What did Jesus mean when He told Peter he was the rock he would build his church upon?

[prodromos]

unambiguously, Corinthians appealed to Clement of Rome who wrote them letters in the first century

It is pretty obvious that the Corinthians appealed to Rome because of their connection to Paul and because they were themselves a Roman colony. There is no suggestion that they appealed to Rome because of any supposed Petrine primacy

 

[prodromos]

How else do you interpret this? These words of St Cyprian

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”

I suggest you read all of St Cyprian's communications so you can read the above statement in context. Catholic quote mines are just as much an abuse as the Scriptural proof texting that passes for theological discourse on these forums.

"Text without context is pretext"

 

[Erik Nelson]

It is pretty obvious that the Corinthians appealed to Rome because of their connection to Paul and because they were themselves a Roman colony. There is no suggestion that they appealed to Rome because of any supposed Petrine primacy

St Cyprian confirms that that was the usual practice in the early church. From the first to the third and fourth centuries AD many people appealed to Rome. For adjudication.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I suggest you read all of St Cyprian's communications so you can read the above statement in context. Catholic quote mines are just as much an abuse as the Scriptural proof texting that passes for theological discourse on these forums.

"Text without context is pretext"

I did some homework already. How about you would you?

please provide the context you suggest I should find?

 

[prodromos]

I did some homework already.

Your use of Catholic quote mines does not reflect such a claim.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Your use of Catholic quote mines does not reflect such a claim.

I hunted around and read through a 60 page PDF.

Your turn?

Haven't I cited more apostolic and early church fathers, then you so far? Please feel free to contribute as well.

 

[Athanasius377]

How else do you interpret this? These words of St Cyprian

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”

That's a really sloppy translation and even uses anachronistic language. Let's put it back in to context:

To these also it was not sufficient that they had withdrawn from the Gospel, that they had taken away from the lapsed the hope of satisfaction and repentance, that they had taken away those involved in frauds or stained with adulteries, or polluted with the deadly contagion of sacrifices, lest they should entreat God, or make confession of their crimes in the Church, from all feeling and fruit of repentance; that they had set up outside for themselves—outside the Church, and opposed to the Church, a conventicle of their abandoned faction, when there had flowed together a band of creatures with evil consciences, and unwilling to entreat and to satisfy God. After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source;4 and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. But what was the reason of their coming and announcing the making of the pseudo-bishop in opposition to the bishops? For either they are pleased with what they have done, and persist in their wickedness; or, if they are displeased and retreat, they know whither they may return. For, as it has been decreed by all of us6—and is equally fair and just—that the case of every one should be heard there where the crime has been committed; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account of his doing to the Lord; it certainly behoves those over whom we are placed not to run about nor to break up the harmonious agreement of the bishops with their crafty and deceitful rashness, but there to plead their cause, where they may be able to have both accusers and witnesses of their crime; unless perchance the authority of the bishops constituted in Africa seems to a few desperate and abandoned men to be too little, who have already judged concerning them, and have lately condemned, by the gravity of their judgment, their conscience bound in many bonds of sins. Already their case has been examined, already sentence concerning them has been pronounced; nor is it fitting for the dignity of priests to be blamed for the levity of a changeable and inconstant mind, when the Lord teaches and says, “Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay".

Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 344). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

This text gets mangled and miss cited everytime I see it. Also, if you want to look it up for yourself it is Epistle 54:14. The Throne of Peter according to Cyprian was occupied by any true bishop not just the bishop of Rome. Now that we have established the context I see that it is quite easy for the reader to interpret. It is further illumined by XIII in the Elucidations from the same volume.

 

[tz620q]

That scenario is NOW...after 1054 AD...it was different THEN, when Rome was part of the Church. Papal authority is no different now than then...it was always limited to your own Patriarchate...ROME.

That is the point I was trying to make. The two groups split and there is too much pride to allow a council to be held. So to use the analogy of a marriage, we separated and instead of trying to work things out, just filed for a quick divorce. That led to bitterness that will keep us apart. So there is no hope for a council because one side or the other will feel shorted. That means that to say a council will lead to unity is presenting a scenario that it not a feasible solution. I have been trying to think through this process lately and determine how to break this stalemate. That process has only led to bitterness; because it has shown me the lack of humility and the lack of motivation for the two sides to even attempt it.

 

[tz620q]

Same way it worked in the past, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

I totally agree; but the Holy Spirit works through us and our leaders. The only thing the Holy Spirit can do is soften our hearts and humble our egos. After that it is up to the people to desire and work for unity.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

why do you dislike Rome so much?

it has nothing to do with like or dislike

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That is the point I was trying to make. The two groups split and there is too much pride to allow a council to be held. So to use the analogy of a marriage, we separated and instead of trying to work things out, just filed for a quick divorce. That led to bitterness that will keep us apart. So there is no hope for a council because one side or the other will feel shorted. That means that to say a council will lead to unity is presenting a scenario that it not a feasible solution. I have been trying to think through this process lately and determine how to break this stalemate. That process has only led to bitterness; because it has shown me the lack of humility and the lack of motivation for the two sides to even attempt it.

There are a ton of things Rome would need to do to be able to be part of a Church Council again...and Rome would never do it

 

[tz620q]

There are a ton of things Rome would need to do to be able to be part of a Church Council again...and Rome would never do it

It reminds me of a joke about an elderly couple. They are driving along and the woman says to her husband who is driving, "We used to sit so close together in the car when we were dating. What happened?" The husband says, "I never moved." But jokes aside the type of chest pounding attitude that I see in most Orthodox makes me doubt that they would ever consent to a council, no matter what Rome does.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It reminds me of a joke about an elderly couple. They are driving along and the woman says to her husband who is driving, "We used to sit so close together in the car when we were dating. What happened?" The husband says, "I never moved." But jokes aside the type of chest pounding attitude that I see in most Orthodox makes me doubt that they would ever consent to a council, no matter what Rome does.

Chest pounding? Why would we have a Council with Rome as it is now...? We can't.

 

[tz620q]

Chest pounding? Why would we have a Council with Rome as it is now...? We can't.

The same reason that Arius was invited to Nicea.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The same reason that Arius was invited to Nicea.

That is a bit different, don't ya think?

 

[Erik Nelson]

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source;4 and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. But what was the reason of their coming and announcing the making of the pseudo-bishop in opposition to the bishops? For either they are pleased with what they have done, and persist in their wickedness; or, if they are displeased and retreat, they know whither they may return. For, as it has been decreed by all of us6—and is equally fair and just—that the case of every one should be heard there where the crime has been committed; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account of his doing to the Lord; it certainly behoves those over whom we are placed not to run about nor to break up the harmonious agreement of the bishops with their crafty and deceitful rashness, but there to plead their cause, where they may be able to have both accusers and witnesses of their crime; unless perchance the authority of the bishops constituted in Africa seems to a few desperate and abandoned men to be too little, who have already judged concerning them, and have lately condemned, by the gravity of their judgment, their conscience bound in many bonds of sins. Already their case has been examined, already sentence concerning them has been pronounced; nor is it fitting for the dignity of priests to be blamed for the levity of a changeable and inconstant mind, when the Lord teaches and says, “Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay".

Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 344). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

This text gets mangled and miss cited everytime I see it. Also, if you want to look it up for yourself it is Epistle 54:14. The Throne of Peter according to Cyprian was occupied by any true bishop not just the bishop of Rome. Now that we have established the context I see that it is quite easy for the reader to interpret. It is further illumined by XIII in the Elucidations from the same volume.

That text clearly states that the Romans are the chief church. And that others come to them to confirm the consecration of their bishops.

the underlined passage supports both Petrine and roman primacy.

 

[Erik Nelson]

it has nothing to do with like or dislike

Sure seems otherwise. Do you agree, with the Orthodox Study Bible, that Babylon, the harlot in Revelation represents Rome?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Sure seems otherwise. Do you agree, with the Orthodox Study Bible, that Babylon, the harlot in Revelation represents Rome?

Rome as the empire at the time or Rome as the RCC...??

 

[Erik Nelson]

Rome as the empire at the time or Rome as the RCC...??

either one?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

either one?

Rome as the empire fits all the descriptions. There were Roman coins minted in 70 AD that had a woman sitting on 7 hills, which John would have definitely seen. 1 Peter 5:13 implies Rome, yes?