History of the Papacy

patricius79 · Jul 9, 2015

buzuxi02 said:
I will just demonstrate from two primary texts that all these 'quotes' supposedly about the papal supremacy are false and in some instances misleading:

St Cyprian epistle 26:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the church flow onwards; so that the church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the church; when the church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.

click here for entire epistle---->CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle 26 (Cyprian of Carthage)
So as you can see Cyprian claims he himself is the rock of Peter since he is the presiding bishop of the throne of Carthage.

I would think that would support the case for Papal Supremacy. Cyprian seems to be saying that the Church, in being built on Simon Rock, is built on the Bishops.

This is a perfectly acceptable Catholic, non-literal, or accomodated sense. By the way, Cyprian calls the Church "the Catholic Church".

But Cyprian also says that Rome is "the Chair of Peter (Rock) and the Principal Church, from which priestly unity takes its source".

And he says "there is one Church, and One Chair, founded on Peter (Rock) by the word of the Lord"

Even the EO scholar Afanassieff says that the EO have no systematic ecclesiology, and that the ecclesiology they have is not enough to refute the Catholic understanding. He also says that for Cyprian the Church of Rome is the Chair of Peter "par excellence"

Also, Cyprian calls the Church "the Catholic Church". "Catholic" means "universal". Both Afanassieff and Schmemann--definitely with Schmemann-- admit that if the Church is a universal body, then it must have a supreme Bishop.

Crowns&Laurels · Jul 12, 2015

Oh wow, this thread exists. ~The history of the papacy~

It is a man made lie, there is no direct succession, it fell apart in the early centuries after Christ died and invented so that Rome would have prominence. They did the same thing when it came to the pagan gods. If it weren't for Christ, you'd simply be revering Jupiter.

tz620q · Jul 13, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
Oh wow, this thread exists. ~The history of the papacy~

It is a man made lie, there is no direct succession, it fell apart in the early centuries after Christ died and invented so that Rome would have prominence. They did the same thing when it came to the pagan gods. If it weren't for Christ, you'd simply be revering Jupiter.

Are you denying apostolic succession in general, since this was recorded by nearly every large church as to the line of bishops? Or do you just dislike the Roman Bishop's claims?

Root of Jesse · Jul 14, 2015

GreekOrthodox said:
The two biggest problems that the EO has with Papal Supremacy is Pope Honorius who supported monothelitism and was condemned as a heretic. The following is from Wikipedia

More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."

The second is the filioque issue which has been discussed to death. If you need information on that I can point you in the right direction.

You know that, at the time of Honorius's support of monothelitism, it wasn't yet declared a heresy? Therefore, he did not preach or teach heresy. It was only later declared heresy.

fatherjimparker · Jul 18, 2015

<< ..... the Egyptian and Syrian Churches that had been Monophysite since 451. >>

That is not quite accurate. The Coptic and Syrian Churches were ACCUSED of being Monophysite because they rejected the solution of the council of Chalcedon with regard to Nestorianism.

In fact, the Coptic and Syrian Churches believed the solution to still be Nestorian and to have failed to resolve the issue.

Currently, it is widely considered among the EO that the differences in belief are in reality more differences of language and semantics than actual theological disagreement.

But, if the EO, OO, and Copts reconcile, who is the patriarch of Antioch Both of whom reside in Damascus)? The OO or the EO patriarch? And does the patriarchate of Alexandria get transferred from the Greeks to the Copts?

politics

GreekOrthodox · Jul 20, 2015

Father bless,
As for the dual patriarchates, we'll figure that question out in the 4th millennium

Lords Man · Feb 18, 2016

JM said:
The Papacy by Wylie is convincing.

Like your quote!!!! "Cowards never won heaven. Do not claim that you are begotten of God and you have His royal blood running in your veins unless you can prove your lineage by His heroic spirit: to dare to be holy in spite of men and devils."

Lords Man · Feb 18, 2016

patricius79 said:
I'm an ignorant man who has trouble reading but wants to know more about the issue of the Papacy and Papal Supremacy of Service, and why the Eastern Orthodox reject the Papal claims, and what the early Fathers thought of Peter and the Papacy.

Dave Armstrong has an article called "50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy" at his site, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism.

The list seems very impressive.

Armstrong says that the overwhelming majority of all Biblical scholars believe that Christ builds the Church on Peter

Then Armstrong lists things like this:

--Peter is told that the church will be built on him, and that he will be given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
--Peter's name always occurs first in the list of the Apostles
--Simon alone receives the new name "Rock"
--Peter alone is asked to "feed my lambs" in Jn 21
--Peter alone is asked by Christ to "strengthen the brethren" in Luke 22
--Peter is first to confess Christ's divinity
--Peter walks on water [and I would add, when he begins to fall, Christ holds him up]
--Peter is the first to enter the empty tomb of Christ
--Peter takes the lead in calling for the replacement of Judas
--Peter works the first miracle after Pentecost
--Peter is the first to recognize the heresy of Simon Magus

And Armstrong gives many other such examples, totally 50 examples.

Then there is the patristic evidence, which I would like to look at. The way the early Church relied on Rome to settle doctrinal disputes, or to confirm what had been provisionally settled by councils.

It appears that the early Church did believe in Peter's Supremacy, and that the Bishop of Rome was uniquely the successor of Peter.

For example, at the Council of Ephesus, the Papal legates declared Peter's Supremacy and the Pope as the Successor of this Supremacy. Apparently the Council had no quarrel with this, and confirmed that the Pope (Celestine) was "the guardian of the faith". Apparently the Council of Chalcedon and Pope Leo affirmed similar things.

In the 100s, Dionysius of Corinth writes to the Pope Soter:

"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9)

In the 300s, St. Ephrem writes:

Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. (Homilies 4:1)

And St. Augustine writes:

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5)

[The above quotes are adapted from the Catholic Answers library of faith tracts, "Authority of the Pope Part 1", "Authority of the Pope Part II"and "Peter's Primacy"]
http://www.catholic.com/tracts

What do you know about the early Papacy?

You know them by their FRUIT, not their claims to supremacy. The R.C.C. and the Papacy is a nest of heresy beginning with the claim of the authority of the Pope, tradition and councils over the lives of Christians and including the justification by
grace + works formula. Go back to the Reformation!!! Go back and learn why it happened in the first place. Then you will understand the Papacy as it is and not be led astray by any.

tz620q · Feb 19, 2016

Lords Man said:
You know them by their FRUIT, not their claims to supremacy. The R.C.C. and the Papacy is a nest of heresy beginning with the claim of the authority of the Pope, tradition and councils over the lives of Christians and including the justification by
grace + works formula. Go back to the Reformation!!! Go back and learn why it happened in the first place. Then you will understand the Papacy as it is and not be led astray by any.

When I was researching the Reformation, I read a history that was obviously written by a Protestant. Then I read a history written by a Catholic. There was so much variance in how they viewed the same events that I read a third history written by an academic historian. That seemed to me the most balanced of the three. So I would recommend that anyone that is looking into this topic try to do it from outside of their own paradigm.

Lords Man · Feb 19, 2016

tz620q said:
When I was researching the Reformation, I read a history that was obviously written by a Protestant. Then I read a history written by a Catholic. There was so much variance in how they viewed the same events that I read a third history written by an academic historian. That seemed to me the most balanced of the three. So I would recommend that anyone that is looking into this topic try to do it from outside of their own paradigm.

And the 'academic historian' had how much interest in Scriptural truth????

tz620q · Feb 19, 2016

Lords Man said:
And the 'academic historian' had how much interest in Scriptural truth????

One can either ignore history or embrace it. There are plenty of people writing bogus history out there, so I am sure we can find one that fits our own viewpoint. I came to the realization that if Jesus is truth and I am called to follow Jesus, I have to search for truth no matter if it fits into my current viewpoint or not. But that is just how I approach history.

Lords Man · Feb 19, 2016

tz620q said:
One can either ignore history or embrace it. There are plenty of people writing bogus history out there, so I am sure we can find one that fits our own viewpoint. I came to the realization that if Jesus is truth and I am called to follow Jesus, I have to search for truth no matter if it fits into my current viewpoint or not. But that is just how I approach history.

I ask it again; the 'academic historian' had how much interest in Scriptural truth????

tz620q · Feb 19, 2016

Lords Man said:
I ask it again; the 'academic historian' had how much interest in Scriptural truth????

How would I know that or for that matter how would you?

Lords Man · Feb 19, 2016

tz620q said:
How would I know that or for that matter how would you?

Do you not understand how important that is? If an historian writes on a Christian topic, apart from a Biblical faith, he cannot help but be shortsighted and wander into humanism and error.

tz620q · Feb 19, 2016

Lords Man said:
Do you not understand how important that is? If an historian writes on a Christian topic, apart from a Biblical faith, he cannot help but be shortsighted and wander into humanism and error.

I would hope that a historian evaluates history based on historical principles. I found his history to be the least shortsighted and the least biased. The first two histories showed their side of the events by carefully editing out events that might put their side in a bad light. Then they slapped a layer of rhetoric on top of this to spin the commentary to viewing one side as the big, bad enemy to be defeated at all costs and the other side as being God's warriors. That is a dichotomy born from 16th century propaganda and one that keeps us at each others throats.

NonTheologian · Feb 26, 2016

patricius79 said:
I'm an ignorant man who has trouble reading but wants to know more about the issue of the Papacy and Papal Supremacy of Service, and why the Eastern Orthodox reject the Papal claims, and what the early Fathers thought of Peter and the Papacy.

Dave Armstrong has an article called "50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy" at his site, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism.

The list seems very impressive.

Armstrong says that the overwhelming majority of all Biblical scholars believe that Christ builds the Church on Peter

Then Armstrong lists things like this:

--Peter is told that the church will be built on him, and that he will be given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
--Peter's name always occurs first in the list of the Apostles
--Simon alone receives the new name "Rock"
--Peter alone is asked to "feed my lambs" in Jn 21
--Peter alone is asked by Christ to "strengthen the brethren" in Luke 22
--Peter is first to confess Christ's divinity
--Peter walks on water [and I would add, when he begins to fall, Christ holds him up]
--Peter is the first to enter the empty tomb of Christ
--Peter takes the lead in calling for the replacement of Judas
--Peter works the first miracle after Pentecost
--Peter is the first to recognize the heresy of Simon Magus

And Armstrong gives many other such examples, totally 50 examples.

Then there is the patristic evidence, which I would like to look at. The way the early Church relied on Rome to settle doctrinal disputes, or to confirm what had been provisionally settled by councils.

It appears that the early Church did believe in Peter's Supremacy, and that the Bishop of Rome was uniquely the successor of Peter.

For example, at the Council of Ephesus, the Papal legates declared Peter's Supremacy and the Pope as the Successor of this Supremacy. Apparently the Council had no quarrel with this, and confirmed that the Pope (Celestine) was "the guardian of the faith". Apparently the Council of Chalcedon and Pope Leo affirmed similar things.

In the 100s, Dionysius of Corinth writes to the Pope Soter:

"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9)

In the 300s, St. Ephrem writes:

Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. (Homilies 4:1)

And St. Augustine writes:

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5)

[The above quotes are adapted from the Catholic Answers library of faith tracts, "Authority of the Pope Part 1", "Authority of the Pope Part II"and "Peter's Primacy"]
http://www.catholic.com/tracts

What do you know about the early Papacy?

No canon of any Ecumenical Council recognizes that the Pope of Rome has any special authority over any other Patriarchate (e.g. Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria). Canon VI of the 1st Council of Nicea explicitly states the opposite and recognizes, for example, the exclusive authority of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch over their areas.

Regarding Augustine's quote, one must keep in mind that his particular diocese - Hippo, in North Africa - was at that time under the jurisdiction of Rome. He is referring to his particular jurisdiction, not the entire Church. Furthermore, Augustine states in his commentary on the First Epistle of John that it is not Peter upon whom the Church is built (your first bullet point), but rather Peter's confession of faith:

He says unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God [Matthew 16:13-18]. And this he heard from the Lord: Blessed are you, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. See what praises follow this faith. You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. What means, Upon this rock I will build my Church? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock, says He, I will build my Church (Homily X).

(The full text of Augustine's commentary can be found here, at newadvent.org, a Roman Catholic website.)

John Chrysostom, like Augustine considered a "Doctor of the Church" by the Roman Catholic Church, also explains the passage in the same way.

History of the Papacy

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Newbie

Psalti Chrysostom

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Similar threads