If Peter wasn't the first pope, who was?

[Aspect]

Yet the Church, speaking through the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, states that Rome was granted privileges because it was the royal city. I trust the Church over the opinion of one bishop, especially when that bishop is pimping his own see.

That's from Canon 28, which was rejected by the pope and the western church. The pope has the divine authority to legislate for the churches.

The ancient church historian Sozomen records that Pope Julius criticized the Eusebians (Arians) for having violated the law of the Church, for having innovated against the Council of Nicea, and for failing to convoke him [Julius] to the council [at Antioch], “because it is a law that actions taken without the consent of the bishop of Rome are invalid.” [HE III, 10].

The ancient church historian Socrates also writes that Pope Julius rebuked the Eusebians on the grounds that “it is unlawful to legislate for the churches without the consent of the bishop of Rome.” [HE II, 17].

 

[Aspect]

I forgot what we are discussing. Is someone denying that the pope is head of the universal church? The patristic support for this is overwhelming.

 

[Aspect]

What does this reference mean?

PG = Migne, Cursus Patrologiae Completus, Greek Fathers. Paris, 1844-66.

This is primary source documentation.

 

[Aspect]

Only one of these quotes makes reference to Rome, and even that does not support your claim.

What claim do you want me to support?

 

[Aspect]

"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol XIV edition by H.R. Percival."

Secondary source. I wouldn't uncritically accept everything it says.

 

[prodromos]

That's from Canon 28, which was rejected by the pope and the western church.

and then accepted after the 4th Crusade.

The pope has the divine authority to legislate for the churches.

Which of the seven Ecumenical Councils states the above?

The ancient church historian Sozomen records that Pope Julius criticized the Eusebians (Arians) for having violated the law of the Church, for having innovated against the Council of Nicea, and for failing to convoke him [Julius] to the council [at Antioch], “because it is a law that actions taken without the consent of the bishop of Rome are invalid.” [HE III, 10].

Where is this 'law' recorded?

The ancient church historian Socrates also writes that Pope Julius rebuked the Eusebians on the grounds that “it is unlawful to legislate for the churches without the consent of the bishop of Rome.” [HE II, 17].

Again, where is this 'law' recorded? Which of the Canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils declares the above?

 

[prodromos]

I forgot what we are discussing. Is someone denying that the pope is head of the universal church? The patristic support for this is overwhelming.

Then you should have no trouble demonstrating as much.

 

[prodromos]

PG = Migne, Cursus Patrologiae Completus, Greek Fathers. Paris, 1844-66.

This is primary source documentation.

Except that the reference you claim to quote is only in Greek with a Latin translation, yet the quote you gave is in English, so you must be quoting a secondary source. Why haven't you given the source you have taken your quotes from?
Also, there is no indication whether the English translation is made from the original Greek or the Latin translation, which didn't always accurately match the Greek.

 

[prodromos]

What claim do you want me to support?

This one.

Patristic teaching distinguished Rome because St. Peter founded the church there and was it's first bishop.

 

[prodromos]

"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol XIV edition by H.R. Percival."

Secondary source. I wouldn't uncritically accept everything it says.

Much like your sources, which you haven't given.

 

[Albion]

I forgot what we are discussing. Is someone denying that the pope is head of the universal church? The patristic support for this is overwhelming.

Actually, it's almost stunningly absent. And more than that, we have the recorded testimony from some of the Early Fathers that the Bishops of Rome are NOT what you are claiming for them.

But if you are wanting to counter this information, do not lean on fourth or fifth century evidence CLAIMING that it shows us a belief in a Papacy as we understand it, of a universal headship of the Bishop of Rome over the whole of the Christian lands, etc. etc.

In time, the Bishops of Rome DID make claims and did successfully assert those claims over a part (but only a part) of the Christian world; and when that occurred, other church leaders (ECFs) naturally fell in line.

But their testimony is about a changed situation, not something traceable back to the Apostolic era, let alone something intended by Christ Himself.

 

[dzheremi]

It's all fine and well to point out this or that historical writing that appears to confirm your ecclesiology, but it strikes me that those who partisans of Rome never seem to want to address any counterexample. I already pointed out two such examples from long before Chalcedon (the circumstances surrounding the bestowing of the honorific "Pope" upon the bishop of Alexandria, and the subsequent bishop of Alexandria writing to two of his Roman counterparts to remind them how they ought to proceed in dealing with problems in the Latin-affiliated churches in North Africa), but there are others much closer to Chalcedon itself, even involving its hero about whom much has already been made by the pro-RCC Chalcedonians in this thread.

In 445, Leo I of Rome wrote to his Alexandrian counterpart, the then still universally-recognized Pope Dioscorus, urging that Alexandria ought to adopt various Roman practices so that Rome and Alexandria could be "one in all things". If there was a historical response in writing to this from Alexandria, it has not been preserved, but there was certainly a response in terms of what Alexandria did in reaction to it, which was basically nothing. We didn't change our practices to conform to those of Rome, and so Alexandria and Rome did not become "one in all things" in that way. A clever Roman Catholic might respond so what, Rome does not require of its eastern uniates that they do exactly as the Romans do, so this could be taken as nothing more than advice, and Alexandria's not following it therefore doesn't show that Rome wouldn't have had the authority over Alexandria if she had wanted to exercise it. If we accept this kind of logic, however, we should have to accept it in literally every case where Rome's desires were treated as suggestive and not authoritative: the long-standing objection on the part of Rome to the third canon of Constantinople, for instance, was noted, but does not appear to have kept Alexandria and Antioch from accepting it. So then we are left with a situation wherein what Rome would like to see happen can be ignored with basically no consequence, but this is then transformed from a lack of accepted Roman authority into a restraint on Rome's part. Hmm. It's almost like Roman ecclesiology isn't a matter of the reality of the historical record (wherein sometimes churches agreed with Rome and sometimes they didn't), but of the affirmation of an a priori principle which by its very nature is not alterable one way or another by the unwelcome intrusion of facts.

And I would say that any time that you have some claim that is not answerable to the full breadth of the historical record, then you effectively forfeit your right to have those bits of the historical record you do cling to taken as though they settle the issue. It would be like if I, a non-Chalcedonian, only recognized those portions of HH St. Cyril's writings wherein he talks about the one nature of the incarnate Word, and did not recognize any part of his writings where he talks about the two natures of which Christ is composed (which wouldn't happen, because it's by that same recognition that we are able to do the same in the OO church, but anyway...). This wouldn't work because anyone who knows or recognizes his corpus in the wider sense as including both of these things would be able to immediately point to those portions of it I am conveniently leaving out so as to present it in one-dimensional fashion as though there is no basis for believing other than what I already believe. I would personally find it much easier to stomach Roman ecclesiological claims (I'd still disagree with them, but they wouldn't be nearly as nauseating and pathetic) if the people making them would at least admit that there is historical evidence against the modern RCC ecclesiology. It doesn't mean that you have to even change your emphasis on those parts of the historical record that you believe point to Roman Papal supremacy or whatever. Just recognize the stances of the other sees as likewise having their place in the historical record. It doesn't have to be entirely one way or the other.

 

[Behold]

Wasn't the first Pope : Pope Joan?
There seems to be some confusion about that.... odd.

 

[Not David]

Wasn't the first Pope : Pope Joan?
There seems to be some confusion about that.... odd.

Are you really in Israel?

 

[Aspect]

There has been a lot posted here since my last visit, so I am going to respond in one post to only a few remarks; otherwise I will be here all night.

I have cited my sources. If you think the English translations of those sources are inaccurate, you are welcome to prove it.

With regard to the pope being he head. I'll just give a couple quotes in order to avoid confusion and complexity. Emphases mine.

St. Theodore the Studite wrote to Pope Leo III:

"To the most holy and chiefest father of fathers, to my lord Leo, apostolic pope— Theodore, lowliest of priests and abbot of Studion. Since it is to the great Peter that Christ our God gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven along with the dignity of chief shepherd, it is to Peter, that is, his successor, that it is necessary to refer every innovation which is made in the Catholic Church by those who turn aside from the truth. That is what we humble and lowly monks have learned from the ancient fathers. Therefore, because a new teaching has arisen in the midst of the Church here, we believed that we ought to submit it to the messenger of your supreme beatitude, first through one of our fathers, the most holy archimandrite Epiphanius, and then by this simple letter. O divine head of all heads, a synod of prevaricators has been held, as the prophet Jeremias says— a council of adulterers. These men have not been content to conspire in favor of the priest who blessed the adulterous marriage and to receive him into communion, but, to merit the name of perfect heretic, have excommunicated in a second synod those who do not cleave to their error, or rather the Catholic Church itself.".. [PG 99: 1017 sq.].

Pope Boniface I (+422) wrote to the bishops of Thessaly:

"The institution of the universal Church at its birth took its beginning from the office of Blessed Peter, in whose person its government and summit consists. For from his fountain the stream of ecclesiastical discipline flowed forth into all the Churches, as the culture of religion progressively advanced. The precepts of the Council of Nicea bear witness to nothing else: so that it did not dare to appoint anything over him, seeing that nothing could possibly be conferred above his office: moreover, it knew that everything had been granted to him by the word of the Lord. Certain, therefore, is it that this [Roman] Church is to the Churches spread throughout the world, as it were, the head of its own members, from which whoever cuts himself off is expelled from the Christian religion, inasmuch as he has ceased to be within the one structure. I hear that certain bishops, despising the apostolic right, have attempted anew to undermine the precepts of Christ Himself, since they are striving to separate themselves from the Apostolic See’s communion, or if I may speak more accurately, her authority, asking for help from those to whom ecclesiastical rules have not sanctioned any greater authority... Receive, therefore, our admonition and rebuke: one of which we offer to the pontiffs [siding with us], the other to the dissidents. For you know that either one is possible to Blessed Peter: that is, to correct the meek with meekness, or to rebuke the haughty with the rod. Show therefore due honor to the head, for we do not want the members to be fighting with each other, with their quarrels reaching all the way to us, while you hold in contempt our brother and fellow bishop Rufus, to whom our authority granted nothing new, following the precedent by which the care of the churches was enjoined on him. We want this to be observed holy and inviolate, as the decree of this disposition has been kept by the fathers, for it is unfitting for the brethren to be irked at the dignity of another. If anybody was punished excessively, without question there should have been an appeal to us, in whom, as you know, care of all remains, and a delegation sent, because for this purpose the Apostolic See holds the principality, so that it may receive the lawful complaints of all... Let this novel presumption cease. Let nobody strive to undermine what has been done by the fathers, and observed for so long. Whoever accounts himself a bishop, let him obey our ordinance. Let nobody presume to ordain bishops anywhere in Illyricum without the knowledge of our fellow bishop Rufus... [PL 20: 777-79].

In 485, a Roman synod of 43 bishops met to consider the case of Antioch, where the orthodox patriarch Calendion had been ejected and replaced by Peter the Fuller. On October 5, the synod wrote to the orthodox clergy and archimandrites of Constantinople:

“From the beginning, the faith of your holiness has been proven to the Apostolic See, which rules over us all.” The synod offered this explanation of Roman custom and procedure: Now, therefore... gathered before [the tomb of] the most blessed apostle Peter, again we have hastened to inform Your Love of the custom that has ever obtained among us. As often as the bishops of the Lord gather together within Italy to deal with ecclesiastical matters, especially matters of faith, the custom is retained that the successor of the bishops of the Apostolic See establish provisions for all matters in accordance with the solicitude for all the churches which is proper to him who is the head of all, as the Lord says to Blessed Peter: ‘Thou art Peter...’ Following this saying, the 318 Fathers who met at Nicea referred the confirmation of matters to the holy Roman Church... [CSEL 35: 158-9].

The Decree of Pope Damasus (362)

"Likewise it is decreed: ...we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all Catholic churches throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman Church has been set before the other churches not by any synodical decrees but by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Savior, saying: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to 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.” The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything of the kind. The second see was consecrated at Alexandria, in the name of Blessed Peter, by his disciple the evangelist Mark, and he, having been sent by St. Peter into Egypt, preached the word of truth and consummated a glorious martyrdom. The third see [of the most blessed apostle Peter] is at Antioch, which is considered honorable because he lived there before he came to Rome, and there the name of the new nation of Christians first arose." [PL 13: 374-6].

Notice, according to Pope Damasus the primacy is a divine primacy coming from Christ, not from counsels.

 

[Bob Crowley]

There's a reasonably good summary of the origin and development of the Papacy in this Encyclopedia Britannica article.

papacy | Definition, History, Popes, & Facts

It would seem the term was once applied to all the bishops in the West. It wasn't formally restricted to the Bishop of Rome till 1073, when Pope Gregory VII formalised it.

Papacy, the office and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, the pope (Latin papa, from Greek pappas, “father”), who presides over the central government of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest of the three major branches of Christianity. The term pope was originally applied to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe the patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title. In 1073, however, Pope Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome, confirming a practice that had existed since the 9th century.

The distinction between the Pope as a man, and the Pope as office was clarified by Leo I.

Leo (Leo I, 440-461AD), one of only two popes accorded the appellation “the Great,” played a pivotal role in the early history of the papacy. Assuming the title pontifex maximus, or chief priest, he made an important distinction between the person of the pope and his office, maintaining that the office assumed the full power bestowed on Peter.

When Christ set up Peter as the Rock, and said that He would found His church on Peter, He was really setting up an office and giving it authority ("What you bind on earth ... will be bound ... (or) loose ... will be loosed in heaven.").

As my old Protestant pastor said, "What's the use of having a church if you're not going to give it any authority?"

It's been through thick and thin since, but what you expect of an office and church that's nearly 2000 years old, which has endured martyrdom, barbarian wars, the Black Death, the Vikings, competing political and economic powers, the Byzantine claims to authority, internal schism, Moslem invasion and the Crusades, the centre of the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Wars of Religion, the Nazis and the Fascists, the challenge of atheistic Communism, post modernism, and yet which still endures.

As Christ said, "The proud gates of Hell will not prevail against it", even though they'll try again and again.

 

[prodromos]

I have cited my sources. If you think the English translations of those sources are inaccurate, you are welcome to prove it.

Unless you did the translations yourself, you have not cited your sources.
Did you do the translations? If not, what is the source of your English translations?

As for the rest of your post, it seems you have simply ignored what others have already posted, and rather than respond to them, you have done what I predicted earlier.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If the Papacy really is an innovation of the Roman Catholic Church, when did it begin? Could it have been during the oft-hated Medieval Catholic Church, when corrupt bishops decided to name a pope? No, it couldn't have been, if the Great Schism of 1054 (and tensions beginning much earlier) were primarily over the role of the Pope in the Church.

So the Catholic Church upholds that Peter was the first pope, and thus receives a lot of vicious attacks from Protestants who claim that "claiming" Peter as the first pope is a terrible thing for Catholics to do. But if he wasn't the first pope, who was? And how can Protestant Christians deny Peter as the first Pope, when Martin Luther himself described the Roman Catholic Church as "St. Peter's Church" in his 95 theses?

Included below is a link to many Church fathers discussing the issue of St. Peter as the first Pope, and I thought one quote was particularly noteworthy:


Origins of Peter as Pope — Church Fathers
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Emporer Constantine was the first head of the Catholic church.

 

[prodromos]

Emporer Constantine was the first head of the Catholic church.

Your spelling is as accurate as the rest of your statement.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Your spelling is as accurate as the rest of your statement.

So anything misspelled is automatically untrue?? I knew Catholics wouldn’t like that truth. The inquisition showed the Catholic response to truth. I’m glad we’re only electronic here.