A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

well, you asked for the first one identified as an Anti-Pope. That's it. There is a much longer list than one!

Racer posted about the three Popes at once... did you see that?

I have seen all the posts...

I came across this at Newadvent and gives a definition as well as a list. I wonder how it matches to your???

Antipope


A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant. Hergenröther enumerates thirty in the following order:

• Hippolytus (?), III century
• Novatian, 251
• Felix II, 355-365
• Ursicinus, 366-367
• Eulalius, 418-419
• Laurentius, 498-501
• Constantine II, 767
• Philip, VIII century
• Anastasius, 855
• Leo VIII, 956-963
• Boniface VII, 974
• John XVI, X century
• Gregory, 1012
• Sylvester III, 1044
• Benedict X, 1058
• Honorius II, 1061-72
• Guibert or Clement III, 1080-1100
• Theodoric, 1100
• Aleric, 1102
• Maginulf, 1105
• Burdin (Gregory VIII), 1118
• Anacletus II, 1130-38
• Victor IV, 1159-64
• Pascal III, 1164-68
• Calixtus III, 1168-77
• Innocent III, 1178-80
• Nicholas V, 1328-30
• Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), 20 September, 1378 to 16 September, 1394
• Amadeus of Savoy (Felix V), November, 1439 to April, 1449

 

[Albion]

• Nicholas V, 1328-30
• Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), 20 September, 1378 to 16 September, 1394
• Amadeus of Savoy (Felix V), November, 1439 to April, 1449

Not sure why the list would stop there, although it includes the most effective and accepted of the claimants to the Papal throne who were later declared anti-Popes. The Popes of the Western Schism certainly were not universally thought to be anti-Popes in their own day. There are at least three anti-Popes today or in recent years, but they have small followings and are not nearly as credible as those of the Western Schism.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Not sure why the list would stop there, although it includes the most effective and accepted of the claimants to the Papal throne who were later declared anti-Popes. The Popes of the Western Schism certainly were not universally thought to be anti-Popes in their own day. There are at least three anti-Popes today or in recent years, but they have small followings and are not nearly as credible as those of the Western Schism.

at the start of the wiki, it stated that the recent anti-popes are rejected, as they do not have the broad support of cardinals that the more historical anti-popes garnered.

 

[JasonV]

Some of the recent/current anti-popes look like interesting fellows. I'd actually enjoy spending an afternoon talking with them someday.

 

[Albion]

at the start of the wiki, it stated that the recent anti-popes are rejected, as they do not have the broad support of cardinals that the more historical anti-popes garnered.

Ahhh. well, that makes sense. Naming the recent ones is more like playing trivia games.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

(Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11)

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

I found none of this highlighted text in Origens work on the Gospel of Matthew 10 or 11.

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

Again, where is this coming from?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock

[SIZE=-1](Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).[/SIZE]

Finally... I still cannot locate this text from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew chapters 10 and 11.

This is my source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1016.htm

Now, I'm not going to provide further comment other than what was previously given to you. I find Webster and others far more qualified to speak than myself. So, if you really don't understand the implications of what these quotes represent. I refer you back to the posts which provide commentary for you.

Personally I would much rather have this conversation with you...

But if it be Webster then please have him give me a reply.

 

[racer]

Your claim (as I highlighted) is that all Bishops were seen as equals with no one having a primacy.

You are using a couple of quotes which you feel show this.

Well, I’ve actually given you more than a coupleof quotes which support this truth. I’m particularly fond of this one: “After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all. . . .

. . . I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven(John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198).

We can look at Matthew 16 where Jesus gave Peter the power to loose and bind and then a later chapter of Matthew we know Jesus gives the other Apostles the power to loose and bind.

Yes, that would be chapter 18.

But the primacy of Peter and his successors is not based on the power to loose and bind so much as the Keys Jesus gave only to Peter.

These are Jesus words:
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."

We know this passage Jesus was speaking to Peter alone because in the next line Jesus turns to all the disciples and speaks to them all.

No, no. You know I have given you a long commentary on this very subject to which you did not even respond. Jesus is not speaking to Peter alone. He is teaching all of the twelve. He asks all of them a question, “Who do you say that I am.” And just like that anxious kid who wants the ever desired “atta boy” from the teacher, Peter speaks up and says, “You . . .” Jesus then addresses Peter, and tells Him that His Father revealed this to him (Peter). But, that does not mean from that point Peter just forgot the other eleven are still there for instruction. Once He acknowledges Peter’s correct response, He returns His instructions to the rest of the “class.” You absolutely CAN’T separate the intent of verse 19 and say that the power to bind and loose is not acquired through possession of the keys. It’s all there in one verse. And no matter what fancy tap-dancing you try to do, you can not ignore that fact. So, we know that in Matt 18:18-19, when Jesus tells all of the twelve they have the power to “bind and loose,” the keys were not given to Peter alone.

Your passages only show that all bishops have the same powers to lose and bind or to judge others in the churches. That these Bishops are entrusted with the same truth and to shephard their flocks.

I’ve given you direct quotes from ECFs for goodness sakes that make the very same point that I’ve just explained. Are you really going to pretend the evidence is not there.

But if we look at other writings from Cyprian we know he also placed an importance on the Keys and Peter receiving them solely.

But, not the role that the RCC now claims.

I believe I posted previously a link where Cyprian distinguishes Peter above other and that Peter received a crown and he has a primacy. Cyprian has also stated that bishops need to have a succession.

But, he did not limit that succession to the church at Rome. He believed that all churches had this succession and all bishops of those churches served as a figure of Peter.

Cyprian also condemned an anti-pope.

LOL! Where’d that come from and what’s your point. Are you now saying we can’t trust what Cyprian said?

Cyrpian has more writings then these few quotes and only when we ignore parts of his writings can we make claims that Cyprian saw ALL Bishops as equal. Just the writings about Peter show that Peter was an elevated Bishop of primacy.

Do you want more quotes from Cyprian? Or now that you’ve discovered he was an anti-pope, he’s not trustworthy. Jack, this quote says it all. You can’t get any more explicit than this:
"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." - The Seventh Council of

 

[racer]

(Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951),

Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11)
I found none of this highlighted text in Origens work on the Gospel of Matthew 10 or 11.

Well, you know me. I'll just go and find it.

Again, where is this coming from?

Can you tell me the post # you are responding to. There's so many, I can't keep up. If you'll tell me this, I tell I'm guessing it is a continuation of the quote that was prior to it.

Finally... I still cannot locate this text from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew chapters 10 and 11.

This is my source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1016.htm

And, like I always do, I'll find the quote. Don't know where the confusion came in, however. If you noticed when I finally found the 26th Epistle of Cyprian, I used the same source you've posted above.

Personally I would much rather have this conversation with you...

I thought we were having a discussion . . . . . . silly me . . . Listen, I do very well on my own at articulating arguments on my own. But, time is an issue for me. When I find a scholar who articulates thoughts pretty much the same way I would, I get lazy.

But if it be Webster then please have him give me a reply.

Sorry, I’m not acquainted with Webster, but I’m doing no wrong in citing his teachings as long as I do so legally and give citations and credit to his work.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

My last post was referring to only one of your posts. The little blue square thing should to take back to it. Look in my quoting you.

 

[racer]

My last post was referring to only one of your posts. The little blue square thing should to take back to it. Look in my quoting you.

I did look at which of my quotes you were citing. Since you single them out and do not address them in the groups I provide them in, I get a little confused. But, if you don't want to help me out, I can't really answer your question. But, I'm sure that was the answer you wanted to hear anyway.

 

[racer]

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

A brief article attacking the Papacy has recently been circulated among the Eastern Orthodox. Entitled "The Universal Patriarch", it originally appeared in "The Orthodox Christian Witness" [issue of] 8/16/81, and serves to revive familiar Protestant and Orthodox polemics attempting to show that Pope St. Gregory the Great rejected with horror the concept of Papal supremacy which allegedly emerged only with Pope St. Nicholas I in the 9th century. The evidence for this is said to be found in the famous letters of Pope St. Gregory the Great to John the Faster, the first Patriarch of Constantinople to be termed "Ecumenical Patriarch". As the author of this anti-papal diatribe writes:

The following quotations from Pope St. Gregory's letters are given as "proof" that he repudiated Papal supremacy over the entire Church:

"Therefore, dearly beloved brother, have humility with all your heart. It is that which inspires peace among the brethren...What will you say to Christ, Who is the Head of the universal Church - what will you say to Him at the last judgment - you, who by your title of universal, would bring all His members into subjection to yourself? Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?...But if anyone usurp in the Church a title which embraces all the faithful, the universal Church - O blasphemy! - will then fall with him, since he makes himself to be called the universal. May all Christians reject this blasphemous title - this title which takes the sacerdotal honor from every priest the moment it is insanely usurped by one."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I did look at which of my quotes you were citing. Since you single them out and do not address them in the groups I provide them in, I get a little confused. But, if you don't want to help me out, I can't really answer your question. But, I'm sure that was the answer you wanted to hear anyway.

Not really what I wanted to hear.

It is frustrating trying to look at one post with three or more references and then respond. Add to that several more posts that are similiar in quantity and it is even more convoluted.

That is why I asked to keep the posts to one or two quotes and your point only. I could take one of your posts and respond in three or four to keep the quotes to themselves. That is also why I have not posted 30 quotes from 10 different ECF writers. I only post one quote at a time and somethimes two.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

A brief article attacking the Papacy has recently been circulated among the Eastern Orthodox. Entitled "The Universal Patriarch", it originally appeared in "The Orthodox Christian Witness" [issue of] 8/16/81, and serves to revive familiar Protestant and Orthodox polemics attempting to show that Pope St. Gregory the Great rejected with horror the concept of Papal supremacy which allegedly emerged only with Pope St. Nicholas I in the 9th century. The evidence for this is said to be found in the famous letters of Pope St. Gregory the Great to John the Faster, the first Patriarch of Constantinople to be termed "Ecumenical Patriarch". As the author of this anti-papal diatribe writes:

The following quotations from Pope St. Gregory's letters are given as "proof" that he repudiated Papal supremacy over the entire Church:

"Therefore, dearly beloved brother, have humility with all your heart. It is that which inspires peace among the brethren...What will you say to Christ, Who is the Head of the universal Church - what will you say to Him at the last judgment - you, who by your title of universal, would bring all His members into subjection to yourself? Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?...But if anyone usurp in the Church a title which embraces all the faithful, the universal Church - O blasphemy! - will then fall with him, since he makes himself to be called the universal. May all Christians reject this blasphemous title - this title which takes the sacerdotal honor from every priest the moment it is insanely usurped by one."

This sounds like a good debate. I want to give this one the attention it deserves. If anyone can make a argument against Papal supremacy it would be the East.

 

[racer]

Not really what I wanted to hear.

Why am I not surprised . . . .

It is frustrating trying to look at one post with three or more references and then respond. Add to that several more posts that are similiar in quantity and it is even more convoluted.

That is exactly why I address one point at a time, each time ensuring that I've quoted the point to which I am responding so there will be no confusion as to which point I am addressing. Sometimes, if I think it will be a lengthy respons, I compy the post to word and respond point by point, save it to Word and then cun-n-paste it back on the thread where the discussion is occuring. Even if you are responding to only one point that I've made, you should still quote that response so that I know which point you are addressing.

That is why I asked to keep the posts to one or two quotes and your point only.

Sorry, that's not the way I work. I makes it too simple for people to "conveniently skip" a point that I've made which simply can not be refuted. The only way I can keep up with the discussion, is to address point-by-point the assertions people make. I don't like to leave anything out. This often means that I have to address quotes that the answers to are often difficult or I may not have an answer ready.

I could take one of your posts and respond in three or four to keep the quotes to themselves.

As long as you make clear to me to which posts/comments I've made, that's fine with me. But, simple comments with absolutely no reference to which assertion I have made, often makes it too time consuming for me to search out the quote you are talking about. And, as for the post of yours we are not discussing, it was so vague, I don't know if I could possibly figure it out. So--if you are waiting with baited breath for "the answer you want," may I suggest you release your breath and continue breathing. Because, if you can't tell me which post you were referring to, then no answer from me is forthcoming.

That is also why I have not posted 30 quotes from 10 different ECF writers. I only post one quote at a time and somethimes two.

And, basically, when it comes to the ECFs, I've done the same. Have you forgotten so quickly that you accused me of spamming the thread with these quotes?

 

[racer]

(Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11)
I found none of this highlighted text in Origens work on the Gospel of Matthew 10 or 11.

Again, where is this coming from?

Finally... I still cannot locate this text from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew chapters 10 and 11.

This is my source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1016.htm

As I said I would, I found the quotes. BTW, like I've said before I use www.newadvent.org.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII)

10. The Answer of Peter.

And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," Matthew 16:16 if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, Philippians 3:20 revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive "the spirit of the wisdom and revelation" of God. Ephesians 1:17 And if we too have said like Peter, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by ight from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "You are Peter," etc. Matthew 16:18 For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
​

11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," Matthew 16:18 hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Matthew 16:18 Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 16:19 be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," Matthew 16:19 etc.; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," John 20:22 etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God;" but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" 2 Corinthians 3:18 they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matthew 16:16 And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, 1 Corinthians 10:4 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:30 And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "You are Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it." But what is the "it"? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs, cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, Matthew 7:24 is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades.
​

From now on, you have to do all you the dirty work. If you can't follow the sources and locate a quote, I'm not doing it for you . . . I realize sometimes it's difficult to track these quotes down, but with practice, it becomes easier.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Book 12...

For some reason I was looking at book 10 and 11.

I will be responding. I have had a busy weekend.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

My commentary on Origen Book 12 chapter 10 and 11.

I read through this and agree that Origen is saying that each of us can be like Peter in his own. That we can be all that Peter was. I continued to read further and even found some good writing on Jesus saying "get behind me satan" when he spoke to Peter (worth a read for any that use this line to refute Peter's primacy).

As to this book and these two chapters giving credance to Peter not being Chief Bishop I would ask you to look at Chapter 14 as well.

Chapter 14 speaks of each of us having keys (as though metaphorically speaking) and describes how we can be a chief bishop of ourselves. It does not say that we can bind and loose other, only that we can do this with ourselves. This is similiar to all Chrisitans being called priests because our bodies are temples to the Holy Spirit. But these insights only deal with our personal relationship and do not account for the Church in the Physical world where we have Households of God and teachers.

I can see the Truth in what Origen is speaking and have no problem with he teaching. But his teaching here does not negate the symbolism of the Keys to the Kingdom in regards to Peter and his primacy as chief bishop. This letter does no harm to what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to the Keys also being a symbol of authority in direct similiarity to Isaiah 22.

Good read though and I will have more to say on this since origen wrote much and we should try to understand how he saw things as a whole and not simply a couple of chapters of book 12. Wouldn't you agree?



14. In What Sense the "Keys" Are Given to Peter, and Every Peter. Limitations of This Power.

And after this let us see in what sense it is said to Peter, and to every Peter, "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 16:19 And, in the first place, I think that the saying, "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," is spoken in consistency with the words, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 For he is worthy to receive from the same Word the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who is fortified against the gates of Hades so that they do not prevail against him, receiving, as it were, for a prize, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, because the gates of Hades had no power against him, that he might open for himself the gates that were closed to those who had been conquered by the gates of Hades. And he enters in, as a temperate man, through an opened gate—the gate of temperance—by the key which opens temperance; and, as a righteous man, by another gate—the gate of righteousness—which is opened by the key of righteousness; and so with the rest of the virtues. For I think that for every virtue of knowledge certain mysteries of wisdom corresponding to the species of the virtue are opened up to him who has lived according to virtue; the Saviour giving to those who are not mastered by the gates of Hades as many keys as there are virtues, which open gates equal in number, which correspond to each virtue according to the revelation of the mysteries. And perhaps, also, each virtue is a kingdom of heaven, and all together are a kingdom of the heavens; so that according to this he is already in the kingdom of the heavens who lives according to the virtues, so that according to this the saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," is to be referred, not to the time, but to deeds and dispositions; for Christ, who is all virtue, has come, and speaks, and on account of this the kingdom of God is within His disciples, and not here or there. Luke 17:21 But consider how great power the rock has upon which the church is built by Christ, and how great power every one has who says, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," so that the judgments of this man abide sure, as if God were judging in him, that in the very act of judging the gates of Hades shall not prevail against him. But when one judges unrighteously, and does not bind upon earth according to the Word of God, nor loose upon earth according to His will, the gates of Hades prevail against him; but, in the case of any one against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, this man judges righteously. Wherefore he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, opening to those who have been loosed on earth that they may be also loosed in heaven, and free; and shutting to those who by his just judgment have been bound on earth that they also may be bound in heaven, and condemned. But when those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Saviour, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of which it was said to that Peter, "You are Peter;" Matthew 16:18 and if they are such that upon them the church is built by Christ, and to them with good reason this could be referred; and the gates of Hades ought not to prevail against him when he wishes to bind and loose. But if he is tightly bound with the cords of his sins, Proverbs 5:22 to no purpose does he bind and loose. And perhaps you can say that in the heavens which are in the wise man—that, is the virtues,—the bad man is bound; and again in these the virtuous man is loosed, and has received an indemnity for the sins which he committed before his virtue. But, as the man, who has not the cords of sins nor iniquities compared to a "long rope or to the strap of the yoke of a heifer," Isaiah 5:18 not even God could bind, in like manner, no Peter, whoever he may be; and if any one who is not a Peter, and does not possess the things here spoken of, imagines as a Peter that he will so bind on earth that the things bound are bound in heaven, and will so loose on earth that the things loosed are loosed in heaven, he is puffed up, not understanding the meaning of the Scriptures, and, being puffed up, has fallen into the ruin of the devil. 1 Timothy 3:10

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Look at Book 13 from Origen for the Gospel of Matthew and you will see that Origen states that a man can be admonished once or twice by his brethren and be bound on earth to those sins. But if a man is bound thrice then it cannot be changed for that man except for the power given to Peter alone...

See what I mean (you may need to read chapter 30 to better understand 31 and what he is saying about being admonished).

Also, this chapter 31 shows how Peter received a higher power then was quoted from Book 12.


31. The Power to Bind on Earth and in Heaven.

But to me it seems that, to the case of him who after being thrice admonished was adjudged to be as the Gentile and the publican, it is fitly subjoined, "Verily, I say unto you,"—namely, to those who have judged any one to be as the Gentile and the publican,—"and what things soever you shall bind on the earth," Matthew 18:18 etc.; for with justice has he, who has thrice admonished and not been heard, bound him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican; wherefore, when such an one is bound and condemned by one of this character, he remains bound, as no one of those in heaven overturns the judgment of the man who bound him. And, in like manner, he who was admonished once for all, and did things worthy of being gained, having been set free by the admonition of the man who gained him, and no longer bound by the cords of his own sins, Proverbs 5:22 for which he was admonished, shall be adjudged to have been set free by those in heaven. Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," Matthew 16:19 has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. Matthew 16:19 The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

A brief article attacking the Papacy ...

I read your link and tried to research it but this article does not give details as to where these quotes were taken from and Gregory the Great wrote quite a bit.

I would really need to know where specifically these quotes are being taken from because all too often writers will dismiss other writings from the same author to try and validate their desired effect at the expense of the author they are quoting and the truth.

What I did see with two other quotes was the following and which was no better help than nothing.
(Lib. ix., Ep. 12);
(Lib. ix., Ep. 59)

This is a problem when posting someone else's work because I do not have the location of these quotes and you may not either.

 

[racer]

Book 12...

For some reason I was looking at book 10 and 11.

I will be responding. I have had a busy weekend.

For some reason, some citations are difficult to follow up on. If you will look at the quotes, they are Chapters 10 & 11.