Convince me that the papacy is a legitimate development

Man_With_A_Plan

Active Member
Nov 6, 2015
26
6
✟15,176.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Hello, all.

I'm currently an agnostic theist. For the past several years, I have been researching about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and I've come to conclusion that the Orthodox Church is probably the true church. Since the main divide between the two is the existence of the papacy, I've read much from apologists on both "sides" of the debate and feel that the Orthodox position is historic, consistent, and logical.

Convince me I'm wrong!

I want this to be an informal dialogue/debate, which is why I avoided the "Formal Debate" part of the forum.


First, let me specify some of what the Orthodox Church believes regarding St. Peter and Rome:

1.) Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

2.) The Church of Rome is an apostolic see. The Roman bishop is a successor of St. Peter.

3.) Rome held a primacy of honor, but this depended on Rome's maintaining the correct faith and was lost once Rome fell into heresy. The Patriarch of Constantinople hold the primacy of honor that Rome used to hold.

4.) In the early church, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were considered the "three sees of St. Peter." All three were considered "one see of Peter," and all three shared in the "primacy of Peter."

5.) Rome did not have "universal jurisdiction" over the entire Church.

6.) Infallibility comes the "college of bishops," to use a Catholic term. In other words, the Bishop of Rome was never seen as being infallible "on his own" or "without a council." For the Orthodox, the supreme, ultimate, infallible authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council.


I want Catholics to convince me that the Catholic view of the papacy is correct! You have to prove that the Pope/Roman Church was:

(a) regarded in the first millennium as a universally recognized supreme head of the church.

(b) above being judged by the church for the orthodoxy of its doctrine.

(c) above council and that a council depended on his authority.

(d) that his authority was seen as infallible/the "final say"/etc.


I want this to be a free discussion, so the only rules I want us to follow are the following:

1.) Don't present a long list of random quotes. If you do present a quote, provide a link to the text it comes from and tell me why it supports your position. Try to offer some context for the quote and the text it comes from.

2.) Don't present more than three quotes per post.

3.) Wait until someone else posts before posting more quotes.

4.) Don't give me quotes from church fathers showing that Peter was special among the apostles, or that Rome is an "apostolic see" or a "see of Peter." The Orthodox Church already believes this.

________________________________________________________

Here are three quotes I'll present to start this off:

1.) In the sixth century, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria. The letter, which can be read here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm , is basically a response to a letter sent by Eulogius shortly after having assumed the bishopric of Alexandria. Gregory the Great clearly suggests that Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are all the "one See of Peter" and that their three bishops, together, preside in the See of Peter.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself."

2.) The 85 so-called "Apostolic Canons" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm were accepted by the Council of Trullo in 692. Trullo was generally rejected by the western churches, though Pope Hadrian 1 (700-795) wrote "favorably of its canons," according to Wikipedia. Only the first 50 of the Apostolic Canons were accepted for a time in the west, including Canon 34, which states:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

So, clearly, the only way to maintain unity in the Church, according to the Canons, is when the Archbishops/Patriarchs/Metropolitans acts with the consent of the bishops under them.

This still happens in the Orthodox Church. It doesn't happen in the Catholic Church anymore.

3.) The context of my last quote is a bit lengthy, but I'll try to keep it simple.

In the fifth century, three bishops who had been accused of Nestorianism--Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas--wrote a theological treatise called the "Three Chapters." These three bishops were later found to be innocent of the accusations at the Council of Chalcedon. However, in 543, Emperor Justinian hoped to crush the still popular heresy by publicly condemning the Three Chapters in an attempt to bring peace to the Church.

The Emperor sent his condemnation to the five main Sees of the Church, and all but Rome's Pope Vigilius agreed to sign it. The Emperor went into a rage, and on November 22, 545, he sent an escort of troops to kidnap the Roman Pope, then had him locked up under house arrest in Constantinople for several years. In 548, Vigilius caved in and reversed his position, issuing the document Judicatum, formally anathematizing the Three Chapters.

Some western saw this decree as a betrayal of the Council of Chalcedon. The western churches completely deserted Vigilius, including his own clergy in Rome, and a council was held in Africa (convened by Reparatus of Carthage) that unanimously excommunicated the Pope for having contradicted the teachings of an ecumenical council, which was seen as the highest form of authority in the Church and by which all, even a Roman Pope, could be judged.

Vigilius later changed his mind, this time caving in to the North African council and withdrew Judicatum, though he secretly assured the Emperor in a letter that he still stood behind Judicatum. Vigilius then wrote another letter to the Emperor, changing his mind AGAIN and refusing to give in to the Emperor's will. The Emperor, frustrated with Vigilius' flip-flopping, convened a council in Constantinople on May 4th, 553. (The Fifth Ecumenical Council, known as Constantinople II.) During this council, Vigilius wrote Constitutum, in which he did ANOTHER flip-flop on the Three Chapters, now deciding to condemn them. (While a Catholic might argue that Judicatum was written under duress and therefore not techincally valid, the same can't be said for Constitutum.) In Constitutum, the Roman Pope condemns some of the writings of the three bishops, but not the bishops themselves.

The council, however, took it step further, condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters, its authors, and all those who support them. The council then proceeded to anathematize Pope Vigilius and ordered his name struck from the Diptychs of the Church. (The Diptychs were lists showing who's in communion with whom.)

Six months later, Vigilius caved in AGAIN, issuing a second Constitutum (dated February 24, 554), in which he basically condemns the Three Chapters and blames Satan for misleading him.

In response, this council--which, if you'll recall, is the Fifth Ecumenical Council--in Session VII http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp, agrees to accept Pope Vigilius' second Constitutum and declares to him:

"If your blessedness (Pope Vigilius) is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."

So, in other words, the council only accepts Pope Vigilius as maintaining the primacy of honor (first among equals) if, and ONLY if, he maintains the correct faith as held by the universal Church

This is exactly what the Orthodox Church today believes. A bishop, even the bishop of an apostolic see, is a beacon of orthodox faith only as long as he maintains the correct faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abysmul

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
you would do much better in the long run if you chose to post this in the Orthodox forum and let them convince you that you are right,
because to truly believe takes much more than just logic; it takes everything you've got to give and then some.
best wishes on your conversion.
 
Upvote 0

Man_With_A_Plan

Active Member
Nov 6, 2015
26
6
✟15,176.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I need Catholics to present the opposing arguments!

The way I see it, the problem began with an 9th century forged document called the "Donation of Constantine." Among its alleged promises from Constantine to Pope Sylvester and his successors is "power, and dignity of glory, and vigour, and honor imperial", and "supremacy as well over the four principal sees, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem,as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth."

If you'll notice, this is around the time that the Roman Church began claiming jurisdiction over the eastern churches, resulting in the so-called "Photian Schism." Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (who's regarded as a heretic by the Catholics and a saint by the Orthodox), stood up to the Pope and even excommunicated him for trying to extend his power with this fake document.

This same fake document was the cause of the Great Schism of 1054.

Vatican 1's dogma of papal infallibility proclaims that the pope has supreme universal jurisdiction over all churches in the world. This belief traces itself to the Donation of Constantine.

So, in my opinion, Rome's heresies began with that fake document. By the time it was exposed in the 16th century, the papacy and the Roman Catholic religion had already changed too much. The entire Roman Catholic faith of the last 1,000 years has been because of a forged document.
 
Upvote 0

BrRichSFO

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2006
424
47
✟16,014.00
Faith
Catholic
I can't convince you that the papacy is a legitimate development, because it is not a development, but was established by Christ. Matthew 16:18. Christ said upon Peter, He would establish His Church. In John 21:17 Christ gives Peter the role of Chief Shepherd of Christ's flock. All of the Eastern Church recognized "where Peter,(the Bishop of Rome) is, there is the Church". Succession in this office was a given, as explained by Clement. (paragraph 44)
 
Upvote 0

Man_With_A_Plan

Active Member
Nov 6, 2015
26
6
✟15,176.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I don't know which is more offensive: the fact that you've quoted passages of the New Testament that are highly controversial and debated as if they're not (golly, if I'd only read those passages I'd be shown the error of my ways...), or the fact that you're being intellectually dishonest by offering Clement's letter as "evidence" of a papacy when it was written to a Roman colony of Christians in Corinth.

It's amazing how Roman Catholics cherry-pick passages from here and there, constantly moving the goal posts when it suits them. Of course, the examples in my OP can't be refuted, so the papal apologist will redirect with vague references to the Apostle Peter, and then make a mysterious logical jump by assuming that this equates with a papacy while assuming others must make this same jump. Actions speak louder than words, however, and I've shown the ancient church in action and how it dealt with Roman bishops. Historical fact can't be refuted.

I want someone to bring up the Tome of Leo argument so I can demolish that old chestnut.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BrRichSFO

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2006
424
47
✟16,014.00
Faith
Catholic
The problem is trying to respond to a post like yours that "states" what we already "know to be true" is difficult to sift through point by point. One think that you know to be true is that Alexandria is a See of Peter, no Alexandria was founded by the Apostle Mark. We also know that Constantinople was given the honorary title of Apostolic See, it wasn't one of the original and The five Eastern Patriarchs all recognized Primacy of the See of Peter in Rome, as a primacy of jurisdiction and final court of appeal. It really is simple Christ established His Church on Peter, where Peter is there is the Church! Have you not read any of the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical exchanges of the past 50 years. By the way the excommunications of 1054 were reversed about 50 years ago Dec 7th 1965.
 
Upvote 0

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
  • Like
Reactions: tadoflamb
Upvote 0

Dave B

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 15, 2015
31
11
75
Springfield, Missouri
✟28,432.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As I understand it, Atheism (considered a religion by the US Supreme Court) is a complete denial of God. An Agnostic is a person who thinks that there may or may not be a God. Nevertheless, God Loves you!

There are events that happened in the Old Testament that parallel events in the New Testament. i.e. the Exodus was a freeing of people from slavery in the Old Testament. Jesus died to free us from our sins. Noah's Arc was the vessel of salvation for Noah and his family. Mary was the vessel of salvation for the whole world because she carried the Redeemer, Jesus. King David had a person (Eliakim) who acted as a Prime Minister on his behalf where King David backed him up (Isaiah 22:15-24). This relates to Jesus making Peter the first Pope and telling him that what he decreed on earth was decreed in Heaven.

This means that when acting on faith and morals, the Pope's decisions are backed by the King (Jesus).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
Hello, all.

I'm currently an agnostic theist. For the past several years, I have been researching about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and I've come to conclusion that the Orthodox Church is probably the true church. Since the main divide between the two is the existence of the papacy, I've read much from apologists on both "sides" of the debate and feel that the Orthodox position is historic, consistent, and logical.

Convince me I'm wrong!

I want this to be an informal dialogue/debate, which is why I avoided the "Formal Debate" part of the forum.


First, let me specify some of what the Orthodox Church believes regarding St. Peter and Rome:

1.) Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

2.) The Church of Rome is an apostolic see. The Roman bishop is a successor of St. Peter.

3.) Rome held a primacy of honor, but this depended on Rome's maintaining the correct faith and was lost once Rome fell into heresy. The Patriarch of Constantinople hold the primacy of honor that Rome used to hold.

4.) In the early church, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were considered the "three sees of St. Peter." All three were considered "one see of Peter," and all three shared in the "primacy of Peter."

5.) Rome did not have "universal jurisdiction" over the entire Church.

6.) Infallibility comes the "college of bishops," to use a Catholic term. In other words, the Bishop of Rome was never seen as being infallible "on his own" or "without a council." For the Orthodox, the supreme, ultimate, infallible authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council.


I want Catholics to convince me that the Catholic view of the papacy is correct! You have to prove that the Pope/Roman Church was:

(a) regarded in the first millennium as a universally recognized supreme head of the church.

(b) above being judged by the church for the orthodoxy of its doctrine.

(c) above council and that a council depended on his authority.

(d) that his authority was seen as infallible/the "final say"/etc.


I want this to be a free discussion, so the only rules I want us to follow are the following:

1.) Don't present a long list of random quotes. If you do present a quote, provide a link to the text it comes from and tell me why it supports your position. Try to offer some context for the quote and the text it comes from.

2.) Don't present more than three quotes per post.

3.) Wait until someone else posts before posting more quotes.

4.) Don't give me quotes from church fathers showing that Peter was special among the apostles, or that Rome is an "apostolic see" or a "see of Peter." The Orthodox Church already believes this.

________________________________________________________

Here are three quotes I'll present to start this off:

1.) In the sixth century, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria. The letter, which can be read here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm , is basically a response to a letter sent by Eulogius shortly after having assumed the bishopric of Alexandria. Gregory the Great clearly suggests that Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are all the "one See of Peter" and that their three bishops, together, preside in the See of Peter.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself."

2.) The 85 so-called "Apostolic Canons" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm were accepted by the Council of Trullo in 692. Trullo was generally rejected by the western churches, though Pope Hadrian 1 (700-795) wrote "favorably of its canons," according to Wikipedia. Only the first 50 of the Apostolic Canons were accepted for a time in the west, including Canon 34, which states:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

So, clearly, the only way to maintain unity in the Church, according to the Canons, is when the Archbishops/Patriarchs/Metropolitans acts with the consent of the bishops under them.

This still happens in the Orthodox Church. It doesn't happen in the Catholic Church anymore.

3.) The context of my last quote is a bit lengthy, but I'll try to keep it simple.

In the fifth century, three bishops who had been accused of Nestorianism--Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas--wrote a theological treatise called the "Three Chapters." These three bishops were later found to be innocent of the accusations at the Council of Chalcedon. However, in 543, Emperor Justinian hoped to crush the still popular heresy by publicly condemning the Three Chapters in an attempt to bring peace to the Church.

The Emperor sent his condemnation to the five main Sees of the Church, and all but Rome's Pope Vigilius agreed to sign it. The Emperor went into a rage, and on November 22, 545, he sent an escort of troops to kidnap the Roman Pope, then had him locked up under house arrest in Constantinople for several years. In 548, Vigilius caved in and reversed his position, issuing the document Judicatum, formally anathematizing the Three Chapters.

Some western saw this decree as a betrayal of the Council of Chalcedon. The western churches completely deserted Vigilius, including his own clergy in Rome, and a council was held in Africa (convened by Reparatus of Carthage) that unanimously excommunicated the Pope for having contradicted the teachings of an ecumenical council, which was seen as the highest form of authority in the Church and by which all, even a Roman Pope, could be judged.

Vigilius later changed his mind, this time caving in to the North African council and withdrew Judicatum, though he secretly assured the Emperor in a letter that he still stood behind Judicatum. Vigilius then wrote another letter to the Emperor, changing his mind AGAIN and refusing to give in to the Emperor's will. The Emperor, frustrated with Vigilius' flip-flopping, convened a council in Constantinople on May 4th, 553. (The Fifth Ecumenical Council, known as Constantinople II.) During this council, Vigilius wrote Constitutum, in which he did ANOTHER flip-flop on the Three Chapters, now deciding to condemn them. (While a Catholic might argue that Judicatum was written under duress and therefore not techincally valid, the same can't be said for Constitutum.) In Constitutum, the Roman Pope condemns some of the writings of the three bishops, but not the bishops themselves.

The council, however, took it step further, condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters, its authors, and all those who support them. The council then proceeded to anathematize Pope Vigilius and ordered his name struck from the Diptychs of the Church. (The Diptychs were lists showing who's in communion with whom.)

Six months later, Vigilius caved in AGAIN, issuing a second Constitutum (dated February 24, 554), in which he basically condemns the Three Chapters and blames Satan for misleading him.

In response, this council--which, if you'll recall, is the Fifth Ecumenical Council--in Session VII http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp, agrees to accept Pope Vigilius' second Constitutum and declares to him:

"If your blessedness (Pope Vigilius) is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."

So, in other words, the council only accepts Pope Vigilius as maintaining the primacy of honor (first among equals) if, and ONLY if, he maintains the correct faith as held by the universal Church

This is exactly what the Orthodox Church today believes. A bishop, even the bishop of an apostolic see, is a beacon of orthodox faith only as long as he maintains the correct faith.

let's address point #3:
Rome held a primacy of honor, but this depended on Rome's maintaining the correct faith and was lost once Rome fell into heresy. The Patriarch of Constantinople hold the primacy of honor that Rome used to hold.

the problems began way before the problem that you cite.
They began in the garden of Gesthemene when Christ was arrested and all the disciples ran away.
Only John followed far off to see what would happen.
and only John and Mary the Mother of Christ, and a few other followers were with Christ when he died.
If ever that was a reason not to approve the papacy... it should have been dead before it ever started.

But for Christ...those three words mean everything.
What you have to keep in mind is that Christ had the full scope of history to evaluate when He chose Peter (and his successors)
on which to found the papacy and the Church.

He formed them both at the same time. "You are Peter "(rock). and He specifically linked Peter to the Church He was founding.
And secondly Christ told us that nothing would defeat the Church---and that included all the problems that we've seen
satan try and throw at the Church.

so what it all comes down to is either we believe Christ that the problems in the papacy are no reason to toss the church,
or we follow after all the others down through the ages who thought that they had better ideas than Christ,
and who subsequently went off from the Church that Christ founded to form their own churches based on what they thought was important.
At last count there are over 300k of those.

How often in the Bible (even the OT) have we seen things just like this happen when man thought that he had a better idea than God did?
the irony of man thinking that he knew more than God did, that he could create a better church, etc.

and every time they fail.
every time!

that's why we have 300k variations of God's original idea of what a church should be and do.

The one single thing which concerned Christ was whether He would find faith when He came back;
not whether or not He would find the Church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,850
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟57,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I'm currently an agnostic theist. For the past several years, I have been researching about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and I've come to conclusion that the Orthodox Church is probably the true church.
How does that work? Being an atheist of agnostic bent how do you conclude that any Church is true if you reject them all because you do not believe in God?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
athiests believe there is no God.
agnostics merely say that He is unknowable.
being a thiest means believing that there is only one unknowable God.

and since it was Jesus who formed the church, being only a thiest would not allow for the legitimate existance of any church,
muchless the Catholic or the Orthodox churches.
it would possibly allow for a Jewish temple,
but the legitimate existance of a church? nope.

so if our OP has been researching the history of the churches, then somewhere in there Jesus has figured into his equasions....
His birth, ministry, death, and resurection all happened before the church was ever founded.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
May 29, 2016
1
0
39
Chicagoland, IL
✟15,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I would say that if you’re looking to be convinced that you’re wrong, you probably have your mind made up on this issue. Unlike the other Catholics on this thread who have answered you up to this point; I am going to say that the office of the papacy and the various powers that the popes have claimed for themselves developed over time. The origins of these developments are within specific historical and social contexts, as well as local customs.


While what I am about to say does not specifically address your question, it is something that should be considered. First, the various churches within the Orthodox communion only accept the first seven councils and have not held an ecumenical council since. Granted, it is true that various churches have had synods, but none of their decrees are binding on the entire Orthodox communion. Further, who in the Orthodox Church has the authority to call an ecumenical council for the entire church? There have been talks among the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow to hold an ecumenical council, but they are unsure if the other Patriarchs will attend. Even more problematic is the fact that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow approach one another with a level of distrust and are unable to agree on an agenda of topics to discuss and address.
 
Upvote 0

Landon Caeli

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,455
5,824
46
CA
✟561,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hello, all.

I'm currently an agnostic theist. For the past several years, I have been researching about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and I've come to conclusion that the Orthodox Church is probably the true church. Since the main divide between the two is the existence of the papacy, I've read much from apologists on both "sides" of the debate and feel that the Orthodox position is historic, consistent, and logical.

Convince me I'm wrong!

I want this to be an informal dialogue/debate, which is why I avoided the "Formal Debate" part of the forum.


First, let me specify some of what the Orthodox Church believes regarding St. Peter and Rome:

1.) Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

2.) The Church of Rome is an apostolic see. The Roman bishop is a successor of St. Peter.

3.) Rome held a primacy of honor, but this depended on Rome's maintaining the correct faith and was lost once Rome fell into heresy. The Patriarch of Constantinople hold the primacy of honor that Rome used to hold.

4.) In the early church, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were considered the "three sees of St. Peter." All three were considered "one see of Peter," and all three shared in the "primacy of Peter."

5.) Rome did not have "universal jurisdiction" over the entire Church.

6.) Infallibility comes the "college of bishops," to use a Catholic term. In other words, the Bishop of Rome was never seen as being infallible "on his own" or "without a council." For the Orthodox, the supreme, ultimate, infallible authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council.


I want Catholics to convince me that the Catholic view of the papacy is correct! You have to prove that the Pope/Roman Church was:

(a) regarded in the first millennium as a universally recognized supreme head of the church.

(b) above being judged by the church for the orthodoxy of its doctrine.

(c) above council and that a council depended on his authority.

(d) that his authority was seen as infallible/the "final say"/etc.


I want this to be a free discussion, so the only rules I want us to follow are the following:

1.) Don't present a long list of random quotes. If you do present a quote, provide a link to the text it comes from and tell me why it supports your position. Try to offer some context for the quote and the text it comes from.

2.) Don't present more than three quotes per post.

3.) Wait until someone else posts before posting more quotes.

4.) Don't give me quotes from church fathers showing that Peter was special among the apostles, or that Rome is an "apostolic see" or a "see of Peter." The Orthodox Church already believes this.

________________________________________________________

Here are three quotes I'll present to start this off:

1.) In the sixth century, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria. The letter, which can be read here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm , is basically a response to a letter sent by Eulogius shortly after having assumed the bishopric of Alexandria. Gregory the Great clearly suggests that Rome, Antioch and Alexandria are all the "one See of Peter" and that their three bishops, together, preside in the See of Peter.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself."

2.) The 85 so-called "Apostolic Canons" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm were accepted by the Council of Trullo in 692. Trullo was generally rejected by the western churches, though Pope Hadrian 1 (700-795) wrote "favorably of its canons," according to Wikipedia. Only the first 50 of the Apostolic Canons were accepted for a time in the west, including Canon 34, which states:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

So, clearly, the only way to maintain unity in the Church, according to the Canons, is when the Archbishops/Patriarchs/Metropolitans acts with the consent of the bishops under them.

This still happens in the Orthodox Church. It doesn't happen in the Catholic Church anymore.

3.) The context of my last quote is a bit lengthy, but I'll try to keep it simple.

In the fifth century, three bishops who had been accused of Nestorianism--Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas--wrote a theological treatise called the "Three Chapters." These three bishops were later found to be innocent of the accusations at the Council of Chalcedon. However, in 543, Emperor Justinian hoped to crush the still popular heresy by publicly condemning the Three Chapters in an attempt to bring peace to the Church.

The Emperor sent his condemnation to the five main Sees of the Church, and all but Rome's Pope Vigilius agreed to sign it. The Emperor went into a rage, and on November 22, 545, he sent an escort of troops to kidnap the Roman Pope, then had him locked up under house arrest in Constantinople for several years. In 548, Vigilius caved in and reversed his position, issuing the document Judicatum, formally anathematizing the Three Chapters.

Some western saw this decree as a betrayal of the Council of Chalcedon. The western churches completely deserted Vigilius, including his own clergy in Rome, and a council was held in Africa (convened by Reparatus of Carthage) that unanimously excommunicated the Pope for having contradicted the teachings of an ecumenical council, which was seen as the highest form of authority in the Church and by which all, even a Roman Pope, could be judged.

Vigilius later changed his mind, this time caving in to the North African council and withdrew Judicatum, though he secretly assured the Emperor in a letter that he still stood behind Judicatum. Vigilius then wrote another letter to the Emperor, changing his mind AGAIN and refusing to give in to the Emperor's will. The Emperor, frustrated with Vigilius' flip-flopping, convened a council in Constantinople on May 4th, 553. (The Fifth Ecumenical Council, known as Constantinople II.) During this council, Vigilius wrote Constitutum, in which he did ANOTHER flip-flop on the Three Chapters, now deciding to condemn them. (While a Catholic might argue that Judicatum was written under duress and therefore not techincally valid, the same can't be said for Constitutum.) In Constitutum, the Roman Pope condemns some of the writings of the three bishops, but not the bishops themselves.

The council, however, took it step further, condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters, its authors, and all those who support them. The council then proceeded to anathematize Pope Vigilius and ordered his name struck from the Diptychs of the Church. (The Diptychs were lists showing who's in communion with whom.)

Six months later, Vigilius caved in AGAIN, issuing a second Constitutum (dated February 24, 554), in which he basically condemns the Three Chapters and blames Satan for misleading him.

In response, this council--which, if you'll recall, is the Fifth Ecumenical Council--in Session VII http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp, agrees to accept Pope Vigilius' second Constitutum and declares to him:

"If your blessedness (Pope Vigilius) is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."

So, in other words, the council only accepts Pope Vigilius as maintaining the primacy of honor (first among equals) if, and ONLY if, he maintains the correct faith as held by the universal Church

This is exactly what the Orthodox Church today believes. A bishop, even the bishop of an apostolic see, is a beacon of orthodox faith only as long as he maintains the correct faith.

The Oriental Orthodox also have a papacy. And they're older than the EO.

His Holiness Pope Tawadros II, the 118th pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Tawadros_II_of_Alexandria

"On 8 May 2013, Pope Tawadros II met with Pope Francis, bishop of Rome and supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, in Vatican City. This was the first meeting of the two recently elected church leaders and only the second gathering of popes in Italy in 1,500 years. The last visit of a Coptic pope to the Vatican occurred on 10 May 1973 when then-Pope Shenouda III met with then-Pope Paul VI where they signed an important Christological declaration with the ambition to initiate ecumenical dialogue between the two ancient churches.

On 10 May 2013, Pope Tawadros II and Pope Francis held a shared prayer followed by a reception with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and other dicasteries of the Roman Curia. Pope Tawadros II also visited the tombs of the Apostle Peter, the first bishop of Rome and pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Apostle Paul. Additionally, Pope Tawadros II visited the Coptic community in neighbouring Rome, Italy."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think you start your discussion far too late in the story - at a time when already the eastern churches sought to stamp their authority - and the who said what at that time.

Go back. A long way back. Even before the new testament!

Jesus loved referring to the old testament, because his generation of Jews, looked for justification for everything there.
And as you see - Jesus did all he could to align himself to the Davidic Kingdom so that his statements would be understood in those terms..

From both the introduction by the angel at the annunciation "in the line of david" to details such as for example he rides a donkey, exactly as the King does in Solomons time.

So for example we can understand Marys title as queen and intercessor, because the "queen" in Davidic times was mother not spouse and was given a throne and told the King would do all she asked. Fast forward to Miracle at Cana - except Jesus then said "but what have you to do with me now, my time has not yet come" - hinting that her intercessory role would be after his time had come.

So When Peter was given the keys of the kingdom, we must understand that in Davidic terms.

The keys of the kingdom are clearly referenced (see about Hezekiah) as a role akin to present prime minister , someone who acts with the authority of the king, under his jurisdiction to manage the kingdom but not rule over it. He also gave powers to bind and loose. The keys were literal , in the sense of keys that hung roud the neck, but they symbolised delegated authority to the single wearer of the keys

But thats the point. By direct analogy, the powers were given to a single person, handed down to a successor.

So the keys cannot vest with an institution, and they cannot be divided.

So you must decide who "has the keys", and any that claim multiple institutions or sees, whatever you will, clearly does not have a valid claim, because the form of the papacy clearly is vested in a single man. And since orthodoxy accepts the see of Peter and Rome as Primacy, it can no longer claim to have a part share of it, because of the roots in Davidic history.

No doubt opponents did claim "apostasy". But that does not make their claims correct!


I need Catholics to present the opposing arguments!

The way I see it, the problem began with an 9th century forged document called the "Donation of Constantine." Among its alleged promises from Constantine to Pope Sylvester and his successors is "power, and dignity of glory, and vigour, and honor imperial", and "supremacy as well over the four principal sees, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem,as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth."

If you'll notice, this is around the time that the Roman Church began claiming jurisdiction over the eastern churches, resulting in the so-called "Photian Schism." Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (who's regarded as a heretic by the Catholics and a saint by the Orthodox), stood up to the Pope and even excommunicated him for trying to extend his power with this fake document.

This same fake document was the cause of the Great Schism of 1054.

Vatican 1's dogma of papal infallibility proclaims that the pope has supreme universal jurisdiction over all churches in the world. This belief traces itself to the Donation of Constantine.

So, in my opinion, Rome's heresies began with that fake document. By the time it was exposed in the 16th century, the papacy and the Roman Catholic religion had already changed too much. The entire Roman Catholic faith of the last 1,000 years has been because of a forged document.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joan Piwowar
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums