For Catholics to consider

[ivebeenshown]

This is a remarkable Catholic argument. It rests on a strictly literalist interpretation of Matthew's Gospel, it is thus 'sola scriptura'.

If we apply this Protestant view to the text we can say the keys are only explicitly noted as being with Peter, and only implied as being given to the others. Fortunately we have 'tradition' and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.

'Sola Scriptura' is supposed to be a praxis of using Scripture as the only authoritative norm in evaluating doctrines, according to at least one member of this forum who identifies as Lutheran and has posted a thorough explanation of this praxis.

One, John Chrysostom says that the keys are held by the Apostle John...
"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now" Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.1
(emphasis added)

This is interesting, but it must be noted that the writings of one of the Fathers do not necessarily constitute the entirety of Holy Tradition. In fact, Cyprian of Carthage wrote of the unity found in the See of Peter approximately one century prior to Chrysostom.

Augustine concurs that the whole church has the keys
"...the keys that were given to the Church..." A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists. Chapter 10.45

The Catholic Church also affirms that the Church holds the keys in paragraph 981 of the Catechism, but this does not mean that every member holds the keys. For the See of Peter is an office belong to the Church, therefore while the keys reside with the See of Peter, they may be said to reside with the Church.

 

[Standing Up]

Have you been able to figure out why the Roman Church was able and the rest of the Church went along?

St. Hilary was no match for St. Leo, who later would stand up to Atilla the Hun.
"When we come to the reign of Pope Leo I (440-61) we reach one of the momentous turning points in the history of the papacy. By common consent of historians, Leo was one of the greatest of ecclesiastical statesmen and deservedly surnamed 'the Great.' At a time when the world was cracking at the seams, Leo stood forth as a Pope of commanding character and genius who dramatically and successfully asserted the supreme authority of the papacy. . . . he formulated a doctrine of papal primacy that was to weather all storms and guide the policy of all subsequent Popes. According to Leo, Peter was 'the Rock' on which the Lord built his Church; his successors, the Popes, were merely his temporary mystical personifications. . . . Leo not only enunciated this grandiose theory of papal primacy, but also . . . made its claims good. . . . he frustrated the attempt to create an independent Gallic see in Arles--even going so far as to strip the saintly Hilary of his metropolitan authority there."
--A Concise History of the Catholic Church, by Thomas Bokenkotter, Image, 2005, pages 85-86.
On this day: St. Hilary of Arles, Bishop | National Catholic Reporter

 

[ivebeenshown]

Interesting citation Standing Up,

It should be noted that Cyprian of Carthage made such statements about 'the Rock' well before Pope Leo, in approximately 250AD or so. What is intriguing about this is that the statements predated Constantine and the legalization of Christianity.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The notion of Papal Supremacy predates Leo.

You are just randomly quoting things you find on the internet now.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

It is not even a historical citation.

It is just one man's take on a history.

 

[Montalban]

Ok, so what of the 27 canons in the acta? Here is a link to a translation of the whole Acta, and it lists 27 canons, and calls into question again the 28th canon as one made outside conciliar unity. Can you specifically cite me the evidence that the Pope approved of canon 28 "eventually"? I see that the Popes supposedly embraced this canon in several websites I've visited, but none provide source material. One site said something like "the papacy approved the canons" or something like that but didn't say if 28 was in there.

Your own cited source says (Volume 3, page 68)

To the canon were appended the signatures of 182 bishops; the bishops of Illyricum, who owed allegiance to the papacy, are conspicuous by their absence
http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/624.pdf

Your source goes on to say
"This text is numbered in the Greek Acts, and the versio antiqua of the Latin, as the seventh session (or act) and in the later Latin versions as the fifteenth. It is not a session of the council at all but a list of 271 canons. Even though these canons are styled an ‘act’ in both the Greek and Latin editions of the Acts, the absence of both a date and a list of participants or signatories tells against presuming that they were ever debated or approved at a formal session of the council; it appears that Anatolius simply issued them subsequently in the council’s name. The chief interest of the canons in the context of Chalcedon is their insistence on episcopal authority over independentminded clergy and monks."
(Ibid.) p92

That is, it's not a complete list! Nor is it an official list. It is of those canons approved of before session (XVI. 4–8) approved Canon 28.

It appears without signatures.

You've also not addressed evidence I presented of the canon subsequently being re-affirmed in the east, and accepted in the west.

As for my one layman's take, you may also consider this section of the article:

The spark that lit the fuse was an address given at Holy Cross School of Theology on March 16, 2009 by the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of Constantinople, the Very Rev Dr Elpidophorus Lambriniades. This speech may have been partly in response to an article written by Metropolitan Philip Saliba, the primate of the Antiochian archdiocese in North America. Saliba’s essay questioned the validity of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.​

There also seems to be the following citation often quoted by the Catholic apologists from then-bishop

Also, if canon 28 is a sound argument from the early Church against the Papacy, then I have many questions. If such is the case and canon 28 was re-affirmed at Trullo, then what is currently the relation of the bishop of Constantinople to the rest of the Church? Do the Orthodox believe it to be a seat to make disciplinary or customary norms for the whole Church?
And what in canon 28 should Catholics read that should demonstrate that their view of the Papacy is wrong?

That's correct Canon 28 is not AGAINST the papacy.

 

[Montalban]

I've never heard this before. What parts of his life were in and out of communion with Rome?

That's in the Wiki article you're supposed to be commenting on!

 

[Montalban]

Huh?

John Chystostom isn't 'the east'.

The statement regarding 1,000 years is by and large true. There were times when individuals and individual Sees were not in communion with one another.

At the time of John Chrysostom's concecration a part of Antioch was not in communion with Alexandria or Rome.

Meletius, the bishop was not in communion. He consecrated John Chryostom. Meletius was chosen to head an Ecumenical Council, whilst still not in communion with Rome. Those who chose him were not necessarily in schism with Rome, but perhaps didn't see his own schism as a hamper to heading the Council.

 

[Montalban]

That's okay by me. I don't think the passage is necessarily a prophecy of the papacy, but it is a sort of prefigure of Christ, and also a fine demonstration of God delegating authority and stewardship to individuals as he will.

Where are the Church Fathers who believe this is so?

 

[Montalban]

Sources always appreciated.

There are sources in the Wiki article!

 

[Montalban]

'Sola Scriptura' is supposed to be a praxis of using Scripture as the only authoritative norm in evaluating doctrines, according to at least one member of this forum who identifies as Lutheran and has posted a thorough explanation of this praxis.

That's precisely what you did. You presented an argument based on scripture alone. I don't see any Church Fathers cited in your article.

This is interesting, but it must be noted that the writings of one of the Fathers do not necessarily constitute the entirety of Holy Tradition.

Absolutely. You've cited none to show Peter alone held the keys.

In fact, Cyprian of Carthage wrote of the unity found in the See of Peter approximately one century prior to Chrysostom.

You should read the context of his comments - and also he too defied the Pope.
Primacy of the Roman Pontiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Catholic Church also affirms that the Church holds the keys in paragraph 981 of the Catechism, but this does not mean that every member holds the keys.

So?

For the See of Peter is an office belong to the Church, therefore while the keys reside with the See of Peter, they may be said to reside with the Church.

There's more than one See of Peter
Primacy of the Roman Pontiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Montalban]

Interesting citation Standing Up,

It should be noted that Cyprian of Carthage made such statements about 'the Rock' well before Pope Leo, in approximately 250AD or so. What is intriguing about this is that the statements predated Constantine and the legalization of Christianity.

The Jesuit scholar Bévnot notes…

"The whole context is against restricting the meaning to 'the see of Rome.' Cyrprian's argument is based on the unicity of the origin (in Peter) of Church and authority alike. The one authority was perpetuated in the legitimate successions of the bishops, and to break with one's bishop was to break with the one, Christ-established, authority, that is, the 'Chair of Peter.' Thus his argument was pertinent not only for Rome, where Novatian had broken with Cornelius (who's 'chair' was Peter's in a double sense), but also nearer home, where Feliccissimus and his faction were in revolt against himself. However, for those who recognised the true primacy of the see of Rome, Cyrpian's words (taken out of their context) would naturally express the necessity of communion with Rome. It is not unreasonable to suppose (until proof of the contrary is forthcoming) that such an interpretation, put upon his words at the time of the baptismal controversy, led Cyprian to revise this chapter of its final addition."

 

[Montalban]

What the Catholic argument seems to be is that Peter alone got the keys, and the others got some residual power, or power only based on their association with Peter - which is not in the scriptures.

Further that Peter then, having founded several Sees didn't pass on a special charism to any of these but Rome where he helped (along with Paul - who preached with the same authority as Peter) found a church, or organise an existing one.

That he passed this charism onto Linus, even though Peter was still alive at the time of Linus' consecration.

This is evidenced by the occasional praising of Peter, or Rome, and ignoring similar praising of others.

It's also evidenced by occasional statements made by Popes which were largely ignored until the middle ages.

 

[Standing Up]

Interesting citation Standing Up,

It should be noted that Cyprian of Carthage made such statements about 'the Rock' well before Pope Leo, in approximately 250AD or so. What is intriguing about this is that the statements predated Constantine and the legalization of Christianity.

Like to see the quote ...

Here's some more.

See page 84
The complete idiot's guide to the ... - Brandon Toropov - Google Books

Emperor Valentinian III: align with bishop of Rome, inheritor of Peter. Don't be contrary.

 

[MrPolo]

Your own cited source says (Volume 3, page 68)

To the canon were appended the signatures of 182 bishops; the bishops of Illyricum, who owed allegiance to the papacy, are conspicuous by their absence
http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/624.pdf

Your source goes on to say
"This text is numbered in the Greek Acts, and the versio antiqua of the Latin, as the seventh session (or act) and in the later Latin versions as the fifteenth. It is not a session of the council at all but a list of 271 canons. Even though these canons are styled an ‘act’ in both the Greek and Latin editions of the Acts, the absence of both a date and a list of participants or signatories tells against presuming that they were ever debated or approved at a formal session of the council; it appears that Anatolius simply issued them subsequently in the council’s name. The chief interest of the canons in the context of Chalcedon is their insistence on episcopal authority over independentminded clergy and monks."
(Ibid.) p92

Yes, but that does not render it with the authority your wiki article suggests if it is "not a session of the council." So how do we take this along with the idea of a 27 canon Acta other than it does not carry much authority other than it having been a discussed issue?

You've also not addressed evidence I presented of the canon subsequently being re-affirmed in the east, and accepted in the west.

I don't want to link-mine the wiki article. I mentioned how long it was, did I not? Can't you just tell me which resource tells me the details of when the Pope "eventually" accepted canon 28?

That's correct Canon 28 is not AGAINST the papacy.

Then we have no dispute even though it appears in a wiki article against the papacy?

 

[Montalban]

Yes, but that does not render it with the authority your wiki article suggests if it is "not a session of the council."

That's not what the East believed. The West protested that it was convoked (that session) without them. Reading your own pdf source the easterners attest to the fact they did.

So how do we take this along with the idea of a 27 canon Acta other than it does not carry much authority other than it having been a discussed issue?

This is based on assuming what you say is true, which isn't backed by your own sources, and ignores that the Popes eventually adhered to it to. Are the popes in the habit of acknowledging improperly constituted council sessions?

I don't want to link-mine the wiki article. I mentioned how long it was, did I not? Can't you just tell me which resource tells me the details of when the Pope "eventually" accepted canon 28?Then we have no dispute even though it appears in a wiki article against the papacy?

*sigh* It's in the article

Under Canon XXVIII

If that's no help, here's what it says

Eventually it was accepted in the West. In 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran the Roman church accepted Constantinople's position – albeit when Constantinople was in western hands following the Fourth Crusade. Subsequently at the Council of Florence this was confirmed to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople.

"...and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be “inspired by the Holy Ghost” and “valid to the end of time”[198]
ref is...
Phillip Schaff - Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII at CCEL
NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The use of the word 'energetically' in describing Leo's protest which you said didn't happen, is taken from the Catholic site New Advent
In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Chalcedon

Then we have no dispute even though it appears in a wiki article against the papacy?

Why it's included is to show that the 'stature' of a See was fluid. Rome had a primacy of honour, because it was the capital. Constantinople could be raised in honour over other Sees, such as Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.

It also shows that despite the pope's protest the east kept it. It's only against the Cahtolic idea of the papacy.

 

[Montalban]

Further support that John Chrysostom wasn't in communion with Rome...
It must also be remembered that he took his vows from Meletius (whom we noted earlier was not in communion with Rome). He accepted as an authority men not in communion with Rome. After Meletius died John Chrysostom accepted Flavian as his bishop[154] - another person not in communion with Rome.[155] John Chrysostom spent much of his life not in communion with Rome


[154] Socrates Scholasticus The Ecclesiastical History Book V.9

[155]Puller, F. W., (1893), The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, (Longmans, Green & Co; NY), p266

 

[ivebeenshown]

That's precisely what you did. You presented an argument based on scripture alone. I don't see any Church Fathers cited in your article.

Absolutely. You've cited none to show Peter alone held the keys.

I did not present an argument. I stated that I have no reason to believe that Jesus gave the keys to anyone but Peter. I also have no reason to believe that Jesus was talking to anyone but Peter, James, and John in Matthew 18 when he promised them the power of the keys.

That is not Sola Scriptura because I also take into account Holy Tradition as taught by the magisterium and ex cathedra. If any Holy Tradition is made known to me that was not previously known, I will accept it in faith.

You should read the context of his comments - and also he too defied the Pope.
Primacy of the Roman Pontiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What other context is found in this following citation from Cyprian?

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity."

All the apostles received a like power to Peter's. I don't see Cyprian saying that all the apostles received the same power as Peter's. By the way, where did the parenthetical statements in the citation of Bevnot come from? Are they from the original text, or did someone add those to influence the interpretation of the paragraph? The original document appears to be obscure and not easily accessible. Why should I trust that citation?

So?

So, you cited Augustine who said that the Church holds the keys. That does not add weight to your argument because the Catholic Church affirms in her catechism that the Church holds the keys. I have no reason to believe that the Church's holding of the keys means that all of the Church's officials hold the keys.

There's more than one See of Peter
Primacy of the Roman Pontiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why should I believe that there is more than one chair of Peter? We are having a discussion and I would prefer that you personally present your arguments to me, if you don't mind. For all we know, it may help you with your article.

Anyways, Pope Gregory may have said that, but was it deemed an 'ex cathedra' teaching? If not, why should I believe it?

 

[Montalban]

I did not present an argument. I stated that I have no reason to believe that Jesus gave the keys to anyone but Peter. I also have no reason to believe that Jesus was talking to anyone but Peter, James, and John in Matthew 18 when he promised them the power of the keys.

If you present a position, whether it's an opinion that's what you've done.

That is not Sola Scriptura because I also take into account Holy Tradition as taught by the magisterium and ex cathedra. If any Holy Tradition is made known to me that was not previously known, I will accept it in faith.

The Church Fathers (cited in the article, and subsequently referred to in discussion) differ from you

What other context is found in this following citation from Cyprian?

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity."

All the apostles received a like power to Peter's. I don't see Cyprian saying that all the apostles received the same power as Peter's. By the way, where did the parenthetical statements in the citation of Bevnot come from? Are they from the original text, or did someone add those to influence the interpretation of the paragraph? The original document appears to be obscure and not easily accessible. Why should I trust that citation?

So, you cited Augustine who said that the Church holds the keys. That does not add weight to your argument because the Catholic Church affirms in her catechism that the Church holds the keys. I have no reason to believe that the Church's holding of the keys means that all of the Church's officials hold the keys.


Anyways, Pope Gregory may have said that, but was it deemed an 'ex cathedra' teaching? If not, why should I believe it?

What position? You're not 'arguing' so I take it you don't want a response. It's a way of making statements without recourse to backing them with facts - because it's then claimed 'no statement/position/argument was made'. One can just keep responding saying that they suppose such and such to be the case. Even though one can 'question' a text'.

Let me know if you want to discuss this or not.

Why should I believe that there is more than one chair of Peter? We are having a discussion and I would prefer that you personally present your arguments to me, if you don't mind. For all we know, it may help you with your article.

Because of the evidence in the article. You're asking me to re-type the evidence I've given there and that will possibly help my article!

 

[Montalban]

If someone has a position that they wish to champion that would be great. I'd like to see some evidence.

Just 'suspecting' evidence in opposition is not really addressing it.