Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[MrPolo]

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there.

This part is so illogical and demonstrates an unawareness of the multitude of contemporary testimonies that Peter founded and spent much time at the Church in Rome (with or without Paul, take your pick) that the author merits little or no right to be taken seriously.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

From the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon (considered Ecumenical by both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church):



From the Canons of a Council considered ecumenical by both our churches, it says that Rome was given Primacy because of her political situation, and that Constantinople was Rome's equal.

... does seem to be the reality.




.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Interesting thread. Thanks.

 

[Athanasias]

The following is the view of a Greek Orthodox priest, who is part of the Orthodox Research Institute. I'd share the link but I don't think that's allowed anymore. The whole article is extensive but it simply develops these thoughts more fully. The Father is exploring the text about Jesus, the "keys," Peter's Confession and Peter and the concept of "pope." I found it interesting and perhaps worthy of an ecumenical discussion...





Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:

(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18)




Pax!


- Josiah





.

Hey Josiah I wrote a 9 page college paper on the exegesis of Matt 16:13-19 for my intro to scripture course. It addresses alot and uses Catholic and protestant sources. it goes into the "Keys issue" and even the Lutheran Church. If you would like to read it and discuss let me know and I will send it to you!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:

(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18)

It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, “Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church,” but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

(b) It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, “ . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.

(d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire, nothing more. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/michael_theschism.htm
.

I find each of these 4 points to be very compelling; and I've not noted that any Catholic has offered anything to counter them. And I think it pulls the rug out from the RCC's great claims of itself for itself.


That's my perspective.




.

 

[NewMan99]

CJ,

I find each of these 4 points to be very compelling; and I've not noted that any Catholic has offered anything to counter them. And I think it pulls the rug out from the RCC's great claims of itself for itself.

That's my perspective.

I don't doubt you find the points to be compelling. I do doubt that any argument given by Catholics will change your mind (although I might be wrong about that - I don't pretend to read your mind). I am somewhat surprised you would even start this thread considering that these talking points have been discussed numerous times in the past and therefore you already know the standard responses you will most likely receive. That being said, since there might be some lurkers to this thread who might be unfamiliar with these topics, I will now try to respond for their benefit (and yours too, of course).

And I will disgree with you that no Catholic rebuttals have been offered. Some have been offered. Perhaps you should re-read the thread again.

So with no further ado:

The following is from an article by a Greek Orthodox Archbishop. The Archbishop is exploring the text about Jesus, the "keys," Peter's Confession and Peter and the concept of "pope." I found it interesting and perhaps worthy of an ecumenical discussion...

Hopefully the discussion can be a bit more "ecumenical" than the text of the Greek Orthodox Archbishop who wrote the article. It is challenging, to say the least, to enter into en ecumenical discussion about a piece that is primarily polemical in nature. But we can try.

Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:

(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18)

It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, “Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church,” but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

The above emphasis is mine. There are at least two problems with the analysis by the Archbishop.

The first problem is that Jesus did not speak in English. Therefore, Jesus did not say "You are Peter" rather he more likely spoke these words in Aramaic (or perhaps in Greek, but I find that unlikely since all of his companions at that moment were His Apostles who spoke Aramaic as their native tongue, even though Jesus may have spoken in Greek on other occasions when He was in the company of Hellenized Greek-speaking Jews - but the Apostles were not Hellenized so it is therefore a near certainty that Jesus spoke those words in Aramaic). "Peter" is only an English transliteration of the word He actually used. And whether you want to think that Jesus spoke on this occasion in Greek or Aramaic the reality is that what Jesus actually said (without the transliteration) was more akin to: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I shall build my church." So it begs the question as to WHICH rock Jesus was referring to when He said "this rock". Linguistically it makes far more sense to apply the word to the object that Jesus was just talking about: Peter/Rock/Kephas. For if I said, "You are Simon, and upon this Simon I shall build my church" you would, of course, take that to mean that the Church would be built upon someone named Simon. But which Simon? Well, it could only be the "Simon" that Jesus was speaking to when He said "You are Simon." And if you want to say that Jesus changed Simon's name as a play on words, you only dig yourself into a bigger hole. And that leads me to the second problem...

The second problem is that the Archbishop totally ignores the play on words that Jesus was making. Word play is a very common rabbinical tool, that Jesus employed from time to time. When you recall that Jesus was saying "You are Rock, and upon this rock I shall build my church" - that is an intentional play on words. When you say "You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church" - that is an English translation and transliteration (of Simon's new name), and therefore English speaking folks like us will lose the word play even though those who speak Aramaic would not.

So if you care to account for the reality that Jesus was making a play on words you MUST recognize that the only way to grasp the play is to forget the transliteration and recall that Peter is called Kephas in many places in the NT...therefore it makes PERFECT sense to admit that Jesus said "You are Rock, and upon this rock..." - which would be a play on words and only strengthens the Catholic case.

(b) It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, “ . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”

My best response to this is: so what? We don't claim that any Pope is perfect or above reproach or incapable of not following the teachings of the Church. The history of the Church is replete with examples of people "yelling" at the Pope for various lapses in personal judgment. Just because Paul reproached Peter does not mean that Peter was not in authority.

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.

Honestly, CJ, do you really want a reply to this? This is one of the most commonly debunked arguments out there. I am short on time at the moment so can come back to it later if you want.

(

d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire, nothing more. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

As Trento mentioned previously. The so-called 28th canon was rescinded - as NUMEROUS Eastern Fathers attest to. It was put in for purely political purposes but not ratified and had no force. So this Archbishop is only grasping at straws. Again, I am short on time and come back to this later.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Mikeb85]

As Trento mentioned previously. The so-called 28th canon was rescinded - as NUMEROUS Eastern Fathers attest to. It was put in for purely political purposes but not ratified and had no force. So this Archbishop is only grasping at straws. Again, I am short on time and come back to this later.

You know, I've heard this argument often, but never seen any proof. From all historical evidence from Chalcedon up to the schism, it does seem as though Constantinople and Rome were equals (and often arguing). Do you have any writings from the ECFs (and sources to the entire documents please) which would prove what you're saying? Maybe something official from a council or something? Yes, we all know Pope St. Leo disagreed with the 28th Canon, but that doesn't really matter unless the whole Church adopted this position (which I haven't seen any evidence of).

So again, would you care to provide PROOF of what you're saying? I do believe the burden of proof is on the RCC if they indeed claim that Canons from an Ecumenical council are somehow invalid...

Again, for me proof means a quote in context, with the entire document provided (or at least a referenceable quote). No RCC quote mines.

 

[NewMan99]

You know, I've heard this argument often, but never seen any proof.

With respect, Mike, you have seen proof. Trento provided some in his post earlier in this thread.

Look carefully at what Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople wrote to Pope Leo when he was apologizing and explaining how canon 28 came to be:

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. -- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

Bishop Anatolius from Constantinople (indeed, one of the people who would stand the most to gain in terms of authority had the canon not been removed) himself told Pope Leo that its "confirmation" was "reserved" for him (the Pope) alone. As you already know, Pope Leo gave canon 28 a "line item veto" so to speak and the Eastern Church including Constantinpole agreed to abide by that. If that isn't a form of proof I don't know what is.

And, as Trento also noted, the following Greek historians over the next six centuries write only of the 27 (not 28) canons of Chalcedon: Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD). Likewise, the following Roman Popes during that period also speak of 27 canons: Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500).

From all historical evidence from Chalcedon up to the schism, it does seem as though Constantinople and Rome were equals (and often arguing).

Arguing is not evidence of equal authority. In fact, it is often evidence of one party objecting to the authority of another (either rightly or wrongly).

Do you have any writings from the ECFs (and sources to the entire documents please) which would prove what you're saying? Maybe something official from a council or something? Yes, we all know Pope St. Leo disagreed with the 28th Canon, but that doesn't really matter unless the whole Church adopted this position (which I haven't seen any evidence of).

Well...in addition to the Bishop of Constantinople directly writing to Pope Leo claiming that its confirmation depended upon the authority of the Pope...let's also look at a few other things from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon itself:

After Pope Leo's Tome against Monophysitism during which the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ was embraced by the Council, the following was issued:

"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Plus there are these quotes:

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

The Council fathers, upon concluding the Council, wrote this to Pope Leo:

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith.-- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

...and...

For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

...and...

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

...and...

You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

...and...

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

So, the Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church. Therefore I would say it seems kind of odd to point to the Council of Chalcedon as evidence of supposed "equality" between Rome and Constantinople when the Council itself made no such claim with the possible exception of the "veteod" canon 28.

So again, would you care to provide PROOF of what you're saying? I do believe the burden of proof is on the RCC if they indeed claim that Canons from an Ecumenical council are somehow invalid...

Again, I would respectfully state that there are plenty of claims on both sides and therefore the burden of proof lies with both.

Again, for me proof means a quote in context, with the entire document provided (or at least a referenceable quote). No RCC quote mines.

I am not sure what you mean by "quote mines" - but look up the quotes yourself if you think I might be quoting them out of context. It seems to me that much of what I cited was pretty clear as to its intent.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Mikeb85]

And, as Trento also noted, the following Greek historians over the next six centuries write only of the 27 (not 28) canons of Chalcedon: Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD). Likewise, the following Roman Popes during that period also speak of 27 canons: Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500).

I have yet to find any quotes from these so called historians. Theodore the Lector's works are more or less all lost, we only know of him through mention in other writers' works, I haven't found any evidence that John Skolastikas was even a real person (his name is certainly odd), and Dionysius Exiguus (a Scythian monk living in Rome) didn't even live until 550 AD... I did however find the quote mine that Trento quoted from Council of Chalcedon and the Papacy -- Apolonio's Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality which again, doesn't give any references...

Now, lets look at the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. In the final extrait from the Acts they actually debate whether or not Canon 28 should be upheld, the Roman legates oppose it and claim their church has jurisdiction over all, yet the council approves Canon 28 anyway, despite these strong objections: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Furthermore Canon 36 of the Council of Trullo confirms Canon 28 of Chalcedon NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library:

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

And here's an interesting history on Patriarchal Power and Jurisdiction covering 311-600 AD: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Again, it notes Rome's objections, and the fact that those objections were never heeded, demonstrating that Rome's power was grossly overstated...

 

[NewMan99]

CJ,

Okay - I have a little more time to finish my first response (sorry - I was unexpectedly called away and had to rush my post).

Upon further review, I want to add this one more thing about the Archbishop's example of Paul's rebuke of Peter.

He said (emphasis mine):

On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”

Simply stated, the Archbishop is guilty of context switching for the simple reason that Paul was not rebuking Peter for *teaching* error, but rather for not *living out* the teaching of the Church. There are plenty of examples of Peter *teaching* the equality of the Gentiles, but in this case, he wasn't practicing what he was preaching. Therefore, Paul rebuked him. It has NOTHING to do with recognizing Peter's authority to teach or his authority over the other apostles or his absence of error when he taught. Can you provide one example from Scripture whereby Peter, or any other Apostle for that matter, taught falsely or bound the universal Church to error?

Anyway...moving on to his comments about Peter in Rome, the Archbishop says:

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter.

We don't claim that Peter founded the Church in Rome in the sense that the Archbishop implies. In other words, we are more than happy to say that when Peter arrived in Rome that the Church was already there and started by others. But what we don't know is just to what degree it was established.

It was established by Christians who settled in Rome.

But of course it was established by other Christians. Who ever said otherwise? It is my own opinion (and that is all that it is) that it was most likely established by Roman-Jewish pilgrims who happened to be in Jerusalem at the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended. Notice in Acts 2 where the Bible states that there were many pilgrims in Jerusalem at the time. It is my belief that many of the 3,000 converts came from all corners of the Roman empire, and when they returned to their homelands THAT is when countless little Christian churches began forming all over the place, each one awaiting the day when an Apostle or another disciple would arrive in their midst for further growth, teaching, establishment, etc...

Perhaps some of the 3,000 came from Rome and started a small Christian community there.

Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church.

Funny, we consider it Paul's Church too. The Church in Rome was "founded" (but not established initially) by both Peter and Paul. We claim both. We don't say it was Peter's Church and not Paul's. This is yet another reason we claim primacy for the Church of Rome. What other Church can claim its foundation to be both Peter and Paul?

He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

Okay.

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there.

Actually he doesn't say anything about what he knows (or doesn't know) about Peter's whereabouts.

Think about it for a moment. Christianity had become an illegal underground organization that was being persecuted by the Jewish authorities (and eventually by the Romans themselves) wherever they happened to hold sway (including the royal court in Rome where many Jews held positions of power or at least had the ears of those in power). This is why many of the Church leaders (including Peter) had to flee Jerusalem in the first place. So why would Paul write in a document the exact location of the leader (i.e., Peter) of the Church? It could have been easily intercepted by enemies of the Church. The Church leaders had to be smart in what they said, which is why there are examples of them calling Rome by the *codeword* of "Babylon". Just because Paul doesn't mention Peter by name doesn't mean that Peter wasn't already there.

On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another.

He doesn't say "no other Apostle" - the Archbishop is reading that into the text. Paul's point is that the Church in Jerusalem was already long established with plenty of prior Apostolic oversight. But the Church in Rome (a GIGANTIC city by the standards of that day) was still in a more primitive state, relatively speaking. So Paul meant to go there and pitch in. After all, even the Archbishop here admits that the Roman Church was started by other previous Christians (read: not Peter, not Paul), right? Therefore Paul wasn't being entirely too literal when he said he didn't want to build upon another man's foundation, was he? If he was being that literal he would not have gone to Rome at all. He would have said that there was no need to go to Rome since a Church already existed there (if it did not already exist, then to whom was the Epistle to the Romans written in the first place?). So it is more than obvious that Paul was not being literalistic when he said he did not want to build on the foundation of another man.

It wouldn't be the first time in Church history that more than one Apostle worked in the same city to lead the local city-Church (insert here both Jerusalem and Antioch).

Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome.

No - it isn't even implied much less explicitly so.

Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.

Okay - so then Peter was in Rome after all. So then what is all this about anyway? Is this a semantical argument about whether or not Peter "established" or "founded" the Church in Rome? If so, then the Archbishop needs to define his terms so we can know how Peter cannot be said to be connected to the Church in Rome.

The good Archbishop (and I mean this sincerely - I don't doubt if he is sincere or if he is a good man), doesn't mention any of the other ECF testimony about Peter's presence in Rome.

Additionally, I will point out that the "Big 3" Patriarchates in the Early Church ALL had Petrine connections: Alexandria (founded by Peter's direct disciple, Mark), Antioch (founded by its first Bishop, Peter), and Rome (who was martyred there, among other things).

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

I have yet to find any quotes from these so called historians.

And therefore the quotes don't exist? Or, perhaps you are not looking in the right places? I don't know what access you have to Patristical writings - the internet does not have everything (although it does have a lot).

Theodore the Lector's works are more or less all lost, we only know of him through mention in other writers' works, I haven't found any evidence that John Skolastikas was even a real person (his name is certainly odd), and Dionysius Exiguus (a Scythian monk living in Rome) didn't even live until 550 AD... I did however find the quote mine that Trento quoted from Council of Chalcedon and the Papacy -- Apolonio's Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality which again, doesn't give any references...

Doesn't give any references??? Every quote is referenced. Both Apolonio (who left this week for Seminary, he will be a priest in seven years God Willing) and the author of that article, Mark Bonocore, happen to be very close friends of mine. I will ask Mark as to where he found those quotes and - even better - where someone like you can find them. Knowing Mark as I do, I very much doubt he pulled them out of thin air.

Now, lets look at the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. In the final extrait from the Acts they actually debate whether or not Canon 28 should be upheld, the Roman legates oppose it and claim their church has jurisdiction over all, yet the council approves Canon 28 anyway, despite these strong objections: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Of course they debated it and of course the Roman Legates objected to it...and what you are ignoring...of course the Bishop of Constantiple EXPLICITLY stated that its confirmation was entirely dependent on Leo's blessing (which he, of course, refused to give). Why don't you comment on that? It doesn't matter what the Council approved if it isn't eventually ratified. And the Council and the Bishop of Constantinople said as much.

Furthermore Canon 36 of the Council of Trullo confirms Canon 28 of Chalcedon NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library:

So what? Did the Pope ratify its canons? No. The West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council - most of which were merely reaffirmations of previous canons. It was attended by 215 Bishops - all from the East.

Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards Churches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches.

From the Catholic Encylopedia (emphasis mine):

The Eastern Orthodox churches holds this council an ecumenical one, and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, "Conciliengesch." (III, 345-48).

I have to agree with the observation of Dr. Fortescue, although I hope nobody is offended by this.

And here's an interesting history on Patriarchal Power and Jurisdiction covering 311-600 AD: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Again, it notes Rome's objections, and the fact that those objections were never heeded, demonstrating that Rome's power was grossly overstated...

No - it only demonstrates that some people objected to Rome's authority. There is nothing new to that. And it is simply a gross overstatement to claim that Rome's authority was "never heeded" in the East. It was - and often.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Mikeb85]

And therefore the quotes don't exist? Or, perhaps you are not looking in the right places? I don't know what access you have to Patristical writings - the internet does not have everything (although it does have a lot).

If you could provide some of your sources to the original documents that would be great. As I said though, I couldn't even find evidence that one of those Greek 'Historians' was even a real person, and another died before the date mentioned for his supposed writings.

Doesn't give any references??? Every quote is referenced. Both Apolonio (who left this week for Seminary, he will be a priest in seven years God Willing) and the author of that article, Mark Bonocore, happen to be very close friends of mine. I will ask Mark as to where he found those quotes and - even better - where someone like you can find them. Knowing Mark as I do, I very much doubt he pulled them out of thin air.

Some of the quotes are referenced, but the ones by the persons I mentioned in my last post weren't.

Of course they debated it and of course the Roman Legates objected to it...and what you are ignoring...of course the Bishop of Constantiple EXPLICITLY stated that its confirmation was entirely dependent on Leo's blessing (which he, of course, refused to give). Why don't you comment on that? It doesn't matter what the Council approved if it isn't eventually ratified. And the Council and the Bishop of Constantinople said as much.

Regarding the Patriarch's letter to the Pope, again, I've never seen non-Catholic reference to it, but if it is authentic, a personal letter still doesn't carry the weight of an Ecumenical Council (in fact it really doesn't carry any weight). The Council of Chalcedon approved the Canons, noted the Roman legates' objections, and subsequent councils also recognized Canon 28 (despite Rome's objections).

So what? Did the Pope ratify its canons? No. The West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council - most of which were merely reaffirmations of previous canons. It was attended by 215 Bishops - all from the East.

This IS the point. The lack of Papal approval didn't seem to bother anyone, they still accepted the canons. In fact, the lack of Papal presence at many of the Councils (including Ecumenical Councils) didn't matter much either. Look into a history book - this claimed Papal Supremacy was never a reality - just a claim Rome made that the East never accepted.

Again - you can claim all you want that the Pope 'needed' to ratify the Canons, but the acts of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, noting Rome's objections, still passed the canons. They at Chalcedon, and later at other councils didn't seem to care about Rome's objections, and they still regarded the Canons as authentic.

No - it only demonstrates that some people objected to Rome's authority. There is nothing new to that. And it is simply a gross overstatement to claim that Rome's authority was "never heeded" in the East. It was - and often.

Again, where is the proof? The RCC makes these claims, where is the actual, substanciated proof? What action did Rome take that asserts this Papal Supremacy?

 

[Trento]

Again, where is the proof? The RCC makes these claims, where is the actual, substanciated proof? What action did Rome take that asserts this Papal Supremacy?

Here are some of interesting quotes from these Acts and from related documents which can be found here. I have made liberal use of boldface and underlining to emphasize what I think are the most significant words and phrases, at least with respect to how the Pope was viewed in those times.

[SIZE=+3]Council of Chalcedon, 451[/SIZE]


EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION I.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said[/FONT]: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said[/FONT]: ... And he [Dioscorus] dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See said[/FONT]: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope" for "bishop" in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said[/FONT]: Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See and the tradition of the fathers it is just that the sentence by which he was condemned by the heretics should be turned back upon them by this most holy synod.


EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II. (continued).
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus the bishop of Lilybaeum, in the province of Silicia, and holding the place of the most holy Leo, archbishop of the Apostolic see of old Rome, said in Latin what being interpreted is as follows[/FONT]: It is well known to this beloved of God synod, that divine letters were sent to the blessed and apostolic pope Leo, inviting him to deign to be present at the holy synod. But since ancient custom did not sanction this, nor the general necessity of the time seemed to permit it, he commanded our littleness to preside in his place over this holy council, and therefore it is necessary that whatever things are brought into discussion should be examined by our interference (dialaliaV). Therefore let the book presented by our most beloved-of-God brother, and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received, and read by the beloved of God archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, Aetius.




EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION III.
[Next follows the petition of Eusebius et post nonnulla four petitions each addressed to "The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo, and to the holy and ecumenical Synod assembled at Chalcedon, etc., etc. ;" ...the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following:]
Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.




EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION IV.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, and Boniface the most reverend presbyter, legates of the Apostolic See through that most reverend man, bishop Paschasinus said[/FONT]: ... And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, [Pope] Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shew what the true faith is.




EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION IV.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus and Lucentius the most reverend bishops and Boniface a presbyter, vicars of the Apostolic See of Rome, said[/FONT]: If they do not agree to the letter of that apostolic and blessed man, Pope Leo, give directions that we be given our letters of dismission, and let a synod be held there [i. e. in the West].
...
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The most blessed bishops of Illyria said[/FONT]: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

.........Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches,.............

I find this interesting. Why use the plural word "churches" instead of the singular Church? Just curious

Acts 13:46 Being bold yet the Paul and the Barnabas said "to ye it was necessary first to be spoken the Word of the God. Since ye are thrusting away it/him and not worthy judging yeselves of the age-abiding life Behold! we are turning into the Nations".

 

[Rick Otto]

.
Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:

(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18)

It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, “Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church,” but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

(b) It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, “ . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.

(d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire, nothing more. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

The Schism of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox - Church History





Comments?



Pax!


- Josiah





.

Everything looks in order in that scripturaly educated opinion, but my comment is to question, "Precedence of or in what?"
And, "First of or in what?"

 

[Rick Otto]

This part is so illogical and demonstrates an unawareness of the multitude of contemporary testimonies that Peter founded and spent much time at the Church in Rome (with or without Paul, take your pick) that the author merits little or no right to be taken seriously.

"But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. "
Citation needed for this assertion.

Ignatius of Antioch "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Doesn't address location.

Dionysius of Corinth "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Doesn't establish Peter over Paul. Maybe there is supposed to be TWO Popes!
Irenaeus: The qoutes used here put Peter & Paul on equal footing as well.
Gaius: establishes location @ time of death only.
Clement of Alexandria: location only.
Tertullian: location & Clement's ordination only.
Eusebius: location & bishopric only.
Peter of Alexandria: location at death only.
Lactantius: location only.
Cyril of Jerusalem : location only.
Opiatus: location only.
Epiphanius of Salami: location only
Eusibius of Ceasaria: 300 yrs later, finaly someone explicitly asserts Peter established the Church ar Rome, but offers no substantiation.
Peter of Alexandria: location @ death only.

All are inadequate. None are scripture.

 

[Mikeb85]

Here are some of interesting quotes from these Acts and from related documents which can be found here. I have made liberal use of boldface and underlining to emphasize what I think are the most significant words and phrases, at least with respect to how the Pope was viewed in those times.

Yes, I've read all the texts of the Council of Chalcedon. And yes, the Pope of Rome indeed did have a high place, as did the Ecumenical Patriarch (in later times), and the Pope of Alexandria (remember, it was St. Cyril of Alexandria who presided over the 3rd Ecumenical Council).

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION I.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said[/FONT]: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.

Keep in mind that this is not the quote or opinion of the council, but of the Bishop sent to represent Rome. Furthermore, he says that the instruction 'we must carry out' (as in those sent from Rome), or else 'we leave' (the Roman legates). The acts are recording the words of the Roman Bishop addressing the council, what he says is Rome's opinion, not anything that binds the church as a whole. Furthermore, the fact that he's threatening to withdraw from the council shows that Rome's authority is far from final...

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said[/FONT]: ... And he [Dioscorus] dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See said[/FONT]: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope" for "bishop" in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said[/FONT]: Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See and the tradition of the fathers it is just that the sentence by which he was condemned by the heretics should be turned back upon them by this most holy synod.

Again, more quotes from the Roman legates, not necessarily the opinion of the council as a whole (but recorded in the Acts of the council).

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II. (continued).
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus the bishop of Lilybaeum, in the province of Silicia, and holding the place of the most holy Leo, archbishop of the Apostolic see of old Rome, said in Latin what being interpreted is as follows[/FONT]: It is well known to this beloved of God synod, that divine letters were sent to the blessed and apostolic pope Leo, inviting him to deign to be present at the holy synod. But since ancient custom did not sanction this, nor the general necessity of the time seemed to permit it, he commanded our littleness to preside in his place over this holy council, and therefore it is necessary that whatever things are brought into discussion should be examined by our interference (dialaliaV). Therefore let the book presented by our most beloved-of-God brother, and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received, and read by the beloved of God archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, Aetius.

Again, the Roman bishop addressing the council, not necessarily the opinion of the council as a whole. And yes, in this particular council he's explaining that they (the legates) are presiding in Pope Leo's place. But again, in previous councils Bishops from outside Rome had also presided, this isn't anything particularly noteworthy.

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION III.
[Next follows the petition of Eusebius et post nonnulla four petitions each addressed to "The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo, and to the holy and ecumenical Synod assembled at Chalcedon, etc., etc. ;" ...the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following:]
Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

Again, the Roman legates addressing the council, showing that Pope Leo and they acted through the Synod, demonstrating that it's still the council's authority... You also missed the Part where it explains that the Bishops of the council chose to agree or disagree with this statement, and that it's the council that sent Dioscorus his condemnation.

"The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.
We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come."

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION IV.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, and Boniface the most reverend presbyter, legates of the Apostolic See through that most reverend man, bishop Paschasinus said[/FONT]: ... And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, [Pope] Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shew what the true faith is.

Yes, Pope Leo's tome was a text of authority and Orthodoxy. Much as Cyril of Alexandria's definition was used to combat the Nestorian heresy. It shows that Pope Leo was an authoritative figure, but again, previous precedents show that Rome was not necessarily unique in this aspect, but they were of great authority regardless.

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION IV.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Paschasinus and Lucentius the most reverend bishops and Boniface a presbyter, vicars of the Apostolic See of Rome, said[/FONT]: If they do not agree to the letter of that apostolic and blessed man, Pope Leo, give directions that we be given our letters of dismission, and let a synod be held there [i. e. in the West].
...
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The most blessed bishops of Illyria said[/FONT]: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.

This is actually from session V of the council, not IV. But anyhow, again, the Roman Legates were presenting their case to the council, it was still the council's perogative whether to agree or disagree with what the Roman legates presented. In this case they agreed, as what Rome proposed indeed was Orthodox. The quote 'let them go to Rome' again has significance, Pope Leo was a great authority, but this still doesn't show a universal jurisdiction, but a powerful authority. Much the same as the Ecumenical Patriarch or Patriarch of Moscow are regarded by our church today (for instance, when a dispute came up over the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 2005, a Synod presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch decided whether or not to recognize the actions of the Jerusalem Church concerning their election of a new Patriarch).

Again, you showed quotes from the Roman Legates addressing the council, not necessarily the council's actual opinion (although at the time, Rome was Orthodox, and in this particular council, the synod agreed with Pope Leo's definition of Christology). The extraits from the acts are a recording of the proceedings, not the binding aspect of the council. The decisions of the council are recorded in the Canons, the Acts by themselves are not necessarily binding in any way, but they do give insight into how the council progressed.

You still have shown nothing that indicates a 'supremacy' of the Roman Church. Yes, the Roman Legates presided over the council, much as Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria did over the council of Ephesus...

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-




He doesn't say "no other Apostle" - the Archbishop is reading that into the text. Paul's point is that the Church in Jerusalem was already long established with plenty of prior Apostolic oversight. But the Church in Rome (a GIGANTIC city by the standards of that day) was still in a more primitive state, relatively speaking. So Paul meant to go there and pitch in. After all, even the Archbishop here admits that the Roman Church was started by other previous Christians (read: not Peter, not Paul), right? Therefore Paul wasn't being entirely too literal when he said he didn't want to build upon another man's foundation, was he? If he was being that literal he would not have gone to Rome at all. He would have said that there was no need to go to Rome since a Church already existed there (if it did not already exist, then to whom was the Epistle to the Romans written in the first place?). So it is more than obvious that Paul was not being literalistic when he said he did not want to build on the foundation of another man.

It wouldn't be the first time in Church history that more than one Apostle worked in the same city to lead the local city-Church (insert here both Jerusalem and Antioch).



No - it isn't even implied much less explicitly so.

From someon else:
"Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul."

Okay - so then Peter was in Rome after all. So then what is all this about anyway? Is this a semantical argument about whether or not Peter "established" or "founded" the Church in Rome? If so, then the Archbishop needs to define his terms so we can know how Peter cannot be said to be connected to the Church in Rome.

The good Archbishop (and I mean this sincerely - I don't doubt if he is sincere or if he is a good man), doesn't mention any of the other ECF testimony about Peter's presence in Rome.

Additionally, I will point out that the "Big 3" Patriarchates in the Early Church ALL had Petrine connections: Alexandria (founded by Peter's direct disciple, Mark), Antioch (founded by its first Bishop, Peter), and Rome (who was martyred there, among other things).

God's Peace,

NewMan

Interesting. This would explain why some historians assert that Linus and Peter ruled simultaneously. Linus first ruled, perhaps as a result of those returning from Jerusalem as you say, and then later Peter arrives in "Babylon". Peter was crucified and Linus continued.

Interesting, sometimes if we grant certain assertions, rather than argue about them, what actually happened some 1900 years ago becomes much clearer.

 

[Trento]

Yes, You still have shown nothing that indicates a 'supremacy' of the Roman Church. Yes, the Roman Legates presided over the council, much as Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria did over the council of Ephesus...[/quote]



Council of Ephesus, 431



EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said[/FONT]: We bless the holy and adorable Trinity that our lowliness has been deemed worthy to attend your holy Synod. For a long time ago (palai) our most holy and blessed pope Coelestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, through his letters to that holy and most pious man Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, gave judgment concerning the present cause and affair (wrisen) which letters have been shown to your holy assembly. And now again for the corroboration of the Catholic (kaqolikhV) faith, he has sent through us letters to all your holinesses, which you will bid (pelousate) to be read with becoming reverence (prepontwV) and to be entered on the ecclesiastical minutes.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Arcadius, a bishop and legate of the Roman Church said[/FONT]: May it please your blessedness to give order that the letters of the holy and ever-to-be-mentioned-with-veneration Pope Coelestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, which have been brought by us, be read, from which your reverence will be able to see what care he has for all the Churches.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said[/FONT]: Let the letter received from the most holy and altogether most blessed Coelestine, bishop of the Apostolic See of Rome be read to the holy Synod with fitting honour.


THE LETTER OF POPE COELESTINE TO THE SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
... Out of our solicitude, we have sent our holy brethren and fellow priests, who are at one with us and are most approved men, Arcadius, and Projectus, the bishops, and our presbyter, Philip, that they may be present at what is done and may carry out what things have been already decreed by us (quae a nobis antea statuta sunt, exequatur).
To the performing of which we have no doubt that your holiness will assent when it is seen that what has been decreed is for the security of the whole church.


EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION II.
[immediately following the above-cited letter of the Pope to the Synod of Ephesus]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out[/FONT]: This is a just judgment. To Coelestine, a new Paul! To Cyril a new Paul! To Coelestine the guardian of the faith! To Coelestine of one mind with the synod! To Coelestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Coelestine! One Cyril! One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Projectus, the most reverend bishop and legate, said[/FONT]: Let your holiness consider the form (tupon) of the writings of the holy and venerable pope Coelestine, the bishop, who has exhorted your holiness (not as if teaching the ignorant, but as reminding them that know) that those things which he had long ago defined, and now thought it right to remind you of, ye might give command to be carried out to the uttermost, according to the canon of the common faith, and according to the use of the Catholic Church.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said[/FONT]: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said[/FONT]: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (exarkoV) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (qemelioV) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Projectus, bishop and legate of the Roman Church said[/FONT]: . . . Moreover I also, by my authority as legate of the holy Apostolic See, define, being with my brethren an executor (ekbibasthV) of the aforesaid sentence, that the beforenamed Nestorius is an enemy of the truth, a corrupter of the faith, and as guilty of the things of which he was accused, has been removed from the grade of Episcopal honour, and moreover from the communion of all orthodox priests.




THE LETTER OF THE SYNOD TO POPE CELESTINE.
...The zeal of your holiness for piety, and your care for the right faith, so grateful and highly pleasing to God the Saviour of us all, are worthy of all admiration. For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own care. But since it is right that all things which have taken place should be brought to the knowledge of your holiness, we are writing of necessity [to inform you] that, by the will of Christ the Saviour of us all, and in accordance with the orders of the most pious and Christ-loving Emperors, we assembled together in the Metropolis of the Ephesians from many and far scattered regions, being in all over two hundred bishops.
With our brethren and fellow-ministers, both Cyril the bishop and Memnon, who had endured reproval at their hands, we are all in communion, and after the rashness [of their accusers] we both have and do perform the liturgy in common, all together celebrating the Synaxis, having made of none effect their play in writing, and having thus shewn that it lacked all validity and effect. For it was mere reviling and nothing else. For what kind of a synod could thirty men hold, some of whom were marked with the stamp of heresy, and some without sees and ejected [from their dioceses]? Or what strength could it have in opposition to a synod gathered from all the whole world? For there were sitting with us the most reverend bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and with them the most holy presbyter Philip, all of whom were sent by your holiness, who gave to us your presence and filled the place of the Apostolic See (thV apostolikhV kaqedraV).and Christ-loving Emperors, we assembled together in the Metropolis of the Ephesians from many and far scattered regions, being in all over two hundred bishops.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince(exarkoV) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation

Where does it show in the Bible Peter being "prince" and head of the Apostles