The Papacy, How did it really come about?

[Ormly]

[

quote=Technocrat2010;43337148]Since the Papacy started with Christ and Peter, it's not a true statement. Also considering the 27 books were in circulation with other Gnostic and apocrpyhal texts, it doesn't mean people could automatically choose them from the rest of the texts.

Since the papacy didn't start with Jesus or Peter, your conclusion is wrong. And people didn't choose the texts, the many bishops of the many churches of Jesus Christ preached from them throughout the known world before the RCC was invented.

 

[QuantaCura]

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.

And some say he denied the papacy. Others say it was St. Leo I and others St. Damasus I and yet others that it was St. Victor I who first tried to claim power. Nobody can seem to put their finger on it--of course, the presidency of the Bishop of Rome can be found all the way to the directly post-apostolic fathers.

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 They were deliberate forgeries and corruptions of ancient historical documents, but their spurious character was not discovered till some centuries later.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

The false decretals actually support the papacy. The original forgers were not trying to establish papal authority, but were trying to pull a fast one on unsuspecting person's by appealing to an accepted authority. If you appeal to someone who has no authority, you'll get nowhere fast. If I say to you "The pope says you have to do x," if the pope has no authority you'd just say "so what? who cares?" and the whole forgered decretal would be pointless.

 

[Technocrat2010]

[

Since the papacy didn't start with Jesus or Peter, your conclusion is wrong. And people didn't choose the texts, the many bishops of the many churches of Jesus Christ preached from them throughout the known world before the RCC was invented.

The ECF's recognized the start of the papacy with Peter, and scripture also makes note of the beginning of the papacy.

If the bishops preached from the scriptures, it begs the question of them knowing if they are preaching from the right scriptures. How did those bishops know that those were the right scriptures, given the prevalence and proliferation of contemporary apocryphal works?

 

[Technocrat2010]

[/size][/font]

And some say he denied the papacy. Others say it was St. Leo I and others St. Damasus I and yet others that it was St. Victor I who first tried to claim power. Nobody can seem to put their finger on it--of course, the presidency of the Bishop of Rome can be found all the way to the directly post-apostolic fathers.





The false decretals actually support the papacy. The original forgers were not trying to establish papal authority, but were trying to pull a fast one on unsuspecting person's by appealing to an accepted authority. If you appeal to someone who has no authority, you'll get nowhere fast. If I say to you "The pope says you have to do x," if the pope has no authority you'd just say "so what? who cares?" and the whole forgered decretal would be pointless.

You're a century late in declaring them to be forgeries.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

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

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

The quote says "generally excepted". .

Do you know what excepted means?

 

[Anglian]

I wonder why the topic of the Papacy gives rise to such acerbic discussions?

The Orthodox, like the Catholics, recognise St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome; they also recognise him as the first bishop of Antioch; they also accept that the early Church had bishops.

Where we differ is on the authority of the Pope in Rome. Here we have to be careful not to look at history backwards and to attribute later developments to earlier times.

Whatever became the case, the early Church did not recognise the judicial primacy of Rome; that is the bishop of Rome, like all bishops, exercised jurisdiction in his own diocese; not elsewhere. So, for example, the bishop of Rome did not preside at the early Ecumenical Councils, and indeed refused to recognise one of the canons of Chalcedon because it gave the second position to the 'New Rome' of Constantinople.

That said, it ought to be acknowledged that the early Church recognised a primacy of honour; the moral authority of the bishop of Rome was huge, and therefore when he spoke, others listened. Without his help St. Athanasius would not have been able to have sustained his long struggle against the Arians, and St. Cyril would have had greater trouble in scotching the Nestorian heresy. At a time when most of the East was Arian, the bishop of Rome was orthodox. So Christendom owes a debt to Rome.

Conditions in the West were very different from those in the East. In the latter there were many cities, a literate population, good universities, and much interest in theological matters; Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch were all major patriarchates in which the patriarch ruled as the successor of one of the Apostles. In the West Rome was the only major city, and following the collapse of the Empire, the only real centre of ecclesiastical and cultural authority. This created two very different ways of being 'the Church'.

The Islamic conquest of much of the east in the seventh century A.D. left Constantinople as the one remaining centre of free Christianity, and led to further trouble between it and Rome, leading to the Schism of 1054, after which both sides made the claims we read about above and elsewhere. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 left Moscow as the only centre of free Christianity in the East, and no one in the west took that semi-barbarous principality with any great seriousness, which left Rome supreme.

But events were to show that Rome's development of the primacy of honour into a political one was not acceptable elsewhere in the West, and the consequences of that we know.

None of the Churches involved in this tale escapes without some share of the blame for the divisions in Christendom, and their various attempts to claim they were always right and to place the blame of the others are deeply unedifying and convince only those already convinced.

This Pope and his predecessor have done much to reemphasise the moral authority of their office, and that route is one which might yet see positive developments. No one outside the Roman Catholic Church is going to accept the current definition of Papal Infallibility, and it is interesting to see that Pope Benedict himself has emphasised that the Pope has spoken Infallibly on very few occasions.

There is a moral vacuum in the West, and as one looks elsewhere in the Christian world, figures of towering authority are rare. Only the Catholic Church has a truly global reach, and if its head would revert to claiming moral rather than jurisdictional authority, much good might come of it.

It is sad to see how often some Protestants (and others) misrepresent the Roman position; and it is equally sad to see the way in which some Catholics seem to think their Catechism is the final say on everything.

How hard is it for a faith build on repentance, humility and obedience to God's will to begin to heal its divisions? And why is it that hard?

In peace,

Anglian

 

[tz620q]

Thank you for a very well reasoned and reasonable reply. I have read several Catholic histories on the papacy and they have all traced the development of the papacy along with the early church in general. It is interesting that even William Jurgen's in Faith of the Early Fathers notes that in the second century, Ignatius of Antioch was reading back in time a structure in the church from his time to the early 1st century followers.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Orthodox, like the Catholics, recognise St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome; they also recognise him as the first bishop of Antioch; they also accept that the early Church had bishops.

So how come the pope doesn't just designate himself as Bishop of Rome instead of the Pontiff of all Christianity, thereby bringing more harmony between the 2 denominations/churches

http://foru.ms/t5805969&page=74
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

 

[Sphinx777]

​

 

[Sphinx777]

"The History of the Papacy is the history of both the spiritual role and the temporal role over a timespan of almost 2,000 years from the arrival of Peter in Rome to the present day. The office of the Pope is called the Papacy. In addition to his spiritual role as head of the Catholic Church, the Pope also has a temporal role as Head of State of the independent sovereign State of the Vatican City, a city-state and nation entirely enclaved by the city of Rome.

The history of the Papacy's temporal role can be divided into three major time periods. Early Christianity, the Pope had no temporal power and served only as the spiritual head of the Christian church in Rome. Even in that spiritual role, it was contested whether the patriarchs of the other churches were subordinate to the bishop of Rome.

The second major time period runs roughly from the 4th Century until Rome and Latium were annexed by the Kingdom of Italy in 1870. During this time period, the Pope exerted varying amounts of temporal and spiritual power until the Papal states were slowly taken away from the Papacy in the 19th century. During this same period, the role of the Pope as spiritual leader of the Christian church was successfully challenged by the East-West Schism and the Protestant Reformation.

The third major time period runs from the end of the Pope's temporal power in the 19th century until the present day. During this period, the Papacy has asserted its spiritual role as leader of the Catholic Church..."

 

[Sphinx777]

Wikipedia is Infallible!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallible

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Trento; Unlocking the door to the Gentiles is a divine act that only Jesus can do, and yet Peter performs the act.

No he doesn't. He walks first thru the already unlocked door.

But in order for this to be true, Peter must be prevented from teaching error, for God cannot lie.

God doesn't lie, but Peter made subsequent mistakes like with circumcision, so besides Peter not being God, his being error free is also unnecessary.

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.

And that is why "all that" exists.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Anglian; There is a moral vacuum in the West, and as one looks elsewhere in the Christian world, figures of towering authority are rare.

Depending of course, on what you consider towering & authoritatve.

How hard is it for a faith build on repentance, humility and obedience to God's will to begin to heal its divisions? And why is it that hard?

In peace,

Anglian

It's hard because some do not distinguish between the will of God & the will of The Church.

 

[analogmusicman]

in my humble opinion, the "Holy Spirit" came to Earth at Pentecost,departed when Constantine came to power in the fourth century and returned at the Protestant reformation in the sixteenth century. He indwells the Protestant Church only and the Roman Church is now only a relic of the "pre Luther" days. since it wouldn't change at Luther's urging, the RCC has been on it's own path for centuries now, and is very much NOT a part of God's original plan.
I know this is not accepted by RCC's but it's my view.

tnx,

 

[Technocrat2010]

in my humble opinion, the "Holy Spirit" came to Earth at Pentecost,departed when Constantine came to power in the fourth century and returned at the Protestant reformation in the sixteenth century. He indwells the Protestant Church only and the Roman Church is now only a relic of the "pre Luther" days. since it wouldn't change at Luther's urging, the RCC has been on it's own path for centuries now, and is very much NOT a part of God's original plan.
I know this is not accepted by RCC's but it's my view.

tnx,

That would imply, then, that Christ's promise is broken. But thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter.

 

[Rick Otto]

That would imply, then, that Christ's promise is broken. But thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter.

No. it would imply that the gates of hell did not prevail against His Church, when another tried to supplant it.

 

[Technocrat2010]

No. it would imply that the gates of hell did not prevail against His Church, when another tried to supplant it.

When Christ established the Papacy, He modeled it after the Davidic Prime Ministership. He gave Peter the Keys, which was analogous to the position of the Prime Minister in the OT Davidic Kingdom. Since that position has a role of succession involved, it logically follows that there must have been an unbroken line of successive prime ministers throughout history, otherwise, Jesus' promise would have been broken, since Jesus specifically stated that He would start the Church with Peter as the PM, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against that Church which had Peter as the PM.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Technocrat2010; When Christ established the Papacy,...

He modeled it after the Davidic Prime Ministership.

Not even. There is no legitimate papacy unless Jesus is your permanent pope:

Heb 3:1 - Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

He gave Peter the Keys, which was analogous to the position of the Prime Minister in the OT Davidic Kingdom.

The analogy isn't false, but your application of it is.

Since that position has a role of succession involved, it logically follows that there must have been an unbroken line of successive prime ministers throughout history, otherwise, Jesus' promise would have been broken, since Jesus specifically stated that He would start the Church with Peter as the PM, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against that Church which had Peter as the PM.

That would only be true if Jesus wanted to continue the priesthood in line withe type established by Aaron.
Instead, He setablished the priesthood of believers in line with the type exemplified by Melchezdek:

Heb 7:11 - If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 5:6 - As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.Heb 5:10 - Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Heb 6:20 - Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews amply demonstrates the Levitical priesthood with undivine high priests is over.
The truth has set us free of that.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Not even. There is no legitimate papacy unless Jesus is your permanent pope:

There is no legit papacy unless Jesus is our permanent king - which He is.

Heb 3:1 - Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

The point of citing this passage is...?

The analogy isn't false, but your application of it is.

Please demonstrate.

That would only be true if Jesus wanted to continue the priesthood in line withe type established by Aaron.
Instead, He setablished the priesthood of believers in line with the type exemplified by Melchezdek:

Heb 7:11 - If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 5:6 - As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.Heb 5:10 - Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Heb 6:20 - Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews amply demonstrates the Levitical priesthood with undivine high priests is over.
The truth has set us free of that.

You have "high priest" and "Prime Minister" mixed up.

We are indeed a priesthood of believers. However, Hebrews is not speaking of the end of the Levitical priesthood but rather the fulfillment of the Levite priests through the NT antitypes of Church priests/presbyters, bishops, etc. Your argument is similar to Korah's argument in the NT when he rebelled against Moses for the same reasons - that the divine priesthood of all believers, he erroneously concluded, meant that there was to be no separate order of hierarchy.

Hebrews is not demolishing the OT priesthood - it is highlighting the importance placed upon a person with the role of a priest (in this case, Melchizedek). Incidentally, Melchizedek is used here as a typological reference to the NT High priest, which is Jesus. The "change in law" is referring to the fact that in the OT time, only descendants of the house of Levi became priests. Jesus was a descendant of the house of Judah. In order for Him to become a Priest, let alone a "High" Priest, and in order for anyone else to take on such a mantle, there must have been a fulfillment of the OT Levite law. This does not mean we are all priests in the same typological manner as Korah suggested. This means that just as the Levite priests, a specific group of people, upheld the Mosaic Law, so now we have our current Church priests, who uphold the New Testament Law.

Have a look at numbers 16.

And again, nothing here that remotely touches the keys to the kingdom. There were many OT priests, specifically of the tribe of Levi, but there was only one bearer of the Keys - the King. The King, in his absence, charged the keys to the Prime Minister.