      MYSTERY
      BABYLON THE GREAT
      THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES
      AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.

From here we learn that Babylon is a cryptic name and that it martyrized the saints of Jesus.

It cann't be about Rome because the Apocalypse has a spiritual, transcendental not political message. And in 1st century haven't been persecutions against Christians, with the exception of that of Nero, which was not asking the abjuration of Christ.

But in Jerusalem have been persecutions and martyrization, starting with the one of Steven.

Also, the fact that in the city was found blood of prophets is a proof that this city is Jerusalem:

Revelation 18: 24 In her was found the blood of prophets and holy ones and all who have been slain on the earth.

Let's compare the passage from Revelation 17 with Jeremiah 4:

30 You now who are doomed, what do you mean by putting on purple, bedecking yourself with gold, Shading your eyes with cosmetics, beautifying yourself in vain? Your lovers spurn you, they seek your life.

31 Yes, I hear the moaning, as of a woman in travail, like the anguish of a mother with her first child- The cry of daughter Zion gasping, as she stretches forth her hands: "Ah, woe is me! I sink exhausted before the slayers!"

In Revelation 11 is sayed

7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the abyss will wage war against them and conquer them and kill them.

8 Their corpses will lie in the main street of the great city, which has the symbolic names "Sodom" and "Egypt," where indeed their Lord was crucified.

The great city from here is the same with the great city from Revelation 16:

19 The great city was split into three parts, and the gentile cities fell. But God remembered great Babylon, giving it the cup filled with the wine of his fury and wrath.

The cup from there is the same cup from Isaiah 51:

17 Awake, awake! Arise, O Jerusalem, You who drank at the LORD'S hand the cup of his wrath; Who drained to the dregs the bowl of staggering!

For apostles, Jerusalem was a damned city and the mention of its name was almost a sin because it has killed the Son of God.

The Babylon-Jerusalem from Apocalypse is in oposition with the celest Jerusalem from the same book. The sense is larger, the earthy Jerusalem is the symbol of the life of sin and of the sinners from all times.

This is clear if we compare

Revelation 17
1 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters.

2 With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries."

with

Revelation 21
9 One of the seven angels who held the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come here. I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

10 He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.

but most convincing is the fact that the celestial Jerusalem is called the new Jerusalem

Revelation 21: 2 I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

The identification of Babylon from Peter's epistle with Jerusalem is in acordance with historical data. Peter's residence was Jerusalem, Mark and Silvanus too were Jerusalimitans.

Posted By: MengTzu
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 23:44

Originally posted by Menumorut

1. The idea of a Covenant was a strategy for preparing their conscience for the coming of Mesia. It was not a true covenant. The role of the prophets was the same.

2. He makes the distinction between him and other religion founders and I think he includes too the Judaic religion, not in the sense of negating that it is from God, but in the sense that that religion was relative.

3. I don't understand your point.

4. I have sayed that when Jesus says Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. is about prophecies.

You have completely avoided the issue, as none of your points addressed it at all. The issue is that there was a progression of stages in God's plan. Unless you claim that the God who gave the Law is different from the God of the New Testament, you have no option but to accept that, in the Bible (Old Testament + New Testament), God's plan worked through a progression of stages. It does not matter whether or not the first stage was purely prophetic: even if it was purely prophetic, there was still such a stage, a stage during which the terms were different from a later stage that fulfills the former stage. The very fulfillment of one older stage by a newer stage IS PRECISELY a progression of stages.

Overall, Jesus teached that the Law should not be obeyed.

If you suggest that, overall, Jesus taught that the Law should not be obeyed, then you cannot avoid admitting that there is a progression of stages. There was a stage when the Law was to be obeyed (Deuteronomy 27:26.) Jesus recognized that first stage. You cannot avoid the conclusion that there was a time when the Jews had to obey the Law, and then there is a second stage when the Law is fulfilled and certain unclean animals were declared clean.

I think the apostles believed it's permanent, that it was not only the task for doing some things but the fact that Paul becames the representative of Christians from the Gentiles and Peter of the Christians from the Jews. This is the way the passage from Galatians should be interpreted.

You've merely replaced "acting on a task" with "being a representative." You have no proof whatsoever that the latter is permanent.

If other criteria would have existed, this would have been mentioned in the gospels.

Of course not. You have said a number of posts ago that we can't expect everything to be found expressly written in the Bible. You wrote:

There is not indication for everything in Bible. Some things you should presume.

So why do you now insist that if another criterion is used, we'll see it in the Bible?

And what makes age the default standard that we can infer from the because the Bible didn't expressly indicate it? You have not come up with a single proof for that.

Lastly, since you accept that age can be an implied presumption, you must also accept that the other standards that can be implied besides age. Age is not the only possible implied standard here. I've already discussed a number of other possible implied standards. Without an express statement about what the standard is, one can only suppose that the standard is one of the implied standards, and age is not the only implied standard.

A representative is not a rabbi or teacher. The represented is not inferior on the basis of being represented. Jesus said the first is last, last is first. The representative an certainly be seen as the servant of the group.

2. Actualy, Jesus didn't meant that someone should or would be the first. He only advised that everyone should strive to be the servant of the others.

Besides the point. The point is Jesus didn't mean that there can be no representative.

3. A representative role would have been attributed by Jesus to one of the apostles not as a gift, but as a necesity. But this didn't happened.

Totally baseless assertion. What proof is that to show that a representative can only be a necessity and not a gift? You can't just make up a preposition out of a vacuum and expect me to accept it.

Again, you're employing your "change the wording and hope I will be convinced of their difference or forget the issue" technique. Such dispute between James and John can take place between people of any age. As I said, it depends on the purpose of the dispute (see my last post). In addition, whether you call it "immaturity" or "characteristic of young people," the point is the same: people often act outside of their age.

What you say is appliable to concrete realities, not to some promised for a not yet seen world. And the apostles were not so ignorant to not know that a fight for power is against God's and Jesus' principles. It was only a naive manifestation of their wish to demonstrate their devotion to Jesus.

Speculative as to what they actually were fighting over. There is no indication whatsoever. If it was simply a matter of devotion, the other disciples' reaction was a little odd (they were displeased), and Jesus' subsequent response about "the greatest shall be last" would also be out of place.

3. Yes and not. Age brings anyway an experience, people are no more impressed, less interested, more eficient in administrative things. Peter initiative of building huts is rather the expression of a mind of someone wit a longer experience of life, than of the mind of a young man.

Also speculative. There is no indication that the same thought, or perhaps a more mature thought, did not cross the mind of James and John. Besides, the other nine were not present. Since they were not there, you can only compare Peter with James and John, and you have no idea what any of the other nine would have done if they were there as well.

-------------
http://www.sloganizer.net/en/">

(Credit to Cwyr and Gubookjanggoon for first using the sloganizer.)

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2007 at 12:35

The issue is that there was a progression of stages in God's plan. Unless you claim that the God who gave the Law is different from the God of the New Testament, you have no option but to accept that, in the Bible (Old Testament + New Testament), God's plan worked through a progression of stages. It does not matter whether or not the first stage was purely prophetic: even if it was purely prophetic, there was still such a stage, a stage during which the terms were different from a later stage that fulfills the former stage. The very fulfillment of one older stage by a newer stage IS PRECISELY a progression of stages.

The progression of stages in God's plan has a purpose, is not itself a purpose and is not infinite. The purpose is the bring of the human race from unknowledge and wrong understanding to knowledge and right understanding.

So, a God that after Incarnation behave again in an indirect way, saying one time a thing then changing, would derute human beings. Because we see in Galatians that the apostles were convinced that (the repartition of geographical areas) is not a temporary establishment but a definitive decision of Holy Spirit.

No, there was not a time when the Jews had to obey the Law, this was a stratagema of God for preparing the human kind for the Incarnation. Everything in the old Law was not necesary, neither in the period BC neither after.

Paul is saying in several places of his epistles that the Judaic Law cann't give salvation.

You've merely replaced "acting on a task" with "being a representative." You have no proof whatsoever that the latter is permanent.

Let's look again the passage:

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised,

8 for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles,

9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

So, it looks like is not about tasks but about the fact that Holy Ghost worked in Paul the apostolate to Gentiles and in Peter the apostolate to circumcised. A changement of this would have confused apostles and the ones who listened them.

So why do you now insist that if another criterion is used, we'll see it in the Bible?

And what makes age the default standard that we can infer from the because the Bible didn't expressly indicate it? You have not come up with a single proof for that.

New Testament doesn't mention everything but the gospels are a kind of works that includes explanations necesary to understand the presented situations. When there is a special raport derived from an arangement between some figures and in a situation this raport is manifesting somehow, the gospels explain the reason. For example, at the Last Supper we are told that a disciple were laying with his head on Jesus' chest. And the gospels explain why was that: because he was the most beloved disciple.

Age is not the only possible implied standard here. I've already discussed a number of other possible implied standards. Without an express statement about what the standard is, one can only suppose that the standard is one of the implied standards, and age is not the only implied standard.

The gospels' purpose was to offer a document for the Christian communities to preserve the memory about the happenings of Jesus' Incarnation and deeds. So, they have a precise utility, they are not beletristic creation. They needed to transmit as much as possible but without being to long. So, elements like the ones explaining the relations between apostles are necesary for understanding the events and would not be missed by the four authors, but elements which are not necesary in the description of events would be left out.

Than, this could not be called gift.

If it was simply a matter of devotion, the other disciples' reaction was a little odd (they were displeased), and Jesus' subsequent response about "the greatest shall be last" would also be out of place.

The other disciples' reaction was an effect of literaly taking the John and James' ask. Jesus' response was a valorification of that happening.

..........................

Do you have an opinion about my assertions (actualy are not mine, I've taken them from some articles) that the "Babylon" from I Peter and Apocalypse is not Rome but Jerusalem?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 11:09

Ok, now that we have completely -- and nauseatingly -- exhausted the questions surrounding the issue of whether or not Peter was, in fact, resident at Rome, can we return to the consideration of the Roman primacy within the context of Scripture and Tradition, the which was the intended topic of this thread? Discuss.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 16:03

Quite right, Ako.

The thread was intended for the subject of Peter's primacy, or lack there of, but the majority has been spent elsewhere.

The one belief of the Orthodox that seems to slip my understanding or nature of beliefs is how Christ can give a position of honor without giving pastoral duties as well, it almost seems empty in that aspect, I speak lightly....it is empty in that aspect.

There are many writings of our dear Church Fathers that can chosen but I believe Cyprian of Carthage explains the Catholic Church's doctrine very indubitably

"If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, �I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven� (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, �Feed my sheep� (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, �As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;� (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?

Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs, speaking in Our Lord�s name, says, �My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her� (6:9). Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, �There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God�? (Ephesians 4:5)

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/cyprian-church.htm - www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/cyprian-church.htm

(The Unity of the Catholic Church, 4, A.D. 251)

-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2007 at 02:58

Originally posted by arch.buff

The one belief of the Orthodox that seems to slip my understanding or nature of beliefs is how Christ can give a position of honor without giving pastoral duties as well, it almost seems empty in that aspect, I speak lightly....it is empty in that aspect.

Quite alright, quite alright; I shall forgive you for speaking lightly. After all, with the plethora of extant documents from the patristic era, I could hardly expect you to research a subject fully before commenting on it. Ok, now I speak lightly (in an altogether new third context).

Couldn't resist. Anyway, on to the analysis.

It really isn't all that difficult to understand, and the reason for it is clear. The problem with the whole issue is that Romanists through the ages have attempted to construct a strict either or dichotomy: the maximalist -- and unjustifiable -- Roman interpretation of the primacy or absolute anarchy. Unfortunately, this method doesn't apply all that well to reality.

I think I shall refer you back to something I wrote on the first page of this thread, in response to Jackal God:

"The gift of the keys to Peter (Matthew 16) does signify a special authority given to Peter. Indeed Peter generally speaks for the rest; still, we must remember that Peter's status cannot be separated from his confession. If his successor falls into error, he cannot exercise the prerogatives that rightly belong to the See of Peter.

That said, each of the Patriarchal sees possesses certain prerogatives. Rome's include, among other things, the right to hear appeals, the right to sit in the first seat at an ecumenical council, etc. The gift of the keys and ancient Roman prerogatives cannot, however, be taken to imply an absolute monarchical authority. Indeed Peter himself never presumed to act in an authoritarian fashion. While he spoke first, he spoke with the Church and never in its despite."

I think that sums up the basics of how the Orthodox view the exercise of primacy. The proper exercise of primacy within the Church is further illustrated by the 34th Canon of the Holy Apostles:

Can. 34 "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

It should be noted that this could be applied on the local level, in order to affirm the position and role of a metropolitan, or on a broader level, in order to affirm the position and role of a patriarch. Note, however, that those who hold various forms of primacy are required to receive the "consent of all; for so there will be unanimity." As the eminent Orthodox theologian Ioannis Zizioulas puts it:

"Now primacy in the Church has never been exercised by rotation. This is a clear indication that primacy is attached to a particular office or ministry and to a particular person. Since, however, this office or ministry finds its raison d'�tre in the synodical institution of which it is a part, it can only function in relation to those who comprise the synod, and never in isolation. Primacy, like everything else in the Church, even in God's being (the Trinity), is relational. There is no such thing as individual ministry, understood and functioning outside of reality of communion."

Zizioulas goes on to note that "primacy is not a legalistic notion implying the investment of a certain individual with power, but a form of diakonia, that is, of ministry in the strict sense of the term."

We also need to understand that the primacy enjoyed by the Roman see was attributed to her by virtue of her location in the capital of the Roman Empire, and not by virtue of her Petrine foundation. Consequently, the idea of any special charisms passing to the Roman bishops by virtue of the their claim to be the geographical successors of Peter is untenable. Indeed, it is believed that the first bishop of Rome to invoke the Petrine text (Matt. 16) was Stephen, in the third century, but we will shall come back to him. The Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon amply demonstrate that the root of the position of Rome at the head of the Church is derived from the position of Rome as the capital of the oikoumene. The third canon of Constantinople clearly states:

Can. 3 "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."

and the twenty-seventh of Chalcedon reaffirms the point in more explicit language:

Can. 27 "Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."

To sum it up, Rome owed her primacy to her position as the capital of the oikoumene. All of the bishops are Peter's successors (more on this in our discussion of Cyprian below). And finally, the proper exercise of primacy -- the right to which the Roman Church has forfeited due to her manifest heresy -- always takes place in an ecclesial context.

Having dispensed with the questions regarding the proper exercise of primacy, let us turn to the matter of St. Cyprian. You will find that all of the most eminent historians agree that Cyprian is one of the chief proponents of the collegiality of bishops, and this comes out time and again in De. Unit. Eccles., especially when the treatise is read in light of Cyprian's extant epistles. You cited from St. Cyprian's On the Unity of The Church, and stated the rather standard Roman interpretation of a particular passage from the fourth section. We will find, however, that this Roman interpretation is flawed, for two reasons. First, there exist two versions, as well as some evidence of interpolation, or, at very least, redaction. The text you have quoted is the longer recension (or "Primacy Text"). The shorter recension, as I have it, runs thus:

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed my sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"

[Cyprian, De Unit. Eccles., 4]

You will note the conspicuous absence of much of the language most supportive of the Roman interpretation of the papal primacy. Compare the following excerpt, which you quoted, with the text emphasized above:

Originally posted by arch.buff

yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?

[Cyprian, De Unit. Eccles. (Primacy Text), 4]

The textual issues are outlined in the second elucidation of the text in the Ante-Nicene Fathers set, which ascribes their origin to a corruption of the text by the "Romish editors".

It would appear that more recent scholarship has tended to ascribe the textual anomalies to a redaction, possibly made by Cyprian himself either 1) to reemphasize the collegiality of all bishops, that he consistently upheld throughout his career, against misinterpretations by those who supported the later Roman interpretation of the passage and/or 2) to counter the pretensions of Stephen, bishop of Rome, in the controversy over the rebaptism of heretics.

The second problem with the Roman interpretation is that it seeks to excise the passage in question from its proper historical context. In essence, it is the same sort of out-of-context "proof texting", that the Catholic church claims to condemn when exhibited by Protestant theologians.

That St. Cyprian felt that all bishops shared an equal authority and power is obvious. That he opposed a Roman interpretation of his words during his life is equally obvious. For Cyprian, the collegiality of bishops was the essential unity of the Church. Indeed, how can one possibly hold to the Roman interpretation of St. Cyprian's reference to the Petrine text in light of Cyprian's own words to the Seventh Council of Carthage:

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there."

[Cyprian, Address to the Seventh Council of Carthage]

It should be noted, at this point, that the Seventh Council of Carthage was summoned to reaffirm a decree that was promulgated by an earlier African synod and condemned by Stephen, bishop of Rome. Furthermore, in his twenty-sixth letter, Cyprian states:

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: "I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.s Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith."

[Cyprian, Ep. XXVI]

As the editors of the ANF note, "This is the Cyprianic idea. The idea that this was peculiar to any one bishop had never entered his mind."

But more importantly, how did Cyprian, and the Church at large, respond to Pope Stephen's presumptious use of the Petrine text? Cyprian himself, as noted above, ignored Stephen's directive, and summoned a synod which reaffirmed a previous synodal decision. The Church was aghast at Stephen's arrogance. Firmilian of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, sums up this outrage well, in "one of the most important illustrations of ante-Nicene unity and its laws":

"And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of 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, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine layer. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice."

[Cyprian, Ep. LXXIV, Firmilian to Cyprian]

Later in the letter, he has no qualms condemning Stephen more explicitly:

"How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and warnings of the apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind and meekness! For what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord: at one time with the eastern churches, as we are sure you know; at another time with yon who are in the south, from whom he received bishops as messengers sufficiently patiently and meekly not to receive them even to the speech of an ordinary conference; and even more, so mindful of love and charity as to command the entire fraternity, that no one should receive them into his house, so that not only peace and communion, but also a shelter and entertainment, were denied to them when they came! This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects from his brethren, and to rebel against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord! With such a man can there be one Spirit and one body, in whom perchance there is not even one mind, so slippery, and shifting, and uncertain is it?

But as far as he is concerned, let us leave him; let us rather deal with that concerning which there is the greatest question. They who contend that persons baptized among the heretics ought to be received as if they had obtained the grace of lawful baptism, say that baptism is one and the same to them and to us, and differs in no respect. But what says the Apostle Paul? "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God." If the baptism of heretics be one and the same with ours, without doubt their faith also is one; but if our faith is one, assuredly also we have one Lord: if there is one Lord, it follows that we say that He is one. But if this unity which cannot be separated and divided at all, is itself also among heretics, why do we contend any more? Why do we call them heretics and not Christians? Moreover, since we and heretics have not one God, nor one Lord, nor one Church, nor one faith, nor even one Spirit, nor one body, it is manifest that neither can baptism be common to us with heretics, since between us there is nothing at all in common. And yet Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian "a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker." And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been in advance of you, by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear. We all bid you, for all our sakes, with all the bishops who are in Africa, and all the clergy, and all the brotherhood, farewell; that, constantly of one mind, and thinking the same thing, we may find you united with us even though afar off."

[Cyprian, Ep. LXXIV, Firmilian to Cyprian]

I believe we have dispensed with the notion that Cyprian was an advocate of what gradually developed into the Roman interpretation of papal primacy. Indeed, he was certainly not an advocate of the Roman interpretation of section 4 of De Unit. Eccles. The unity of the Church, according to Cyprian, is evidenced by the collegiality of the bishops.

So what was Cyprian trying to convey in the fourth section of De Unit. Eccles.? The answer is quite simple. By referencing Peter, Cyprian shows us the singleness of the Church. By subsequently referencing the Apostles, Cyprian demonstrates that this singleness is expressed in collegiality, through an "undivided partnership". Once again, everything in the Church is relational.

I apologize for my delay in responding; sometimes too many sources can present a greater problem than too few. I wanted to treat the subject at length, both to demonstrate how dangerously misleading Roman Catholic apologetics -- and apologetics in general, for that matter -- can be. When encountering sources wherein the author seeks to misrepresent, gloss over, or ignore any issues that may contradict his or her preconceived notions, I feel it is best to provide a wealth of information. I believe we have seen that the image Roman apologists ascribe to St. Cyprian is untenable. Unfortunately, this is far from the only misrepresentation you will find in their works should you choose to look.

I would suggest that every time you see a text cited by a Catholic apologist, you immediately go to the original source. Generally, you will find that reading the material around the text that has been quoted is enough to dispense with many of the conclusions these people cook up. Sometimes it becomes necessary to examine the sources in their historical context -- which is always a good idea, whether it is necessary or not. Anyway, I wish you the best. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask; I am your servant.

Merry Christmas and God bless!

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2007 at 06:47

There is not any gift of keys, that passage has corespondence in the other gospels, including Mark (the original gospel, model for others) and there are missing the refering to keys. See my message from 18-Sep-2007 at 16:25.

Peter never was at Rome, I have to repeat. This legend appeared due to the interpretation of the epistle of Clement by Corinthians. Peter died at Jerusalem, which is the Babylon from his first epistle (also from the Book of Revelation).

Also, I repeat that Rome's church was lead, up to the middle of 2nd century, by a college of priests, none having the role of leader.

To sum it up, Rome owed her primacy to her position as the capital of the oikoumene. All of the bishops are Peter's successors (more on this in our discussion of Cyprian below). And finally, the proper exercise of primacy -- the right to which the Roman Church has forfeited due to her manifest heresy -- always takes place in an ecclesial context.

Peter is the patron of the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, so refer to these sees if you you refer to Peter's 'succesors' prerogatives.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2007 at 07:48

*sigh*

We've been over this time and again, Menumorut. I could just as easily refer you back to several things that I and MengTzu posted, where many of your concerns were addressed. Since our -- I assume you are still Orthodox -- analysis of primacy within the Church has not a fig to do with geography anyway, I fail to see why you feel the need to harp on this. In this case, you are off topic.

The time has come to move on, and discuss the original topic. If you wish, you may start your own thread.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2007 at 08:50

What is offtopic in my message?

I don't look at the subject from within the Church's teachings because I don't consider these teachings are absolute.

I try to be objective.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2007 at 16:11

Originally posted by Menumorut

What is offtopic in my message?

I don't look at the subject from within the Church's teachings because I don't consider these teachings are absolute.

I try to be objective.

What is off topic about your message?

Well, first it is redundant, seeing as you are simply reiterating what you have said earlier. We actually gave you the last word on the subject, if you will recall. Second, everyone gave this thread a break for two months because of the interminable discussions over whether or not Peter was at Rome, which is part of the Tradition of both East and West. I then asked everyone to return to the original topic, which is supposed to be considered within the context of Church teaching, and you responded with a regurgitation of your pet theory. This thread is supposed to deal with the traditional historical narrative; anything as speculative as what you are proposing should be discussed in a new thread. You will return to the topic, or you will start your own thread.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2007 at 16:33

We actually gave you the last word on the subject, if you will recall.

You gived the last word but ignored what I have sayed. So, I can believe only that you are joking when you say you gived me the last word.

This thread is supposed to deal with the traditional historical narrative; anything as speculative as what you are proposing should be discussed in a new thread. You will return to the topic, or you will start your own thread.

You didn't figured in the opening message that we should remain in the traditional view of the historical events and if you would have did this, would not have been dialogal.

Why is speculative what I have sayed? Why is the oficial theory more authoritative? The oficial theory is based only on uncheckable legends, while what I have presented has strong objective suport.

I see that I haven't with whom to discuss, because you are afraid to put in discussion the corectitude of the Church's tradition and I will not continuate any more, but my apreciation is that you are not interested for the truth but for something else.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2007 at 16:53

Originally posted by Menumorut

I see that I haven't with whom to discuss, because you are afraid to put in discussion the corectitude of the Church's tradition and I will not continuate any more, but my apreciation is that you are not interested for the truth but for something else.

Yes, yes: I am interested in everything but the truth, the whole world is a conspiracy, etc.

Like I said, start a thread if you feel the subject has merit. Such a topic would deserve its own thread precisely because it is so speculative. Here we are discussing things in context of the traditional historical narrative, and "correcting" it would take -- as we have seen -- an inordinate amount of time, and would detract from the discussion of anything else.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2008 at 20:15

Originally posted by Akolouthos

Couldn't resist. Anyway, on to the analysis.

I think I shall refer you back to something I wrote on the first page of this thread, in response to Jackal God:

I think that sums up the basics of how the Orthodox view the exercise of primacy. The proper exercise of primacy within the Church is further illustrated by the 34th Canon of the Holy Apostles:

Can. 3 "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."

and the twenty-seventh of Chalcedon reaffirms the point in more explicit language:

Hello Ako,

Wow, its been quite some time but, among other things, I had the priviledge of becoming sick(flu I think) so as to slow my response time down even slower. It turns out that was, infact, possible

So onto our merry discussion....

In regards to Ioannis Zizioulas, it would seem this vary theologian you prescribe to doesnt seem to see eye-to-eye on all issues with other Orthodox theologians, mainly his view of the Holy Trinity. He preposes a "relation" in which constitutes "communuion" and even goes onto prepose analogies(ie. Trinity is communion , so thus Church must be communion) of the created world and the un-created Trinity! Something that is not patristic theology. So for Zizi(excuse the shorthand) the concept of "communion" and "relation" are one and the same. So for Zizi, a person who is relation must also be in communion. This is a personal and very much philosophical belief. So, in Zizi's logic, wherby he makes no distinction between the Trinity and all created human beings, a person not in relation(ie a hermit or monk in isolation) cannot possibly be in communion!

http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm - http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm

Also in a site I found, in which I suspect you may have came across as well by your reference to the 34th Canon of the Apostles, we see Zizi's answer to varying questions on the subject of Rome's primacy. His interesting answer to one such question goes as follows:

So, in your opinion what is a realistic common ground for common answers to such open questions?
ZIZIOULAS: For the future development of dialogue on this issue, it is of crucial importance that the Orthodox accept that primacy is part of the essence of the Church and not a matter of organization. They must also accept that there must be a Primacy on a universal level. This is difficult at the moment, but it would become easier if we thought more deeply about the nature of the Church. The Church cannot be local without being universal and cannot be universal if is not local.

http://www.30giorni.it./us/articolo.asp?id=9204 - http://www.30giorni.it./us/articolo.asp?id=9204

Notice how he instructs the Easterners to acknowledge Romes primacy as the essence of the Church and not just a part of its organization. This hits at the heart of Chalcedon's 28th Canon.

So, in keeping with the flow of discussion let us address Chalcedon and subsequently Constantinople.

Now, the reason I have highlighted the 28th Canon, as you may see above is becuase that is its proper Canonical numerical ordering. This specific Canon was refused by The Popes legates at the council and when the refusal was made clear the legates were then to stand and address the council as to why they were refusing this specific Canon. They refused on grounds of overstepping the 6th Canon of Nicea, which ordered the preservation of jurisdiction to Alexandria and Antioch, and on grounds that Rome has never owed her authority due to a simple caveat such as location. In response the pro-28th Bishops cited the 3rd Canon of Constantinople that was not by any means recognized and or approved by Rome. So, as history would tell us Pope Leo refused the 28th Canon and refused it would stay by the entire Church which included the Eastern Chruches as well.

Now onto the subject more in depth of the 28th where Constantinople assumes Rome owes its authority to its location as the ancient capital of the Roman Empire. This, I would gather, is more the reason for Romes rejection of this Canon. This very logic at its core seems "un-christian", but if we are to follow this logic then what are we to do with Ravenna or Milano? They too were once the capitals of the Roman Empire.

In closing I'll leave a letter from Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope Leo after Leo's ordering of the Canon ommitted from council documents:

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. -- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 21:10

arch.buff,

So I will assume that you concede that St. Cyprian never believed in the concept of papal jurisdictional primacy as it is held by the Roman Church today. Thus, we shall move on to some of your objections to Zizioulas' analogy.

Oh, and before we begin: good show!

As will be noted below, you have justly corrected my misattribution of a number to a canon.

Originally posted by arch.buff

In regards to Ioannis Zizioulas, it would seem this vary theologian you prescribe to doesnt seem to see eye-to-eye on all issues with other Orthodox theologians, mainly his view of the Holy Trinity. He preposes a "relation" in which constitutes "communuion" and even goes onto prepose analogies(ie. Trinity is communion , so thus Church must be communion) of the created world and the un-created Trinity! Something that is not patristic theology. So for Zizi(excuse the shorthand) the concept of "communion" and "relation" are one and the same. So for Zizi, a person who is relation must also be in communion. This is a personal and very much philosophical belief. So, in Zizi's logic, wherby he makes no distinction between the Trinity and all created human beings, a person not in relation(ie a hermit or monk in isolation) cannot possibly be in communion!

Well first, analogies of this sort are very much present in patristic theology, as well as Scripture; indeed, the fathers often wax philosophical. I leave you two options:

1) Concede the point, the which will be easier for the both of us.

or...

2) Allow me some time to find a few citations which exhibit the grandiose nature of patristic analogies, which I would put in a separate post.

That is the ultimatum, which you are to consider under threat of a frown... LIKE THIS ONE:

(I know that's not very threatening, but I don't like using the angry emoticon.)

Really, this sort of thing exists in the Roman Church as well; take the oft cited analogy (and here I am paraphrasing: "Just as there is One supreme Lord of Heaven, so there is only one supreme head of the Church on Earth." Anyway, I think that you may be reading "Zizi" a bit too literally. An analogy is not an equation -- an analogy is designed to illustrate certain similarities between two separate situations or things. Zizioulas is using a divine example to describe an analogous earthly situation. And here the analogy is apt. You may try to argue against it, but it would be quite a mistake, indeed, to try to discard it simply because it is an analogy. Anyway, I am amused; I was expecting you to cite a bad Roman source, and you have cited a bad Orthodox source instead.

Second, communion and relation may be one and the same, given the proper context. Indeed, it is through relation with God that our communion with Him grows. Since the point at issue is whether the nature of the Church is relational and communal, I don't quite see how this is too the point.

Finally, a monk or hermit is in communion in the sense that he is united to the Church. Saint Basil actually did quite a lot of work in this field, to strengthen the understanding of communion as it existed among the eremitic monks of the fourth century. Even monasteries are under the episcopal hierarchy.

I don't undertand what purpose you had in stating that Zizioulas "doesn't see eye-to-eye on all issues with other Orthodox theologians"; could you show me one theologian of any faith that does "see eye-to-eye on all issues" with any other individual theologian? Anyway, I would encourage you to avoid our apologetics as well; they are just as bad as -- and sometimes worse than

-- yours. This is especially so, in the first webpage you cited, which -- in addition to being poorly written -- is an obvious polemic. The second link didn't work. Try reading Zizioulas' theology on the subject for yourself. He wrote an article for a book called The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue, which was a compilation of the contributions of eminent scholars on both sides. You will pardon me if, having read the man himself, I do not take seriously the uncharitable attacks of those who would be his foes. Though I, too, have my reservations about some of Metropolitan Zizioulas' theological and ecclesiological postulations, I would not dismiss him as "un-Orthodox" because of them; any individual theologian will often be wrong (and Zizi wasn't even speaking ex-cathedra).

This sort of nonsense exists in the Catholic Church as well, and is even pronounced among the laity, so you should be familiar with it.

Now, I will leave my defense of the single analogy I cited from Zizioulas intact, and turn to the canonical discussion.

Notice how he instructs the Easterners to acknowledge Romes primacy as the essence of the Church and not just a part of its organization. This hits at the heart of Chalcedon's 28th Canon... Now, the reason I have highlighted the 28th Canon, as you may see above is becuase that is its proper Canonical numerical ordering.

First, mea culpa. I have absolutely no idea how I wrote that down as the 27th while I was looking at the source. Doesn't bode well for my chances at avoiding senility later in my life, does it?

I assume you must be referring to the link that doesn't work, and so I will only be able to address your statement. Of course primacy is part of the essence of the Church, as the quote I put in my first post demonstrated. The issue isn't over whether or not primacy exists, the issue is over the nature of that primacy. Once again, this is the false maximalist/minimalist dichotomy that the Roman church has fallen back on in lieu of honestly examining the nature of the Church of the Ecumenical Era.

So, in keeping with the flow of discussion let us address Chalcedon and subsequently Constantinople.

Here I would refer you to the "Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXIII, which may be found in vol. 14 of the NPNF, ser. 2. In addition to this, Archbishop Peter L'Huillier has done wonderful work in the field of canon law. You might check out his The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils; it is an excellent monograph.

Pope Leo's refusal to accept canon 28 did nothing to prevent it from going into force, as he, himself, lamented. He stated, in a letter to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. CXVI) that the Illyrian bishops, who were in the Roman ecclesiastical sphere, had subscribed to the decree. Indeed, his words were as the squeakings of a mouse, and echoed only in those parts of the West where the canon was not intended to have all that much practical effect, anyway.

Let us turn, however, to the actions of the Roman legates, which render untenable Leo's assertion that Roman objections were based upon the fact that the 28th canon of Chalcedon overstepped the 6th of Nicaea. At the first session of Chalcedon, the acts of the Latrocinium (robber-council of Ephesus) of A.D. 449, were examined, and it was noted that Flavian, who was then bishop of Constantinople, was given the fifth place. When Anatolius, who was the reigning bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon, inquired, "Why did not Flavian receive his position?", Paschasinus, who was a Roman legate, stated: "We will, please God, recognize the present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first [i.e. after us], but Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth."

Later, the Roman legates objected to the 28th canon of Chalcedon on the grounds that it referred to the Council of Constantinople, the canons of which, they said, were not to be found in Roman collections. This was probably true, since you will note that the Council of Constantinople -- the Second Ecumenical Council -- to which the Pope was not even invited (incidentally, Chalcedon was called in spite of the objections of Pope Leo), was provided over by Meletius of Antioch, who was out of communion of Rome (and died in that state, though he is now venerated as a saint in both the East and the West), decided against the wishes of Damasus in the matter of the Antiochene episcopal succession, and prayed for the emperor Theodosius, not the pope, to validate what had been decreed. Back to the matter, at the first session of Chalcedon, the Roman legates already recognized Constantinople as second in honor among the ecclesiastical sees, despite their objections that the canonical decrees of Constantinople had not been promulgated in the West. The fact that they recognized this is clear proof of the duplicity of Pope Leo's later statements.

Anyway, the whole thing is a moot point. None of the Patriarchs has the authority to exercise a line-item veto. Revisionist Roman theory on this point simply does not match up with historical fact. This is borne out by the fact that Leo's refusal to accept the canon did not prevent it from going into force; you might say that the Holy Spirit guided the Church away from such presumption. The whole question, however, is purely academic in light of the subsequent actions of the Church during the Ecumenical Period. The 28th canon of Chalcedon was approved by the 31st of Trullo (Quinisext), and all of the canons of Trullo were approved by canon 1 of the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical) in A.D. 787. Incidentally, I do not see how the Roman Church can reject the Trullan canons in light of their acceptance by Nicaea II, which condemned Iconoclasm.

I assure you it is not. It is the principle of "territorial accomodation", and has always been an essential part of the nature of the Church. If I have led you to believe that this is a mere geographical principle -- through imprecise -- or even incorrect -- phrasing, I apologize. It rather has to do with the status of the city, which involves the accrued "dignity" in both secular and religious affairs. The treatment of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem) by the seventh canon of Nicaea is a perfect example of this:

Can. 7 Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia should be honored, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honor.

Jerusalem was to be honored, due to that city's religious status, as well as an existing tradition within the Church, yet her bishop was not to possess the jurisdictional authority due to a proper metropolitan. This was, however, amended by Chalcedon, which enumerated the bishops of Jerusalem among the ancient Pentarchs. As you can see, the rules are not as simple as they are often made out to be; this is precisely why the ranking of the sees -- which is, as is evident from the history of the Ecumenical Era, an ongoing process -- is reserved to the Ecumenical Councils. Remember, for a long time the bishops of Lyons verged on a semi-Patriarchal status, and while he is still afforded the title "Primate of Gaul" in the Roman Church, he has little canonical authority. Oh, and the reason that Ravenna and Milan were not enumerated in the rankings of the Councils, quite simply, is because they did not last as centers of prominence, or were overshadowed by metropolitan or Patriarchal sees.

That said, Ambrose of Milan provides another interesting example of the principle of territorial accomodation as it existed in a specific time, and specifically as it pertains to Rome. This example will also, I trust, serve to elucidate the nature of the status of Rome and the other ancient churches in the early Church. You will note that Ambrose was far more influential in ecclesiastical affairs than Damasus -- indeed, it is Ambrose who imposed a penance upon Theodosius, and it was to Ambrose that Theodosius came to repent of his massacre of the citizens of Thessalonica. Indeed, Ambrose was the most influential churchman in the West. Still, Damasus generally appears before Ambrose on letters written to the bishops of the West. Why? Quite simply because while Milan may have been a rising city with an influential bishop, and Rome might have been in the early stages of her decline, Rome still possessed a greater measure of Christian dignity. Thus, while Ambrose was influential in reality, the bishops -- even Ambrose -- were always deferential to the head of the Roman Church, by virtue of the respect due to the dignity of the Roman see.

Why have I provided these examples? To demonstrate that the question of the ranking of ecclesiastical sees is not as simple as you may think. It is not something to be grasped, but rather something to be sought after. There are so many things to be taken into account that oversimplifications present a host of problems. Thus, the principle of territorial accomodation, while it may be difficult to understand, and while it may seem un-ecclesiastical -- though I would not go so far as to say "un-Christian"; after all, the practical concerns related to a bishop's ability to serve his flock, which are the foundation of the principle, are very Christian in nature -- it was certainly a great part of the reason for the ranking of the sees, as Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon bear out. We must seek to understand the question in its proper historical context, as the holy fathers of the fifth century understood it. Here we turn to a reiteration of the 28th canon of Chalcedon and the 3rd of Constantinople, as well as the analysis of two noted ecclesiastical historians. (I'm requoting the canons so that people can keep up with what we are talking about).

Can. 28 Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."

[Chalcedon, 451]

Can. 3 "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."

[Constantinople, 381]

They really speak for themselves, and I don't feel that I need to explain anything further. I will simply note that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the Council Fathers -- to paraphrase the blessed Evangelist -- to accept the principle of territorial accomodation as a factor in ranking the sees. But is this how it was understood by secular historians of the day? As the ecclesiastical historian Sozomenus noted, in the mid 5th century:

They likewise decreed that the affairs of each church should be subjected to the investigation and control of a council of the province; and that the bishop of Constantinople should rank next in point of precedence to the bishop of Rome, as occupying the see of New Rome; for Constantinople was not only already favored with this appellation, but was also in the enjoyment of many privileges, -- such as a senate of its own, and the division of the citizens into ranks and orders; it was also governed by its own magistrates, and possessed contracts, laws, and immunities in equal degree with those of Rome in Italy.

[Soz., Hist. Eccles., 7.9]

...and Socrates confirms:

The same prelates moreover published a decree, prescribing 'that the bishop of Constantinople should have the next prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because that city was New Rome.' They also again confirmed the Nicene Creed.

[Soc., Hist. Eccles., 5.8]

In closing, I will also turn to the letter of Anatolius of Constantinople. And first I want to thank you for providing me with a link to this source -- although since I googled it, you and I may be looking at different articles (if so, thanks for the quote, which helped me find an article that I thought I'd never see again). When I first encountered it, long ago, I couldn't stop laughing at one point -- and, never fear; this has naught to do with the translation of the letter. The thing I couldn't get over, when I first read this, was the following quote:

Originally posted by Some guy who doesn't know what he's talking about

Thereafter, Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Suffice it to say that we have already noted that the Council of Chalcedon was called by the emperor over the express objections of Pope Leo; that someone would assert that he called it...

It is sad that some people's modern biases blind them to the historical realities of an era long-since past. I do not fault you here, for the source does contain a fair bit of reliable information, and it is written -- if not researched -- in a manner consistent with scholarly style. I am actually quite glad that you found it; it speaks to the fact that you have been doing a fair amount of reserach -- as I recall, it was somewhat difficult to find (I think I was searching for something specific). Anyway, moving right along...

If you study the subject long enough, you will start to view letters like this in a manner entirely different than the way you view them now. I would recommend searching for as many collections as you can find, checking them out, and going over them, paying particular attention to forms of address. I would imagine that this letter began in an extremely self-effacing manner, the which is nothing out of the ordinary, and ended with profuse blessings and professions of undying love in Christ. The text, as you have implied, is decidedly self-effacing in tone.

Have you ever seen what he was responding to?

For all of his saintliness, Leo was a decidedly arrogant and intractable man. Upon reception of the decrees of the Council he began a letter campaign against Anatolius and the 28th canon of Chalcedon. He wrote a series of increasingly inflammatory letters to the emperor Marcian and the empress Pulcheria, the Patriarch Anatolius, and the Gallic bishops. Anatolius was, to use the language of Scripture, humbling himself that he may be exalted; that is to say that he was abasing himself in order to maintain the unity of the Church, which was being threatened by Leo's arrogant, futile, and ultimately embarrasing attempts to destroy it. Anatolius responds to Leo's accusations that it was he who procured his own elevation by noting that it was called for by others. In essence, Leo is guilty of the very crime of which he accuses Anatolius -- pride -- and Anatolius is guilty (if it imparts any guilt) only of humility.

Well done, well done! This is certainly a fascinating conversation, and your willingness to delve into the depths of the sources with me is fully appreciated. I do not often get the chance for a thourough conversation like this, on an ecclesiological/theological topic. God bless you for providing me with one. Feel free to take as long as you want with your reply; the Lord knows I have been horribly slow in getting back to you.

May God bless and keep you and yours.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 18:24

Ako,

Good responses! I fear this bit of response will be rather short and will address a single topic, that of St. Cyprian. You must be careful in your assumptions!! First off, it should only be seen as proper that I, in my search for truth, am at the moment trying to schedule an appointment with my local Priest on the subject of St. Cyprian. He happens to be an immensely educated and faithful man that Im sure can shed more light on this issue for me.

Lets first start off with what we know of St. Cyprian. He was a very educated man, and he was indeed a man(adult) upon his conversion and very soon after that conversion found himself Bishop. For all the education St. Cyprian had there were many to testify that he did not possess an abundance of knowledge in theology or philosophy and at times could be very near-sighted and unable to see where the road traveling down would take him.

As for the Roman editing you spoke of, can you produce some evidence for this?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - look under Church Unity

In any case if we take the first text of Ch. 4 that is found everywhere are we still to toss out this "Roman interpretation"? Is unity still not derived from one? Can unity be seen as communion? If not, what is the difference?

Now to address the Seventh Council of Carthage, which was in itself a simple synod. In the synod held under St. Cyprian he sent envoys to Rome for the Popes approval but only found that the Pope treated them as heretics. He writes as if all bishops are equal and that baptism is a concern only for the local church and that if the details differed from church to church, that this was permissible. To God alone is the local bishop responsible. This would seem contrary to his theory of 254 that bishops are to be judged by the people who elected them and, if bad, deposed. It would seem he weaves theories to jusify his policies. In his declaration(letter to Rome) he elaborates that the validity of baptism is one that bishops of the Catholic faith can differ. A far cry from his explanation to Marcian in 255 that it was an article of faith. In any case the errors of the 7th of Carthage were retracted in a synod under Gratus (345-348)

To me, St. Cyprians writings of Roman primacy are very evident and his actions, like so many of his contradictions, at times did not mirror this. The Roman ruling of baptism, or should we say the custom, was that of the Church universal. St. Augustine is very clear on this and even goes onto state that through St. Cyprians martyrdom he atoned for his anger.

I am rather interested in St. Cyprian, theres a reason he is a Saint. I would love a in depth dialogue on him.

Sorry for not addressing your other responses. I assure you, my reply draws near however at the moment I seem to be knee-deep in essays, Already!! Sorry if this response is sloppy, I blew right thru it and did I mention Im at work! Dont tell on me!

God bless,

arch.buff

-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2008 at 05:01

arch.buff,

I am enjoying this discussion, and I assure you that I will continue to tolerate your lack of punctuality if you continue to tolerate mine. LOL

It is nice to have a discussion on AE where I do not feel pressured to post a response as soon as possible, and it certainly gives us both ample opportunity to research. Smile

Originally posted by arch.buff

Good responses! I fear this bit of response will be rather short and will address a single topic, that of St. Cyprian. You must be careful in your assumptions!! First off, it should only be seen as proper that I, in my search for truth, am at the moment trying to schedule an appointment with my local Priest on the subject of St. Cyprian. He happens to be an immensely educated and faithful man that Im sure can shed more light on this issue for me.

And what assumptions, dear arch.buff, must I be careful of? Wink

I certainly look forward to hearing what you priest has to say about the matter. It is always interesting to hear the views of a learned man with whom I disagree. What is really interesting about discussions such as this is that while two educated individuals may disagree, they are bound largely -- though not entirely -- by the same scholarship. Anyway, let me know what he says.

With regard to your second assertion, concerning Cyprian being near-sighted, I certainly agree, and will note that near-sightedness is a common malady, among ecclesiastics and laymen alike. With regard to your first assertion, that Cyprian "did not possess an abundance of knowledge in theology or philosophy," I must vehemently disagree. In addition to De Unit. Eccles. -- which is currently under discussion, and which should have given you ample proof that Cyprian was a gifted theologian, there are many other extant treatises which bear witness to his skill in theology, philosophy, and ecclesiology. Though Cyprian, like all the fathers, has been criticized (sometimes justly, sometimes unjustly), he has been praised as well. If you would care to cite some specific criticism, we can discuss it; if you are simply issuing a general challenge to his credentials, I shall simply offer a general refutation. Wink

As for the Roman editing you spoke of, can you produce some evidence for this?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - look under Church Unity

Interesting. So there is an entirely new theory, in addition to those mentioned above. With regard to this, I will simply repeat what I said on this point earlier, to give the proper context:

We will find, however, that this Roman interpretation is flawed, for two reasons. First, there exist two versions, as well as some evidence of interpolation, or, at very least, redaction. The text you have quoted is the longer recension (or "Primacy Text")... The textual issues are outlined in the second elucidation of the text in the Ante-Nicene Fathers set, which ascribes their origin to a corruption of the text by the "Romish editors". It would appear that more recent scholarship has tended to ascribe the textual anomalies to a redaction, possibly made by Cyprian himself either 1) to reemphasize the collegiality of all bishops, that he consistently upheld throughout his career, against misinterpretations by those who supported the later Roman interpretation of the passage and/or 2) to counter the pretensions of Stephen, bishop of Rome, in the controversy over the rebaptism of heretics. [Akolouthos]

With regard to evidence of the editing/redactions, you may find a full scholarly treatment of the issue in the elucidation mentioned above. The elucidation is a bit dated, as is the Catholic Encyclopedia (both were published around the turn of the century), but I think you will find it useful.

Communion is an essential part of unity; indeed, it is because the bishop of Rome is not in communion with the Church that an onlooker can know that he is not part of the Church. Communion with the bishop of Rome as it has been interpreted by the Vatican, however, is not necessary for an individual to be a member of the body of Christ. Rather, the Cyprianic ideal, which is one of collegiality, as we have demonstrated above, is the only true manner in which we may consider the communion of bishops with one another. Finally, unity is derived from One, not one -- unity is derived from Christ, the invisible bishop who guides His body.

Could you please provide a citation from Cyprian's letter to the pope, as well as a citation with regard to his assertion that bishops are responsible to the people?

There is no contradiction here, for one who is versed in early ecclesiology. A bishop -- and especially a bishop in the early Church -- is/was responsible to his flock, in that he is entrusted with the preservation of their souls and the integrity of their faith. Eusebius of Caesarea, who felt the need to justify his subscription to the Nicene decrees to the people of his diocese, provides a perfect example. In addition to this, a bishop is responsible to his fellow bishops, in that the communion of bishops who hold the true faith is an expression of the unity of the Church. Ultimately, however, a bishop is responsible to God alone, because he presides over his flock in persona Christi, and must seek their good in spite of the wiles of the evil one. As you can undoubtedly see, there is not a contradiction if the matter is considered in context.

It would seem he weaves theories to jusify his policies.

Of course Cyprian, like all bishops, was sometimes guilty of weaving his theories to justify his policies. In point of fact, it is in precisely this way that the Roman interpretation of primacy developed over the centuries. Heavenly treasures, earthen vessels. Still, the issue -- with Cyprian, as with the Roman interpretation of the primacy -- is not why the early ecclesiastics arrived at the conclusions at which they arrived, but rather whether or not those conclusions are valid. While we must seek to consider peripheral issues in order to gain a true understanding of the context in which thought developed, we must never allow the consideration of these peripheral issues to obscure the central question.

In his declaration(letter to Rome) he elaborates that the validity of baptism is one that bishops of the Catholic faith can differ. A far cry from his explanation to Marcian in 255 that it was an article of faith. In any case the errors of the 7th of Carthage were retracted in a synod under Gratus (345-348)

First, I would note that the Roman ruling on baptism was not the view of the Church universal at the time. This is borne out by the fact that Cyprian was able to secure support from those in his own province as well as one as far away as Firmilian of Caesarea. Incidentally, the fact that Firmilian supported Cyprian against Pope Stephen, and the fact that he rebuked Stephen for his pompous language, demonstrates, beyond even the faintest shadow of a doubt, that what would become the Roman interpretation of the primacy -- an interpretation which was then in its infancy -- was utterly unknown in the East at this point. Rather, collegiality according to the Cyprianic ideal was the manner in which the unity of the Church was conceived by the fathers.

Second, I would note that the manner in which heretics are received is still a matter of contention in the Church. We do have some hints from the fathers of the early Church, since it was a major issue for them. Generally, it would appear that the manner of receiving heretics depended upon what kind of heretics they were. The early Church always sought to exercise oikonomia, but certain heresies were so far from the Truth that they required rebaptism -- the original "baptism" having not been valid. The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) actually dealt with this question, and we may turn to it for an indication of how we should act today.

I am rather interested in St. Cyprian, theres a reason he is a Saint. I would love a in depth dialogue on him.

God bless,

arch.buff

First, in the interest of transparency and for the benefit of those reading our discussion, I would like to note that at least part of the reason arch.buff has not responded to my earlier points is not because he did not feel up to the task, but rather because I asked him to wait on my reply to his post regarding Cyprian, which I have delayed writing due to a series of time constraints. I would also like to thank arch.buff for doing this, so I will: thank you, arch.buff. Smile

That aside, I would certainly enjoy a discussion of St. Cyprian, but I would suggest that we confine it to the periphery, unless it deals specifically with the question of the perceptions of the Roman primacy. I look forward to hearing what your priest has to say, as I look forward to your response to the other points I raised in my last post. That said, feel free to take your time, as you have so graciously allowed me to do. Smile

God bless and keep you, arch.buff.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 18:48

***Let my first formal word in this reply be....OOPS!, followed by pleading forgviness!!

In Akolouthos' request for citation he has made me aware of the fact that I have forgotten to cite my source from my previous post. Now, I understand that in the scholarly world this sort of "mistake" is not taken lightly and so I add that I accept any and all disciplinary action that may be heaved my way. I will be sure to re-read my posts directly after posting them, as is my usual custom.

My source in question is "A History of the Church"- by Philip Hughes

I will be using this book, and other sources, for refutations of your responses in this post as well.

Having thrown myself at the mercy of the court

I shall continue with my responses

Originally posted by Akolouthos

arch.buff,

I am enjoying this discussion, and I assure you that I will continue to tolerate your lack of punctuality if you continue to tolerate mine. LOL

It is nice to have a discussion on AE where I do not feel pressured to post a response as soon as possible, and it certainly gives us both ample opportunity to research. Smile

***I greatly appreciate the aspect of this discussion wherein, as you have noted, neither person feels the need to post too hastily. I must also add that I will be replying to your other concerns regarding the councils and the Roman bishops actions therein. However, the reason for my dormancy is due to some "explaining" of some key beliefs in the church that should also be taken in connection with historical realities and, having been afforded this by the discussion, I need not post too hastily.

And what assumptions, dear arch.buff, must I be careful of? Wink

***Your assumption that I concede your POV in all matters concerning St. Cyprian Big%20smile

***I look forward too his words as well, Ive been immensely busy lately. I also was going to pose the question to him of possibly getting a tattoo. Ive read up on the subject but would not make such a decsion without consulting my local priest. St. Michael slaying the dragon would be mighty fierce on my right arm

[quote]

***To your testimony of St. Cyprian being praised I would only add an AMEN!

However, as has already been stated, St. Cyprian had not been in the ecclesiological sphere very long and there were times where this was made painstakingly apparent. As for your request of citations of Cyprian's lack of "abundance of theology and philosophy", here are a few-

"His gift of eloquence is evident in his writings. He was not a thinker, a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm - philosopher , a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm - theologian , but eminently a man of the world and an http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01143a.htm - administrator , of vast energies, and of forcible and striking http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03584b.htm - character ." --Taken from the new advent site from which we have been dealing.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

'It has been well said of St. Cyprian that "He was a practical man
without any philosophy or theology." He repeats the tradition; he
borrows very largely from Tertullian; he writes a highly
cultivated Latin; but there is nowhere evidence that he possessed
any power of seeing general principles in the learning he had, nor
of deducing thence, in his day to day application of it, further
general truths. The one subject which he ventures to explore is
this question of the Church and its nature. He explores it simply
because exploration of it is forced on him by controversies he
cannot escape. And it is in the spirit of a practical
controversialist, eager to find arguments and confirmation of his
policy, that he explores it. The pitfalls to which such a
character is exposed, in such a work, are very easy to imagine.
St. Cyprian was to experience them in very full measure.'

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT - http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT -Copy of Hughes' book on internet but if you like there is a treatment on Google books. Sadly they have pages missing, naturally.

This, I believe, is a very accuarte, broad, and general description of Cyprian.

***I will definately take a look at the elucidation once I get some real free time. This quote taken from the site seems pretty clear:

"The old contention that it is a Roman http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06135b.htm - forgery is at all events quite out of the question."

***"It is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539b.htm - certain that where internal http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm - discipline was concerned he considered that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm - Rome should not interfere, and that uniformity was not desirable -- a most unpractical notion. We have always to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10174a.htm - remember that his experience as a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christian was of short duration, that he became a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm - bishop soon after he was http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04347a.htm - converted , and that he had no http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christian writings besides http://www.newadvent.org/bible - Holy Scripture to study besides those of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm - Tertullian . He evidently http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - knew no Greek, and probably was not acquainted with the translation of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm - Irenaeus . http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm - Rome was to him the centre of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church's unity; it was inaccessible to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm - heresy , which had been knocking at its door for a century in vain. It was the See of Peter, who was the type of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm - bishop , the first of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles . Difference of opinion between http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm - bishops as to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm - right occupant of the Sees of Arles or Emerita would not involve breach of communion, but rival http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm - bishops at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm - Rome would divide the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church , and to communicate with the wrong one would be http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm - schism .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

"They dare to sail...to the chair of Peter and to the principal church whence sacredotal unity has sprung."

Quoted from both books "Papal Primacy- From its Origins to the Present" by Klaus Schatz and "Scribe of the Kingdom: Essays on Theology and Culture" by Aidan Nichols

First off, I would suggest to you a very good read in Schatzs' "Papal Primacy". Written by a Catholic in one of the most un-partial pieces I have read to date. It is a purely historical treatment and emphasizes the development of papal primacy.

Also Nichols' "Scribes of the Kingdom" goes on to say:

"This interpretation of Cyprian's view of the Roman see, drawn from his Letters, enables us to say that both versionsof the De Unitae may be authentic. Both versions are compatible with Cyprian's doctrine as thus expounded."

Of course you will have to go to the site, which I will refer you to, in order not to take this quote out of context and allow you to discern in what way "Cyprian's doctrine has thus been expounded".

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=PjmA_joIEmAC&dq=scribe+of+the+kingdom+essays+on+theology+and+culture&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=J46unKMj7_&sig=3FqfHk2GQbZv8Tt1QWtNbIdul3o - http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=PjmA_joIEmAC&dq=scribe+of+the+kingdom+essays+on+theology+and+culture&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=J46unKMj7_&sig=3FqfHk2GQbZv8Tt1QWtNbIdul3o

***"We can, however, note the affair as a cause of discord between St.
Cyprian and Rome at the very beginning of St. Stephen's
pontificate, and we can also note, m connection with it, the
appearance of some disturbing new theories in St. Cyprian's
theology of Church government. One such theory is that it is for
the people to depose bishops who are sinners. They are the judges."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT - http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT

I believe there are more, let me know if you wish for me to dig some up.

Dear Ako, I fail to see you can not discern Cyprian's contradictions Confused

He feels that baptism, a crucial aspect of salvation, can be an option for each bishop of his flock?? It is an issue of the utmost importance, yet bishops can differ as they see fit!

Also it must be noted that through all his dealings with roam he takes a defensive stance and even under the threat of ex-communication, still remains passive.

***On the contrary, I must enthusiastically disagree with you. What conclusion the church ultimately came to is exactly the point of the issue at hand. One who wishes to do no injustice to historical realities will concede this orthodox interpretation, or ruling rather, on Rome's part seems to be a familiar stance she often takes, even in the face of eloquent bishops who would take opposition against her.

***"Now at Rome, as at Alexandria, the teaching had always been that
the baptism of heretics was valid, as it had been the teaching in
Africa until about thirty years before St. Cyprian's time."

Excuse me I mispoke, I was trying to convey the point that the church adopted the Roman ruling. Now, before this ruling took place there were differences in re-baptism but as Hughes notes this was no problem for Rome or Alexandria and at a time, North Africa herself.

St. Jerome explains in better detail:

"Blessed Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejected the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then Bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually those very Bishops, who had decreed with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returned to the ancient custom, and published a new decree."

This is how St. Stephen views the matter:

"If therefore anyone shall come to you from any heresy
whatsoever, let there be no innovation contrary to what has been
handed down, namely that hands be imposed upon them in [sign of]
penance."

That the Easterners differ on re-baptism, as with other issues, is of no cause for surprise. Rome, however, in what has been handed down to her, has no such dilemma.

God bless and keep you, arch.buff.

-Akolouthos

***And thank you, Akolouthos. I too look forward to all discussions in and around this subject of church history, especially with such a learned sophisticate such as Akolouthos. Might I be so bold as to fancy myself a Stephen, outmatched in eloquence and persuasiveness by my opposition, yet holing steadfast in what is truth?

God bless,

arch.buff

-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 18:56

Sorry, I really chopped that last post up. I meant to seperate my responses from your previous posts, really donked that one I guess. However, my responses are there. You'll just have to carefully sift through the post as our words are lumped together in one large quote. Again, my apologies.

EDIT- I have taken extra measures to make things more clear. I have listed a few(***) at the start of my responses. Hope that helps.

-------------
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 21:20

Hey arch.buff,

I had some spare time, and decided to get back with you a bit earlier than has been my habit. Please do not get used to it; punctuality has never been my strong suit. Still, since this conversation provides a pleasant diversion from the cares of the world, I must hasten to it when I can.

Originally posted by arch.buff

To your testimony of St. Cyprian being praised I would only add an AMEN!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

This, I believe, is a very accuarte, broad, and general description of Cyprian.

I concur, at least within the proper context. I will add another description, for the purposes of expanding that context:

The second African theologian, Cyprian of Carthage, was a personality totally different from Tertullian. He had nothing of the latter's intemperance nor of his domination genius, but rather those noble qualities of heart that attract charity and gentleness, prudence and spirit of union; these Tertullian lacked. [Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 2]

Cyprian's literary activity was intimately connected withy his life and times. All of his works are written for specific occasions and served practical purposes. He was a man of action, interested in the direction of souls rather than in theological speculation. He had neither Tertullian's depth and gift of expression nor his fiery passionateness. On the other hand, his practical wisdom avoids the exagerrations and provocations which did so much harm to the other. His language and style are more polished, and show a greater influence of the vocabulary and imagery of the Bible... In Christian antiquity, as in the Middle Ages, he was one of the most popular authors and his writings are extant in a great number of manuscripts. [Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 2]

The reason I have cited the quotes from above is to demonstrate that we must needs examine Cyprian within the context of this discussion. True, he was not a master speculative theologian. As Quasten notes, he was more concerned with the practical aspects of the faith. Still, it is precisely this practical wisdom that is relevant to our discussion of De Unit. Eccles. If we were speaking of his opinion on the transmigration or pre-existence of souls, on apocatastasis, or on any of the variations of Adoptionism that were to cause so much trouble, we would need to consider his gifts for speculative theology. Since we are speaking of his ecclesiology, defined in terms of his views of the episcopacy, it is much more important that we take into account his "noble qualities of heart that attract charity and gentleness, prudence and spirit of union," as well as the fact that "all of his works are written for specific occasions and served practical purposes."

Within this context, St. Cyprian's interpretation of his own writings, as well as his view of how his ecclesiology manifests itself, becomes very important.

I will definately take a look at the elucidation once I get some real free time. This quote taken from the site seems pretty clear:

"The old contention that it is a Roman http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06135b.htm - forgery is at all events quite out of the question.

As I have noted, I do not personally hold to the Roman forgery theory. That said, it is a theory, and I am certainly not surprised that the Catholic Encyclopedia believes that its validity is "out of the question." After all, you wouldn't expect them to credit it, would you?

Still, it is worth noting that only a couple of decades had passed between the publishing of the Ante-Nicene Fathers -- from which the elucidation is drawn -- and the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I would doubt that enough was gleaned in the intervening years to dismiss the theory out of hand. It is far more likely that the ANF and the Catholic Encyclopedia are simply manifesting the biases of their respective editors. Still, I'd suggest you read that elucidation. The editors of the ANF have posited one particularly interesting piece of evidence for their interpretation. That said, I continue to prefer the view that St. Cyprian, himself, redacted the text when it became apparent that it had been misinterpreted/abused by Pope Stephen.

What is apparent -- and, more importantly, what is relevant to our discussion -- is that the collegiality of bishops is upheld in both the "primacy text" and, in more specific terms, in the variant. The acceptance of this view of the collegiality of bishops is corroborated generally by what we know of the history of the Church to this point, and specifically by the testimony of Firmillian of Caesarea -- you have done nothing to refute this. The Roman account is corroborated by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Take your pick.

It is http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539b.htm - certain that where internal http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm - discipline was concerned he considered that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm - Rome should not interfere, and that uniformity was not desirable -- a most unpractical notion. We have always to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10174a.htm - remember that his experience as a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christian was of short duration, that he became a http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm - bishop soon after he was http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04347a.htm - converted , and that he had no http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm - Christian writings besides http://www.newadvent.org/bible - Holy Scripture to study besides those of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm - Tertullian . He evidently http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm - knew no Greek, and probably was not acquainted with the translation of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm - Irenaeus . http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm - Rome was to him the centre of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church's unity; it was inaccessible to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm - heresy , which had been knocking at its door for a century in vain. It was the See of Peter, who was the type of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm - bishop , the first of the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm - Apostles . Difference of opinion between http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm - bishops as to the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm - right occupant of the Sees of Arles or Emerita would not involve breach of communion, but rival http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm - bishops at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm - Rome would divide the http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm - Church , and to communicate with the wrong one would be http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm - schism .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

First, the Roman interpretation of Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. -- which is, I assume, what the article is referring to -- is historically and theologically untenable for the same reasons that the Roman interpretation of St. Cyprian's De Unit. Eccles. is historically and theologically untenable. I have treated this subject previously here:

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=16338&PN=2 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=16338&PN=2

Second, if there was anyone who believe that Rome was "inaccessible to heresy", they were to be disabused of this notion in the seventh century.

Third, it would appear that the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia are attempting to cast St. Cyprian as a man who held that Rome was the center of Church unity, according to the Roman interpretation, and who held that Rome should not interfere in matters of internal discipline -- which is not held according to the Roman interpretation. Once again, the collegiality of bishops is the chief point Cyprian was trying to get across, and, according to this, Stephen was not permitted to interfere with the affairs of the African church.

"They dare to sail...to the chair of Peter and to the principal church whence sacredotal unity has sprung."

Quoted from both books "Papal Primacy- From its Origins to the Present" by Klaus Schatz and "Scribe of the Kingdom: Essays on Theology and Culture" by Aidan Nichols

Hm. It would seem that Schatz's scholarship actually supports the traditional view of Cyprian's collegial theory, and refutes the traditional Roman interpretation of De. Unit. Eccles. Take special note of the following quote from Papal Primacy:

The issue here was the "acknowledgement of a higher authority belonging to Peter's successors that cannot be adequately described in juridical terms. In principle, the Roman bishop had no greater authority than any other bishop, but in the hierarchy of authorities, his decision took the foremost place."

On the other hand, Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop

For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome. There is a striking example of this from the same period involving two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martial. During the persecution they had not sacrificed to the idols, but like many other Christians they had bribed officials to obtain "certificates of sacrifice" (libellie). As a result, they had lost credibility in their congregations and had been expelled. Nevertheless (in Cyprian's opinion by misrepresenting facts) they succeeded in obtaining recognition from Stephen of Rome. Cyprian reacted immediately by calling an African synod to warn the two communities to reject Stephen's decision and refuse to readmit the two bishops. [Schatz, Papal Primacy]

Also Nichols' "Scribes of the Kingdom" goes on to say:

"This interpretation of Cyprian's view of the Roman see, drawn from his Letters, enables us to say that both versions of the De Unitae may be authentic. Both versions are compatible with Cyprian's doctrine as thus expounded."

Both versions of the text are compatible with Cyprian's doctrine; what they are not compatible with is the Roman interpretation. This, I repeat, is the most likely explanation for the fact that there are two texts: Cyprian redacted it to counter the pretensions of Pope Stephen, which subsequently became the basis for the Roman interpretation of the text.

I would refer you to the following passage from Nichols' Scribes of the Kingdom:

In principle, it is possible that Cyprian's interest in Rome depended on Rome's civil position within the empire. Since so many local churches had dealings with Rome, a Roman schism would -- purely empirically -- divide the Church more successfully than any other. But it is also equally possible that Cyprian regarded Rome as occupying a theologically unique position within the intercommunion of episcopally ordered churches. [Nichols, Scribes of the Kingdom]

The text in bold sums up the view of the history of the ante-Nicene era which was prevalent at the Ecumenical Councils. It is also relevant to our discussion. If you wish to debate Nichols' views on the papacy, we can do so; I actually have quite a lot to say. For the purposes of brevity, however, I shall confine myself to this passage and suggest that we resolve the issues currently pending in our discussion.

"We can, however, note the affair as a cause of discord between St.
Cyprian and Rome at the very beginning of St. Stephen's
pontificate, and we can also note, m connection with it, the
appearance of some disturbing new theories in St. Cyprian's
theology of Church government. One such theory is that it is for
the people to depose bishops who are sinners. They are the judges."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT - http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT

I believe there are more, let me know if you wish for me to dig some up.

I would actually like a citation from one of Cyprian's writings to this effect, so I could see the proper context. Mind you, I don't doubt that he said it -- the laity in the early Church had much more say than the laity in the modern Church. I would also like to see an account of Cyprian's communication with Stephen, if we are to discuss it.

Dear Ako, I fail to see you can not discern Cyprian's contradictions Confused

He feels that baptism, a crucial aspect of salvation, can be an option for each bishop of his flock?? It is an issue of the utmost importance, yet bishops can differ as they see fit!

As for the supposed contradiction you posited before, you were, if you will recall, referring to the issue of lay influence on the episcopacy. I responded to this. If you would like, we can discuss it. As I said earlier:

There is no contradiction here, for one who is versed in early ecclesiology. A bishop -- and especially a bishop in the early Church -- is/was responsible to his flock, in that he is entrusted with the preservation of their souls and the integrity of their faith. Eusebius of Caesarea, who felt the need to justify his subscription to the Nicene decrees to the people of his diocese, provides a perfect example. In addition to this, a bishop is responsible to his fellow bishops, in that the communion of bishops who hold the true faith is an expression of the unity of the Church. Ultimately, however, a bishop is responsible to God alone, because he presides over his flock in persona Christi, and must seek their good in spite of the wiles of the evil one. As you can undoubtedly see, there is not a contradiction if the matter is considered in context.

As for the supposed contradiction which you now posit, I cannot address the issue in context without the citation I have requested from you, as well as an outline of where you feel the contradiction lies. Please provide both.

On the contrary, I must enthusiastically disagree with you. What conclusion the church ultimately came to [re. the rebaptism of heretics -Ako] is exactly the point of the issue at hand. One who wishes to do no injustice to historical realities will concede this orthodox interpretation, or ruling rather, on Rome's part seems to be a familiar stance she often takes, even in the face of eloquent bishops who would take opposition against her.

I agree that it is important, but only insofar as it speaks to their validity/invalidity. As we shall see below, the issue is nowhere near as simple as modern Roman apologetics posit.

"Now at Rome, as at Alexandria, the teaching had always been that
the baptism of heretics was valid, as it had been the teaching in
Africa until about thirty years before St. Cyprian's time."

But earlier you said:

Dear Ako, I fail to see you can not discern Cyprian's contradictions He feels that baptism, a crucial aspect of salvation, can be an option for each bishop of his flock?? It is an issue of the utmost importance, yet bishops can differ as they see fit! -arch.buff

May I now assume that you are no longer confused regarding my position on the matter?

St. Jerome explains in better detail:

This is how St. Stephen views the matter:

"If therefore anyone shall come to you from any heresy
whatsoever, let there be no innovation contrary to what has been
handed down, namely that hands be imposed upon them in [sign of]
penance."

Hm. The only place I could find the Jerome quote was at an apologetics site, which noted that it couldn't be corroborated. It would be interesting to know what happened. As for the Stephen quote, I will note that he had every right to venture a personal opinion and define the rules for his own diocese. If the quote is taken as a command to the Church universal, it should be noted that the Ecumenical Councils were only too happy to correct him, but more on this below. The Roman ruling was not universally held throughout Church history, as we shall see in a moment.

That the Easterners differ on re-baptism, as with other issues, is of no cause for surprise. Rome, however, in what has been handed down to her, has no such dilemma.

And here we get to the meat of the issue. Rome does not define the rules regarding baptism for the Church universal. In fact, she does not even define the rules regarding baptism for her own diocese if she is overruled by an Ecumenical Council, and the Roman Church has recognized this. First, we shall cite Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council (Const. AD 381):

Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies--for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:--all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. [Const. I, Can. 7]

It should be noted that this canon probably cannot be authentically attributed to the Second Ecumenical Council, but rather represents a later recognition of ancient practices regarding rebaptism. Still, what it does demonstrate is that there were differences regarding the practice of receiving heretics around two centuries after the conflict between Cyprian and Stephen. These differences centered upon the degree to which any given heresy deviated from the orthodox faith. Still, this is the least of the problems a modern Roman apologist will face in treating the acts of the Second Ecumenical Council (one of which being that there weren't even any Roman representatives present; we may discuss these problems further, if you like

), so let us turn to the acts of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I, AD 325):

Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity. [Nicaea I, Can. 19]

The Roman legates assented to the promulgation of the canons of Nicaea. Thus, the Roman church has not always held to a universal decree regarding the validity of the baptism of heretics, anymore than any of the other churches have done so. As we have seen, the practice regarding the rebaptism of heretics was a matter to be defined on a case by case basis with a general set of principles in place.

And thank you, Akolouthos. I too look forward to all discussions in and around this subject of church history, especially with such a learned sophisticate such as Akolouthos. Might I be so bold as to fancy myself a Stephen, outmatched in eloquence and persuasiveness by my opposition, yet holing steadfast in what is truth?

God bless,

arch.buff

You might, but I would prefer that you actually hold to the truth, rather than just fancy yourself as doing so.

Seriously though, this is quite the interesting discussion. I'm actually learning a lot about St. Cyprian as we go along, which is a great blessing. I doubt I would've cracked several of these books had I not had a purpose in doing so, and I certainly wouldn't have gotten this much of a feel for the character of one of the most popular figures -- as well as one of the most oft-recurring controversies (after all, the issue of rebaptism is still a matter much discussed) -- in Church history. For this you have my thanks.

I eagerly await your reply.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 08:00

Originally posted by Akolouthos

Hey arch.buff,