The Papacy, How did it really come about?

[Ormly]

Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded as the first real Pope. Keeping this in mind when reading the below account, it is important to note the dates it given that some distinctions might be made.


Pseudo.lsidorian Decretals Help Papacy

NICOLAS, I, 858-67, greatest Pope between Gregory I and GregoryVII. First Pope to wear a Crown, To promote his claim of universal authority he used with great effect the “PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN-DECRETALS,” a book that appeared about 857, containing documents that purported to be letters and decrees of bishops and councils of the 2nd end 3rd centuries, all tending to exalt the power of the Pope. They were deliberate forgeries and corruptions of ancient historical documents, but their spurious character was not discovered till some centuries later. Whether Nicolas knew them to be forgeries, at least he lied in stating that they had been kept in the archives of the Roman Church from ancient times. But they served their purpose in “stamping the claims of the medieval priesthood with the authority of antiquity.” “The Papacy, which was the growth of several centuries, was made to appear as something complete and unchangeable from the very beginning.” They included the “Donation of Constantine,” which represented him as giving the Roman Bishop the Western Provinces with all the imperial insignia. “The objective was to ante-date by 5 centuries the Pope’s Temporal Power, which in fact rested on the donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.” The most colossal literary fraud in history.” ” It strengthened the Papacy more than any other one agency, and forms to large extent the basis of the canon law of the Roman Church.”


http://www.studybibleforum.com/spages/Zacharias.htm

 

[Trento]

Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded as the first real Pope. Keeping this in mind when reading the below account, it is important to note the dates it given that some distinctions might be made.


Pseudo.lsidorian Decretals Help Papacy

NICOLAS, I, 858-67, greatest Pope between Gregory I and GregoryVII. First Pope to wear a Crown, To promote his claim of universal authority he used with great effect the “PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN-DECRETALS,” a book that appeared about 857, containing documents that purported to be letters and decrees of bishops and councils of the 2nd end 3rd centuries, all tending to exalt the power of the Pope. They were deliberate forgeries and corruptions of ancient historical documents, but their spurious character was not discovered till some centuries later. Whether Nicolas knew them to be forgeries, at least he lied in stating that they had been kept in the archives of the Roman Church from ancient times. But they served their purpose in “stamping the claims of the medieval priesthood with the authority of antiquity.” “The Papacy, which was the growth of several centuries, was made to appear as something complete and unchangeable from the very beginning.” They included the “Donation of Constantine,” which represented him as giving the Roman Bishop the Western Provinces with all the imperial insignia. “The objective was to ante-date by 5 centuries the Pope’s Temporal Power, which in fact rested on the donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.” The most colossal literary fraud in history.” ” It strengthened the Papacy more than any other one agency, and forms to large extent the basis of the canon law of the Roman Church.”

Hmmmm. So according to this historian, the change took place in the mid-Ninth Century. Why, then, in the mid-Seventh Century, did St. Maximus the Confessor, one of the greatest Eastern Saints in history, speak of the Church of Rome in such terms:

"Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him." (Letter to Peter, Governor of Syria and Palestine)



J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, writes to the contrary in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :

"According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments....but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]....It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)​

In further support of the above statement from J.N.D. Kelly, the following shall be sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that
(1) the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church;
(2) the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine shall we discuss the history of the Pelagian heresy) and was indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;
(3) St. Augustine's "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" is indeed an accurate summary of his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);
(4) Further, shall we discuss the role of the African bishops, and Popes Innocent I and Zosimus (the latter is used as an instance of "papal fallibility") during the Pelagian controversy.

Jesus gives the keys to Peter alone. If Jesus really gives Peter alone the keys, then it looks like Peter has special authority that the other apostles do not have.What "role" did Christ give "individually" to Peter? Well, in Matthew 16:17-19, Christ individually imparts to Peter the office of "Rock," "Key-bearer," and the authority to "bind and loosen." Also, in Luke 22:31-32, the Lord individually imparts to Peter the task of strengthening his brethren (i.e. the other Apostles). Also, in John 21:15-19, the Lord makes Peter a shepherd, telling him three times to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep."​

Peter unlocks the door to the Gentiles because he is the one with the keys. Unlocking the door to the Gentiles is a divine act that only Jesus can do, and yet Peter performs the act. Why? Because Jesus delegated divine authority to Peter, and Peter acts in Jesus’ name. Also, note that the authority to “bind and loose” is not limited to “unlocking the door to the Gentiles.” It also refers to declaring dogmatic and disciplinary decrees as well as forgiving and retaining sin (which is set forth in the passage John 20:21-23).

The Greek uses the passive voice which indicates that heaven is receiving the binding and loosing from Peter. This is an incredible statement that Jesus makes. Heaven will ratify Peter’s binding and loosing decisions. But in order for this to be true, Peter must be prevented from teaching error, for God cannot lie. Thus, God must penetrate the mind of Peter (just as He did when Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah) and prevent him from teaching error. Otherwise, Jesus could not make such a sweeping promise. All this supports the Catholic understanding of the papacy.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded as the first real Pope.

Stop right there. Untrue. Generally regarded by who? Catholics account for 1.3 billion of the world's 2.1 billion Christians.

Perhaps your post should read:
"Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded BY PROTESTANTS as the first real Pope."

 

[Catholic Christian]

Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded as the first real Pope.

Hey, wait a minute: In a different thread, you gave a list of popes throughout the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th century.
Are you trying to pull a fast one on me?

 

[Ormly]

Hmmmm. So according to this historian, the change took place in the mid-Ninth Century. Why, then, in the mid-Seventh Century, did St. Maximus the Confessor, one of the greatest Eastern Saints in history, speak of the Church of Rome in such terms:

"Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him." (Letter to Peter, Governor of Syria and Palestine)






J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, writes to the contrary in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :

"According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments....but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]....It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)​

In further support of the above statement from J.N.D. Kelly, the following shall be sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that
(1) the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church;
(2) the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine shall we discuss the history of the Pelagian heresy) and was indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;
(3) St. Augustine's "Rome has spoken; the case is closed" is indeed an accurate summary of his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);
(4) Further, shall we discuss the role of the African bishops, and Popes Innocent I and Zosimus (the latter is used as an instance of "papal fallibility") during the Pelagian controversy. ​

Jesus gives the keys to Peter alone. If Jesus really gives Peter alone the keys, then it looks like Peter has special authority that the other apostles do not have.What "role" did Christ give "individually" to Peter? Well, in Matthew 16:17-19, Christ individually imparts to Peter the office of "Rock," "Key-bearer," and the authority to "bind and loosen." Also, in Luke 22:31-32, the Lord individually imparts to Peter the task of strengthening his brethren (i.e. the other Apostles). Also, in John 21:15-19, the Lord makes Peter a shepherd, telling him three times to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep."​

Peter unlocks the door to the Gentiles because he is the one with the keys. Unlocking the door to the Gentiles is a divine act that only Jesus can do, and yet Peter performs the act. Why? Because Jesus delegated divine authority to Peter, and Peter acts in Jesus’ name. Also, note that the authority to “bind and loose” is not limited to “unlocking the door to the Gentiles.” It also refers to declaring dogmatic and disciplinary decrees as well as forgiving and retaining sin (which is set forth in the passage John 20:21-23).

The Greek uses the passive voice which indicates that heaven is receiving the binding and loosing from Peter. This is an incredible statement that Jesus makes. Heaven will ratify Peter’s binding and loosing decisions. But in order for this to be true, Peter must be prevented from teaching error, for God cannot lie. Thus, God must penetrate the mind of Peter (just as He did when Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah) and prevent him from teaching error. Otherwise, Jesus could not make such a sweeping promise. All this supports the Catholic understanding of the papacy.

That all falicity born in Rome and through the centuries been assimilated into the Roman church as 'doctrine'. Peter would never have aligned himself with any of that.
Peter was never the Rock that Jesus would proclaim as the one who would build His Church. Jesus is the Rock; the Rock of ages; the Rock in the desert from which water sprang forth and was smitten twice by Moses to His regret; the Rock of my salvation proclaimed as such in far too many places in scripture that your one mis-interpreted verse will never change to say Peter become who he 'denied' three times, and what you would have him to be.

What you all fail to recognize is what Peter spoke concerning Jesus as the Christ to be the Rock of revelational truth upon which the Church of Jesus Christ would be built and that revelation, the gates of hell would not prevail against.

"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." 1 Corinthians 2:2 (KJV)

BTW, Did St. Maximus ever write anything worth remembering? Who was he anyway?

 

[Ormly]

Stop right there. Untrue. Generally regarded by who? Catholics account for 1.3 billion of the world's 2.1 billion Christians.

Perhaps your post should read:
"Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded BY PROTESTANTS as the first real Pope."

Lets not make this objective history lesson a religious issue. The quote says "generally excepted". There are reasons for that, don't you suppose? No one is holding you from believing otherwise. What holds you, holds you. Just don't etch it in stone, as I will not. Lets be honest as to why we believe.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Lets not make this objective history lesson a religious issue. The quote says "generally excepted". There are reasons for that, don't you suppose? No one is holding you from believing otherwise. What holds you, holds you. Just don't etch it in stone, as I will not. Lets be honest as to why we believe.

Well, the reasons would probably be those of whoever wrote that. I think its fair to say that personal beliefs are injected into peoples writings. Just look at Dan Rather!!!

 

[Ormly]

Well, the reasons would probably be those of whoever wrote that. I think its fair to say that personal beliefs are injected into peoples writings. Just look at Dan Rather!!!

True. Certainly mine are. The source of the process of our learning is what makes up our belief. Rectify the source to righteousness and the mind has freedom to breath.

 

[Ormly]

Pope Fact

The youngest pope was John XII, who was eighteen when he was elected. Some sources claim the youngest pope was Benedict IX (1032 A.D.), elected at age twelve.

 

[Ormly]

Hey, wait a minute: In a different thread, you gave a list of popes throughout the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th century.
Are you trying to pull a fast one on me?

I told you you didn't know how to read, didn't I?

 

[Lilmissykato]

The first pope was pope in 33AD(give or take)

 

[SeraphimSarov]

I told you you didn't know how to read, didn't I?

He might have trouble reading your post then...

 

[sunlover1]

Lets not make this objective history lesson a religious issue. The quote says "generally excepted". There are reasons for that, don't you suppose? No one is holding you from believing otherwise. What holds you, holds you. Just don't etch it in stone, as I will not. Lets be honest as to why we believe.

True. Certainly mine are. The source of the process of our learning is what makes up our belief. Rectify the source to righteousness and the mind has freedom to breath.

 

[Technocrat2010]

What is this thread doing in the Mariology and Hagiography subforum???

 

[k2svpete]

The first pope was pope in 33AD(give or take)

You are kidding aren't you? You seem to have a unique grasp of history if you're being serious with this one.

 

[Ormly]

What is this thread doing in the Mariology and Hagiography subforum???

Relax, it goes that way most always.

It was a Pope who deified Mary. I believe he was one they ran out of town.

 

[Tdigaetano]

Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded as the first real Pope. Keeping this in mind when reading the below account, it is important to note the dates it given that some distinctions might be made.


Pseudo.lsidorian Decretals Help Papacy

NICOLAS, I, 858-67, greatest Pope between Gregory I and GregoryVII. First Pope to wear a Crown, To promote his claim of universal authority he used with great effect the “PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN-DECRETALS,” a book that appeared about 857, containing documents that purported to be letters and decrees of bishops and councils of the 2nd end 3rd centuries, all tending to exalt the power of the Pope. They were deliberate forgeries and corruptions of ancient historical documents, but their spurious character was not discovered till some centuries later. Whether Nicolas knew them to be forgeries, at least he lied in stating that they had been kept in the archives of the Roman Church from ancient times. But they served their purpose in “stamping the claims of the medieval priesthood with the authority of antiquity.” “The Papacy, which was the growth of several centuries, was made to appear as something complete and unchangeable from the very beginning.” They included the “Donation of Constantine,” which represented him as giving the Roman Bishop the Western Provinces with all the imperial insignia. “The objective was to ante-date by 5 centuries the Pope’s Temporal Power, which in fact rested on the donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.” The most colossal literary fraud in history.” ” It strengthened the Papacy more than any other one agency, and forms to large extent the basis of the canon law of the Roman Church.”

Is this saying that there were forged documents that a pope used and these documents were investigated, and when they looked back into the old writtings they saw the "forged" documents' content matched what was written in the past it was ok?

 

[Catholic Christian]

I told you you didn't know how to read, didn't I?

I read well enough to see that this thread is based on a crock of BS. You want to know how the Papacy started? As The Kinks say, "...and it goes like this":

Matthew 16:13-20: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" nd they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hellshall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosedin heaven." Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

John 21: 15-17: Jesus said to Simon Peter.. ...tend my lambs.. ..shepherd my sheep.. ...tend my sheep"

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else. Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

And, the Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter.

 

[Ormly]

And, the Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter.

Oh??? Think again.

"Then an argument started among them [disciples]about who would be the greatest of them. But Jesus, knowing the thoughts of their hearts, took a little child and had him stand next to Him." Luke 9:46-47

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Matthew 23:9-10 (KJV)

"And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me:
But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:1-6 (ASV)

It is impossible to see the CC in that light. History bears that out, making literary 'referrences' unnecessary.

 

[PaladinValer]

Focusing on the VC doesn't prove the Evangelical Protestant position on Hagiography.

Every time Evangelicals do this, they are merely creating their own Man of Straw to beat as we Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Apostolic Christians look at and laugh hysterically. And I'm quite sure many Vatican Catholics are laughing too as well.

Hagiography is broader than one church. This thread is nothing more that a potshot against one church and really has no logical bones against the noble and orthodox practice of Saintly intercession, petition, and veneration.

To echo an earlier poster, why is this thread in this forum?