Scio cui credidi, et certus sum, quia potens est depositum meum servare in illum diem, iustus iudex (Ps 138). Domine, probasti me, et cognovisti me: tu cognovisti sessionem meum, et resurrectionem meam. Gloria Patri.
I know whom I have believed, and I am certain, that he is able to look after my trust into that day, the just judge (Ps 138). O Lord, you have tested me, and known me; you have known my sitting down and my resurrection. Glory be to the Father.
This is the Introit for today's Feast. I cheated somewhat with my translation because I couldn't make sense of ''sessionem'' so I looked that part up in my layman's Missal (the rest of the text I copied from my 1862 Priest's travelling Missal).
I remember talking to an Orthodox about St Paul's mission to the Gentiles some years ago; and he (to my amazement) said that this was proof enough that St Peter never established his See in Rome, since he was the Apostle to the Jews. What do readers think of this? Until then, I had taken it for granted that the Orthodox believed in the apostolicity of the See of Rome. At any rate, such a heretical opinion clearly goes against the faith of the Greek Fathers. Eusebius, the father of Church History, writes of ''the first succession of the Apostles,'' and says: ''Linus received the Bishopric of the Roman Church first after Peter.'' (Ecclesiastical History, III, 4).
The Apostles themselves, being Apostles were not Bishops but ordained Bishops unless i am mistaken.Which may explain the ancient title of "Vicar of Saint Peter". And Peter and Paul were conjointly venerated by all christian faithful and pilgrims who flocked to Rome on high feasts and jubilees. Primacy but not supremacy- primacy is about auctoritas while supremacy reeks of claims to civil imperium and potestas.Obvious difference between Primus and superannus. The first is a principle of unity while the second of dissent, schism, envy and all sorts of passions. The Church at Rome was certainly the gem of the Whole Church, as testified by Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Romans- one of his most moving and beautiful. Things considerably changed after the 7th-8th century when increasingly the Papal throne become the object of certain influential families'(Crescentini and Tusculani) envy. And the scandalous episodes of "Popes" Sergius III and his papal progeny, so to speak, by the infamous whore Marozia. + the interference of the German rulers and emperors. There is a very interesting book on Holy Roman German Empire in French in which the relations between the popes and the emperos are laid out. These were difficuly periods where the concern of the popes were far from being purely spiritual, pastoral and disciplinary. Benedict IX,the mixed legacy of Hildebrand, Boniface VIII, Alexander VI, Clement VII etc. Culminating in 1870 as the cannons of the Italian king bombarded Rome an old white-robed Bishop asked what is for me the most abject submission from those whom he called "Venerable Brothers".Synodus Horrenda, Constance, Vatican I. Choice? The meat between the sandwich...
ReplyDeleteBut, in spite of all this,
Deus, qui universum mundum beati Pauli apostoli praedicatione docuisti: da nobis, quaesumus; ut, qui ejus hodie conversionem colimus, per ejus ad te exempla gradiamur...
or that of the Vigil of the Feast of Peter and Paul:
Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus: ut nullis nos permittas perturbationibus concuti; quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti.
O Roma felix, quae duorum Principum
Es consecrata glorioso sanguine, etc.
New reader here. Salve, Patrici!
ReplyDeleteI remember talking to an Orthodox about St Paul's mission to the Gentiles some years ago; and he (to my amazement) said that this was proof enough that St Peter never established his See in Rome, since he was the Apostle to the Jews.
This, to be no unkinder than necessary, is an utter non sequitur. One might as well take Jefferson’s authorship of the Declaration of Independence as ‘proof enough’ that Washington was never President of the United States.
Hi Tom, thanks for your comment. I hope you enjoy future posts. Naturally, what that Orthodox man said was a Protestant attitude, but this is not the first time in their long history that they have been affected by the Protestant heresy - even to reject the Papacy is markedly Protestant in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteFGSA, you know so much - how did you discover this small and uninteresting blog?
Well i do personnally like the writings of Tolkien, the Silmarillon and the Children of Hurin in particular. Forgive me if by giving my opinion i have also given offence. Was Bossuet a Protestant? Then, nearly all kings of France were protestants, while Henry VIII was Fidei Defensor? And a good many English Kings as well. And many Emperors- bad prods who prodded about...Let's not speak of Marsilius of Padua and Dante. The Papacy has limits. None of them rejected it. They rejected the interference of a foreign ruler of a tract of Italy within their domains as sovereign lords. I agree much with your comment at http://singulare-ingenium.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-bit-for-this-octave.html#comments. However, the First Vatican Council ruled out Gallicanism. Look at the work of the 17th cent.Such a revival, not only as understood wrt Counter-Reformation, but the Patristic revival in France. The Jansenists were of course mistaken but they had the merit of bringing back the Fathers of the Church to the fore. I am always looking to the moderate Gallicanism of Jean de Gerson at the Council of Constance( i dont take in the theory of "temporary expedients wrt to this position and indeed this council as such) and that of Bossuet. Yes the edition at the Council of Trent is much to be regretted and the vanishment of local uses as well. But you have Quo Primum that ties your hands.
ReplyDeleteI suppose i'm a schismatic rejecting as I do the 1st Vatican Council. But i am ready to assume it. For me( and, before me, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzen, and Ignatius of Antioch, and Hilary of Poitier, and Augustine of Hippone, and etc) the Pope is not central to Church, being an important Steward, an overblown Denethor, while Christ is, whose Presence, in His True Body and His Blood, in His Humanity and Divinity, is actualised in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. Moderation, to paraphrase Kant,- the Pope is necessary, but not universal, or vice versa,- no only kidding :). Sorry again- but you can still delete my comments. Maybe we'll meet in the Hall of Mandos- or perhaps you'll go straightaway to Taniquetil or even to the "bosom" of Eru.