A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

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

What were your thoughts on my post (#538)?

 

[racer]

What were your thoughts on my post (#538)?

Actually, I haven't even gotten to glance at posts 537, 538, or 539. I will try this evening I promise.

 

[racer]

Actually, I haven't even gotten to glance at posts 537, 538, or 539. I will try this evening I promise.

Jack,

Just to let you know I haven't forgotten you. I've just been busy, and have just started reading all of book 12.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,

Just to let you know I haven't forgotten you. I've just been busy, and have just started reading all of book 12.

I understand...

I have started an Apologetics class and started a course at Sacred Heart Seminary. On top of that my son has started soccer and boy scouts again and my daughter is busy with brownies and gymnastics. So I have been busy too.

If today is quiet at work I wanted to follow up on the three popes at once regarding the anti popes.

 

[racer]

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.

You know, I'm being way nicer to you than others have been to me. That's why I am able to find these quotes--I've always had to go dig them up myself. That's how I began to learn so much about the fathers. Everytime you've "cried" I can't find these quotes, with a little work, I find them for you. As a rule I don't usually cite others when quoting the fathers, but I've just been pressed for time. A--gin . . . I will find it for you. This is the last time, though. What is it, do you think that I, or the people I'm citing, are just making these things up?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

[/size]
You know, I'm being way nicer to you than others have been to me. That's why I am able to find these quotes--I've always had to go dig them up myself. That's how I began to learn so much about the fathers. Everytime you've "cried" I can't find these quotes, with a little work, I find them for you. As a rule I don't usually cite others when quoting the fathers, but I've just been pressed for time. A--gin . . . I will find it for you. This is the last time, though. What is it, do you think that I, or the people I'm citing, are just making these things up?

It is not that I think your source is making it up but rather taking it out of context.

With Origen he has so many writings that the time to find this quote would be more than a little time consuming.

For the record I will also provide the location of a quote and pretty much all the time be ready to supply a link to the full record.

Thanks for your patience with me and thanks for searching these quotes.

 

[racer]

Okay Jack,

Here you go. I know what your problem is, you are used to having your information spoonfed to you. I realize that the quotes I have provided are sometimes from secondary sources. But, I promise you that I am familiar with the quotes or I would not post them. That is why I have been able to go back and track them down for you “in context.” So, explain this letter away . . . .

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360205018.htm

To John, Bishop.

Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople.

At the time when your Fraternity was advanced to Sacerdotal dignity, you remember what peace and concord of the churches you found. But, with what daring or with what swelling of pride I know not, you have attempted to seize upon a new name, whereby the hearts of all your brethren might have come to take offence. I wonder exceedingly at this, since I remember how you would fain have fled from the episcopal office rather than attain it. And yet, now that you have got it, you desire so to exercise it as if you had run to it with ambitious intent. For, having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you have at length been brought to such a pass as, despising your brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop. And indeed with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory; in which he annulled the acts of the synod, which had been assembled among you in the case of our once brother and fellow-bishop Gregory, because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the archdeacon whom he had sent according to custom to the threshold of our lord, to celebrate the solemnities of mass with you. But after his death, when I, unworthy, succeeded to the government of the Church, both through my other representatives and also through our common son the deacon Sabinianus, I have taken care to address your Fraternity, not indeed in writing, but by word of mouth, desiring you to restrain yourself from such presumption. And, in case of your refusing to amend, I forbade his celebrating the solemnities of mass with you; that so I might first appeal to your Holiness through a certain sense of shame, to the end that, if the execrable and profane assumption could not be corrected through shame, strict canonical measures might be then resorted to. And, since sores that are to be cut away should first be stroked with a gentle hand, I beg you, I beseech you, and with all the sweetness in my power demand of you, that your Fraternity gainsay all who flatter you and offer you this name of error, nor foolishly consent to be called by the proud title. For truly I say it weeping, and out of inmost sorrow of heart attribute it to my sins, that this my brother, who has been constituted in the grade of episcopacy for the very end of bringing back the souls of others to humility, has up to the present time been incapable of being brought back to humility; that he who teaches truth to others has not consented to teach himself, even when I implore him.

Consider, I pray you, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that it is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless you yourself wilt have power to grow so far as you determine with yourself to do so. And you will become by so much the greater as you restrain yourself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and you will make advance in proportion as you are not bent on arrogation by derogation of your brethren. Wherefore, dearest brother, with all your heart love humility, through which the concord of all the brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church may be preserved. Certainly the apostlePaul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ , regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord's body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul .)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High .

 

[racer]

Continued from above:

For what are all your brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but stars of heaven, whose life and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night? And when you desire to put yourself above them by this proud title, and to tread down their name in comparison with yours, what else do you say but I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven? Are not all the bishops together clouds, who both rain in the words of preaching, and glitter in the light of good works? And when your Fraternity despises them, and you would fain press them down under yourself, what else say you but what is said by the ancient foe, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds? All these things when I behold with tears, and tremble at the hidden judgments of God, my fears are increased, and my heart cannot contain its groans, for that this most holy man the lord John, of so great abstinence and humility, has, through the seduction of familiar tongues, broken out into such a pitch of pride as to attempt, in his coveting of that wrongful name, to be like him who, while proudly wishing to be like God, lost even the grace of the likeness granted him, and because he sought false glory, thereby forfeited true blessedness. Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,—what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was trulyholy.

Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.


But I know that all arises from those who serve your Holiness on terms of deceitful familiarity; against whom I beseech your Fraternity to be prudently on your guard, and not to lay yourself open to be deceived by their words. For they are to be accounted the greater enemies the more they flatter you with praises. Forsake such; and, if they must needs deceive, let them at any rate deceive the hearts of worldly men, and not of priests. Let the dead bury their dead . But say ye with the prophet, Let them be turned back and put to shame that say unto me, Aha, Aha . And again, But let not the oil of the sinner lard my head .

Whence also the wise man admonishes well, Be in peace with many: but have but one counsellor of a thousand . For Evil communications corrupt good manners . For the ancient foe, when unable to break into strong hearts, looks out for weak persons who are associated with them, and, as it were, scales lofty walls by ladders set against them. So he deceived Adam through the woman who was associated with him. So, when he slew the sons of the blessed Job, he left the weak woman, that, being unable of himself to penetrate his heart, he might at any rate be able to do so through the woman's words. Whatever weak and secular persons, then, are near you, let them be shattered in their own persuasive words and flattery, since they procure to themselves the eternal enmity of God from their very frowardness in being seeming lovers.

Of a truth it was proclaimed of old through the Apostle John, Little children, it is the last hour , according as the Truth foretold. And now pestilence and sword rage through the world, nations rise against nations, the globe of the earth is shaken, the gaping earth with its inhabitants is dissolved. For all that was foretold is come to pass. The king of pride is near, and (awful to be said!) there is an army of priests in course of preparation for him, inasmuch as they who had been appointed to be leaders in humility enlist themselves under the neck of pride. But in this matter, even though our tongue protested not at all, the power of Him who in His own person peculiarly opposes the vice of pride is lifted up for vengeance against elation. For hence it is written, God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble . Hence, again, it is said, Whoso exalts his heart is unclean before God . Hence, against the man that is proud it is written, Why is earth and ashes proud ? Hence the Truth in person says, Whosoever exalts himself shall be abased . And, that he might bring us back to the way of life through humility, He deigned to exhibit in Himself what He teaches us, saying, Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart. . . . .

 

[racer]

Continued . . .

For to this end the only begotten Son of God took upon Himself the form of our weakness; to this end the Invisible appeared not only as visible but even as despised; to this end He endured the mocks of contumely, the reproaches of derision, the torments of suffering; that God in His humility might teach man not to be proud. How great, then, is the virtue of humility for the sake of teaching which alone He who is great beyond compare became little even unto the suffering of death! For, since the pride of the devil was the origin of our perdition, the humility of God has been found the means of our redemption. That is to say, our enemy, having been created among all things, desired to appear exalted above all things; but our Redeemer remaining great above all things, deigned to become little among all things.

What, then, can we bishops say for ourselves, who have received a place of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride of the enemy himself? Lo, we know our Creator to have descended from the summit of His loftiness that He might give glory to the human race, and we, created of the lowest, glory in the lessening of our brethren. God humbled Himself even to our dust; and human dust sets his face as high as heaven, and with his tongue passes above the earth, and blushes not, neither is afraid to be lifted up: even man who is rottenness, and the son of man that is a worm.

Let us recall to mind, most dear brother, this which is said by the most wise Solomon. Before thunder shall go lightning, and before ruin shall the heart be exalted ; where, on the other hand it is subjoined, Before glory it shall be humbled. Let us then be humbled in mind, if we are striving to attain to real loftiness. By no means let the eyes of our heart be darkened by the smoke of elation, which the more it rises the more rapidly vanishes away. Let us consider how we are admonished by the precepts of our Redeemer, who says, Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven . Hence, also, he says by the prophet, On whom shall my Spirit rest, but on him that is humble, and quiet, and that trembles at my words ? Of a truth, when the Lord would bring back the hearts of His disciples, still beset with infirmity, to the way of humility, He said, Whosoever will be chief among you shall be least of all . Whereby it is plainly seen how he is truly exalted on high who in his thoughts is humbled. Let us, therefore, fear to be numbered among those who seek the first seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the market, and to be called of men Rabbi. For, contrariwise, the Lord says to His disciples, But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master; and all you are brethren. And call no man your Father upon the earth, for one is your Father .

What then, dearest brother, will you say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if thou covetest to be called in the world not only father, but even general father? Let, then, the bad suggestion of evil men be guarded against; let all instigation to offence be fled from. It must needs be (indeed) that offences come; nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the offence comes . Lo, by reason of this execrable title of pride the Church is rent asunder, the hearts of all the brethren are provoked to offence. What! Has it escaped your memory how the Truth says, Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea ? But it is written, Charity seeks not her own . Lo, your Fraternity arrogates to itself even what is not its own. Again it is written, In honour preferring one another . And you attempt to take the honour away from all which you desire unlawfully to usurp to yourself singularly. Where, dearest brother, is that which is written, Have peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord ? Where is that which is written, Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God ?

It becomes you to consider, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled. But still, though we neglect to consider, supernal judgment will be on the watch against the swelling of so great elation. And we indeed, against whom such and so great a fault is committed by this nefarious attempt,—we, I say, are observing what the Truth enjoins when it says, If your brother shall sin against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of one or two witnesses every word may be established. But if he will not hear them, tell it unto the Church. But if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as an heathen man and a publican . I therefore have once and again through my representatives taken care to reprove in humble words this sin against the whole Church; and now I write myself. Whatever it was my duty to do in the way of humility I have not omitted. But, if I am despised in my reproof, it remains that I must have recourse to the Church.

Wherefore may Almighty God show your Fraternity how great love for you constrains me when I thus speak, and how much I grieve in this case, not against you, but for you. But the case is such that in it I must prefer the precepts of the Gospel, the ordinances of the Canons, and the welfare of the brethren to the person even of him whom I greatly love.

I have received the most sweet and pleasant letter of your Holiness with respect to the case of the presbyters John and Athanasius, about which, the Lord helping me, I will reply to you in another letter; for, being surrounded by the swords of barbarians, I am now oppressed by such great tribulations that it is not allowed me, I will not say to treat of many things, but hardly even to breathe. Given in the Kalends of January; Indiction 13.

 

[racer]

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/938/Sound_Teaching_Avoids_Pride_Gregory_the_Great.html?PHPSESSID=7ec6dbc0ec2d88b2cb79b60791e9be9f

This excerpt from Saint Gregory the Great's Moral Reflections on Jobe (Moralia in Job Lib. 23, 23-24: PL 76, 265-266) is used in Roman Office of Readings on Wednesday in the 9th week in ordinary time, together with Job 32:1-6 and 33:1-22. It clearly explains the difference between teaching in a way that puffs up and teaching in a way that builds up. St. Gregory here demonstrates why he is known as one of the most insightful spiritual writers in the Catholic Tradition thereby coming to be called "the Great."

Now, Job, listen to my words, and attend to all I have to say. It is characteristic of the way that arrogant people teach, that they do not know how to convey their knowledge humbly and cannot express straightforward truths straightforwardly. When they teach, it is clear from their words that they are placing themselves on a pinnacle and looking down on their pupils somewhere in the depths – pupils unworthy to be informed and scarcely even worth the bother of dominating.

The Lord rightly admonished such people through the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, saying You have ruled your flock cruelly and with violence. For they rule with cruelty and violence when they do not try to correct those under them with rational arguments but try to dominate them and crush them.

On the other hand, sound teaching is eager to avoid this sin of pride manifested in thought: just as eager as it is to attack with words the teacher of pride himself. Sound teaching does not promote him by imitating his arrogance but uses pious words to attack him in its hearers’ hearts. Instead it promotes humility, the mother and teacher of all virtues. It preaches humility in words and manifests humility in its actions. It commends humility to its pupils more by conduct than by speech.

This is why Paul seems to have forgotten his exalted status as an apostle when writing to the Thessalonians: We were babes among you. So also Peter: Always have your answer ready for people who ask the reason for the hope you all have, adding, to emphasize that the teaching must be presented in the proper way, But give it with respect and with a clear conscience.

When Paul says to Timothy Command these things and teach them with all authority, he is not calling for a domination born of power but an authority that comes from a way of life. “Teaching with authority” here means living something first before preaching it; for when speech is impeded by conscience, the hearer will find it harder to trust what is being taught. So Paul is not commending the power of proud and exalted words, but the trustworthiness that comes from good behavior. This, indeed, is why it is said of the Lord, Unlike the scribes and pharisees, he taught them with authority. He alone spoke with unique authority because he had never, through weakness, done evil. What he had from the power of his divinity, he taught to us through the innocence of his humanity.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Okay Jack,

Here you go. I know what your problem is, you are used to having your information spoonfed to you.

You got that right sister! LOL

I am kind of spoiled...

 

[racer]

Just to let you know, I've still not forgotten your post #538. I'm still reading Oregan . . . wait . . . that's Origen, huh?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well Racer I am learning much.

I had to dig a little to find out who Pope Gregory I (the Great) was writing to. I did not understand what this title was that Gregory kept referring too and what kind of relationship Pope Gregory I had with the Bishop John (the faster) of Constantinople.

I learned that these two were friends. But when Pope Gregory I learned of the title he must have saw it as John claiming to be a pastor of all and no others were pastors. Gregory the Great is more than a little redundant in his concern with John and this title of 'Universal'.

New advent had much to say about John "the Faster" Bishop of Constantinople. See bolded...

Quote:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08493a.htm


The dispute about the title was this: it was not new in John IV's time; till then the Bishop of Constantinople had commonly been called ’archiepískopos daì patriárches, but at various times he (and other patriarchs) had been addressed as o‘ikoumenikòs patriárches. H. Gelzer (Der Streit um den Titel des ökumenischen Patriarchen) thinks that it became usual in the time of the Acacian schism (484-519). The first known use of it applied to Constantinople is in a letter from the monks of Antioch to John II (518-520) in 518. Before that the Patriarch of Alexandria had been so called by one of his bishops at the Robber Synod of Ephesus (in the year 449; Gelzer, op. cit., p. 568). Since 518 the whole combination, ’archiepískopos kaì o‘ikoumenikòs patriárches, is not uncommonly used in addresses to the Byzantine patriarchs. But they had not called themselves so before John IV. There is a real difference between these two uses of a title. In addresses to other people, particularly superiors, one may always allow a margin for compliment–especially in Byzantine times. But when a man uses a title himself he sets up a formal claim to it. In 588 John the Faster held a synod at Constantinople to examine certain charges against Gregory, Patriarch of Antioch (in this fact already one sees a sign of the growing ambition of Constantinople. By what right could Constantinople discuss the affairs of Antioch?). The Acts of this synod appear to have been sent to Rome; and Pope Pelagius II (579-590) saw in them that John was described as "archbishop and œcumenical patriarch". It may be that this was the first time that the use of the title was noticed at Rome; it appears, in any case, to be the first time it was used officially as a title claimed–not merely a vague compliment. Pelagius protested against the novelty and forbade his legate at Constantinople to communicate with John. His letter is not extant. We know of it from Gregory's letters later (Epp., V, xliii, in P. L., LXXVII, 771).
St. Gregory I (599-604), who succeeded Pelagius II, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrisiarius) there (578-584), and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp., I, iv, in P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his "Regula pastoralis" is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, "Patrology", tr Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of œcumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii, in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Constantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon), to assume such a title as this. It further argues independence of any superior; whereas, says Gregory, "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?" (Epp., IX, xii, ibid., 957); and again: "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See" (ibid.). The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.). This idea rests on a misconception (Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alios] so that he who calls himself œcumenic, that is, universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth" (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance" (Epp., V, xx, in P. L., XXVII, 746, xxi, 750, etc.); he who so calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the title borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself 'servant of the servants of God' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness" (Johannes Diaconus, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, i, in P. L., LXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "œcumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch subscribes himself still "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Œcumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable that even Photius (d. 891) never dared use the word when writing to Rome. The Catholic Church has never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine arrogance and the Byzantine schism.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Okay Jack,

Here you go. I know what your problem is, you are used to having your information spoonfed to you. I realize that the quotes I have provided are sometimes from secondary sources. But, I promise you that I am familiar with the quotes or I would not post them. That is why I have been able to go back and track them down for you “in context.” So, explain this letter away . . . .

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360205018.htm

You gave me a letter from Book V and I am responding further with Book IX (see the bolded) which shows further insight into what Gregory I wrote previously in regards to the Primacy (or dare I say supremacy) of the Pope (the Apostolic See):

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Book IX, Letter 12

To John, Bishop of Syracuse.
Gregory to John, &c.
One coming from Sicily has told me that some friends of his, whether Greeks or Latins I know not, as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage? And, when I said to him, What usages of hers do we follow? he replied; you have caused Alleluia to be said at mass out of the season of Pentecost; you have made appointment for the sub-deacons to proceed disrobed, and for Kyrie Eleison to be said, and for the Lord's Prayer to be said immediately after the canon. To him I replied, that in none of these things have we followed another Church.
For, as to our custom here of saying the Alleluia, it is said to be derived from the Church of Jerusalem by the tradition of the blessed Jerome in the time of pope Damasus of blessed memory; and accordingly in this matter we have rather curtailed the former usage which had been handed down to us here from the Greeks.
Further, as to my having caused the sub-deacons to proceed disrobed, this was the ancient usage of the Church. But it pleased one of our pontiffs, I know not which, to order them to proceed in linen tunics. For have your Churches in any respect received their tradition from the Greeks? Whence, then, have they at the present day the custom of the subdeacons proceeding in linen tunics, except that they have received it from their mother, the Roman Church?
Further, we neither have said nor now say the Kyrie Eleison, as it is said by the Greeks: for among the Greeks all say it together; but with us it is said by the clerks, and responded to by the people; and as often as it is said, Christe Eleison is said also, which is not said at all among the Greeks. Further, in daily masses we suppress some things that are usually said, and say only Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, so as to devote ourselves a little longer to these words of deprecation. But the Lord's prayer (orationem Dominicam) we say immediately after the prayer (mox post precem) for this reason, that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only. And it seemed to me very unsuitable that we should say over the oblation a prayer which a scholastic had composed, and should not say the very prayer which our Redeemer composed over His body and blood. But also the Lord's Prayer among the Greeks is said by all the people, but with us by the priest alone. Wherein, then, have we followed the usages of the Greeks, in that we have either amended our own old ones or appointed new and profitable ones, in which, however, we are not shown to be imitating others? Wherefore, let your Charity, when an occasion presents itself, proceed to the Church of Catana; or in the Church of Syracuse teach those who you believe or understand may possibly be murmuring with respect to this matter, holding a conference there, as though for a different purpose, and so desist not from instructing them. For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.

 

[racer]

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...

Jack, I have read this particular text over and over, and he does not make this point/argument. He cites Matt 18:18 in which they are all twelve given the power to bind and loose. Origen does not argue in this particular text that this power was given to Peter only. We'll look at it closer.

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

I didn't really need to read chapter 30 (even though I did) Matt 18:15-19 addresses it very clearly:

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

You and I both know that in this passage Jesus is speaking to all twelve apostles.

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

I disagree, I don't think he actually gives Peter a "higher power," and we'll discuss this. But, even if one inferred from this passage that Origen considered Peter to have a "higher" power, it is still very clear that he did not assert that "Peter only" had the power to bind and loose. Nor does he assert in this passage that "Peter" was the final authority in any such disputes as discussed in this passage. So let's look at this chapter, which I find to be a tad puzzling.

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;

Okay, I'm following him just fine up to this point. It pretty much follows the line in the Scripturaly passaged I quoted above and the verse that he cited here. Then he gets a little weird.

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.

What is he talking about here when he says, " . . . by one of this character?" Is he referring to the part in the quote above which I've highlighted in blue? And from where does he come up with the assertion that no one in heaven overturns such binding? It is clear here that he is not speaking of "Peter only" doing this binding.

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.

Okay, so maybe I begin to see a little better now. He is saying that if a man is bound on earth by those worthy of "binding" him, then there is no one in heaven who would "loose" him. So, therefore, if those same worthy people "free" someone on earth, then there is no one in heaven who would bind him? Hmmmm . . .

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.

This part even appears to imply that the authority to bind and loose was not given to the twelve (12) apostles only. But, all who act in accordance with the church.

Now, we get to the part upon which you are basing your assertion:

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,

I'm not sure what he's saying here. It appears that he believes Peter to be deserving of some type of reverance that sets him apart from or slightly above that of the others. But, this does not say that they others do not have the same power as Peter to bind and loose. He's already made that clear in the quotes I've provided.

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.

Second class? Do you think him to be referring to the other apostles as "second class?"

For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more,

Huh? Not one heaven, but more? Where does this come from?

and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all,

Again . . . huh?

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.

Do you have any idea what he is talking about when he speaks of all the heavens and from where he has gained this information?

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.

He references Matthew 16:19: 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 shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

There is no allusion to any other heavens or any other authority which accompanies the keys that are not given to all of the apostles in Matthew 18. I tried to locate this Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew at the CCEL.org site, but it doesn't seem to be located there. I would like to see some other commentary or interpretation of this book which might clarify a little better about what exactly Origen is talking about.

From an online book/article The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18--An Historical Refutation of the Claims of Roman Catholicism there is a critique of Jesus, Peter and the Keys. The author of this critique is William Webster. I don't have the link handy, but I can find it later if necessary. However, Mr. Webster says:

According to Augustine the apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But, some object, doesn't Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don't such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy . . . Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being exclusive successors of Peter? No. In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Two quick comments on this last post...

First, when we hear of other shaving powers from the Keys that is true. All the bishops in communion with the Church share in a level of the power of the Keys. But the holder of the Keys can only be one man. This man holds a primacy.

Secondly, when I read about the levels of Heaven I believe this goes to a belief that Heaven has something like 7 levels and the better you are here the higher you go there. But I am not certain on how Origen is speaking about this either. My understanding related to Muslim and Jewish and some Christian understanding of this. Still very sketchy for me.

 

[racer]

Two quick comments on this last post...

First, when we hear of other shaving powers from the Keys that is true. All the bishops in communion with the Church share in a level of the power of the Keys. But the holder of the Keys can only be one man. This man holds a primacy.

But, exactly how is that "primacy" defined? That's where the fathers differ on their teachings/understandings of "Peter's" special place among the apostles.

But, even at that, I've quoted fathers who have specifically said that the keys were given not to Peter, but to the Church. It is so very clear in Matt 16:19 that the authority to "loose and bind" comes with possession of the keys. It is the keys that bestow that authority. You never commented on this quote from Augustine:

“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).

Secondly, when I read about the levels of Heaven I believe this goes to a belief that Heaven has something like 7 levels and the better you are here the higher you go there. But I am not certain on how Origen is speaking about this either. My understanding related to Muslim and Jewish and some Christian understanding of this. Still very sketchy for me.

Okay.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But, exactly how is that "primacy" defined?

This is THE question.

The defining of this has been an ongoing process since Jesus left us and gave us the Spirit of Truth to protect and help us recall.

The Church has constantly been seeking the truth and trying to define it. The early church was growing very quickly and things were not always as clear as they are today.

That is why the Bishops of differeing areas referred to Rome for answers when they had none. Like Matthew 18:17 they referred to the Church. When the local church could not answer it the priest or bishop went to the bishop of that region and when the bishop of that region could not answer it then the Bishop of Rome was asked.

We see this especially in the earlier church and they referred to Rome as the mother church. As things began to settle down and basics were understood I think Bishops of their regions could handle their church most all of the time.

But there came times of dispute or not knowing. In times like Arius when Chrisitans were seeing division and trouble the Roman authority ordered a meeting to settle it. And it was Rome that put Arius in his place with the support of the other regions and theor bishops.

But the defining of the Seat of Peter and the understanding of the Keys was not always clear to all the bishops or priests. The Eastern and Oriental church in the first few centuries (and later) were least likely to be in communication with Rome and the cultures were more different then many of the West. I think this communication barrier caused some of the rift between and East and West because the East was liable to make their own decisions. It was good that the East stuck to their earliest teachings without change because they still hold a very good teaching that is in communion with Rome. But the East was not part of many of the insights in the defining of the Church and so they were not only seperated by distance and cultures but they became kind of locked in time (in my opinion).

My point is that the Church was growing and developing over time. In the very beginning the structure was loose because of the times but as the church grew and became accepted it needed to adapt as well. Which it did.

 

[racer]

Well Racer I am learning much.

I had to dig a little to find out who Pope Gregory I (the Great) was writing to. I did not understand what this title was that Gregory kept referring too and what kind of relationship Pope Gregory I had with the Bishop John (the faster) of Constantinople.

I learned that these two were friends. But when Pope Gregory I learned of the title he must have saw it as John claiming to be a pastor of all and no others were pastors. Gregory the Great is more than a little redundant in his concern with John and this title of 'Universal'.

New advent had much to say about John "the Faster" Bishop of Constantinople. See bolded...

I'm sure New Advent did have a lengthy explanation as to why Gregory didn't actually mean what he said when he said it . . . . . But, John the Faster is not the person speaking here. Gregory is, and he did not hold to or support the ideology of a superior bishop in Rome or anywhere for that matter.

In your own words explain this away:

. . . Consider, I pray you, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that it is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless you yourself wilt have power to grow so far as you determine with yourself to do so. And you will become by so much the greater as you restrain yourself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and you will make advance in proportion as you are not bent on arrogation by derogation of your brethren. Wherefore, dearest brother, with all your heart love humility, through which the concord of all the brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church may be preserved. Certainly the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ , regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord's body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul .)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal?

Gregory clearly argues that for one to claim to be the universal head of the "Universal Church" is to claim a proud and foolish title. Look who he compares such arrogancy with:

Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High .

He is very explicit here:

Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,—what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was
trulyholy.

. . . What then, dearest brother, will you say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if thou covetest to be called in the world not only father, but even general father?

You can't just ignore or dismiss statements such as these by citing/quoting something else that appears to say the opposite. You must establish why your interpretation/version should be accepted over others provided to you.

 

[racer]

You gave me a letter from Book V and I am responding further with Book IX (see the bolded) which shows further insight into what Gregory I wrote previously in regards to the Primacy (or dare I say supremacy) of the Pope (the Apostolic See):

I'm just curious as to how you think this contradicts the letter I provided. Where does he refer to the primacy of any bishop? Also, he is not discussing "Church doctrine." He is discussing customs, practices and traditions.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Book IX, Letter 12

To John, Bishop of Syracuse.
Gregory to John, &c.
One coming from Sicily has told me that some friends of his, whether Greeks or Latins I know not, as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage? And, when I said to him, What usages of hers do we follow? he replied; you have caused Alleluia to be said at mass out of the season of Pentecost; you have made appointment for the sub-deacons to proceed disrobed, and for Kyrie Eleison to be said, and for the Lord's Prayer to be said immediately after the canon. To him I replied, that in none of these things have we followed another Church.
For, as to our custom here of saying the Alleluia, it is said to be derived from the Church of Jerusalem by the tradition of the blessed Jerome in the time of pope Damasus of blessed memory; and accordingly in this matter we have rather curtailed the former usage which had been handed down to us here from the Greeks.
Further, as to my having caused the sub-deacons to proceed disrobed, this was the ancient usage of the Church. But it pleased one of our pontiffs, I know not which, to order them to proceed in linen tunics. For have your Churches in any respect received their tradition from the Greeks? Whence, then, have they at the present day the custom of the subdeacons proceeding in linen tunics, except that they have received it from their mother, the Roman Church?

Notice he says, "Roman church," not "Roman Bishop?" None of these letters appear to be asserting any superiority of Peter at all.

Further, we neither have said nor now say the Kyrie Eleison, as it is said by the Greeks: for among the Greeks all say it together; but with us it is said by the clerks, and responded to by the people; and as often as it is said, Christe Eleison is said also, which is not said at all among the Greeks. Further, in daily masses we suppress some things that are usually said, and say only Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, so as to devote ourselves a little longer to these words of deprecation. But the Lord's prayer (orationem Dominicam) we say immediately after the prayer (mox post precem) for this reason, that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only. And it seemed to me very unsuitable that we should say over the oblation a prayer which a scholastic had composed, and should not say the very prayer which our Redeemer composed over His body and blood. But also the Lord's Prayer among the Greeks is said by all the people, but with us by the priest alone. Wherein, then, have we followed the usages of the Greeks, in that we have either amended our own old ones or appointed new and profitable ones, in which, however, we are not shown to be imitating others? Wherefore, let your Charity, when an occasion presents itself, proceed to the Church of Catana; or in the Church of Syracuse teach those who you believe or understand may possibly be murmuring with respect to this matter, holding a conference there, as though for a different purpose, and so desist not from instructing them. For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.

Here we are at the jurisdictional dispute between Rome and Constantinople. It's not about the superiority of the bishops.