Thread: Papal Claims

The Acacian Schism is another thing plucked out of the context of history and given as proof of papal power.

The Emperor imposed upon the eastern churches an oath at behest of the Pope. He was playing politics. He was doing this at a time he needed help. Fifteen years earlier, he had been in a different position, and had ordered Pope Vigilius to Constantinople, and placed him under arrest for 10 years. This incident is however not noted by Catholics for it shows not the supremacy of the Pope, but the supremacy of the Emperor, who forced his will on the eastern church when he needed to, and on the western church likewise. The Emperor already had control over the east at the time of the ‘Acacian Schism’, and could more easily control affairs there.

Thus...

"The Emperors considered the Pope to be their subject as well as the Patriarch; and the Pope was more important because he was physically less easy to control and politically more useful owing to the influence he commanded in Italy (which Justinian was trying to regain). Thus if the Pope could only be placated by humiliating the Patriarch, the Emperor was usually prepared to order the patriarch to recognise papal superiority..." [1]

Likewise... "But the fear of compromising the autonomy of their churches prevented the Orientals from accepting the claims that were made by certain Popes, especially Gelasius, Symmacus and Nicholas I, the claim to direct and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church, including the east."[2]

The oath was "In following all these things the apostolic see and in professing all its constitutions, I hope that I will deserve to remain in the same communion with you which is professed by the apostolic see, in which persists the total and true strength of the Christian religion. Promising also not to recite in the liturgy the names of men who have been separated from communion with the Catholic Church which means, who do not agree with the apostolic see...."[3]

HOWEVER

"Before signing the document, John, Patriarch of Constantinople, added the following sentence: "I hold the most holy Church of the old and the new Rome to be one. I define the see of the Apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be the one see." In doing this, he was recalling the fact that canon 28 of the Council of Constantinople declared that the Sees of Roman and Constantinople were equal."[4]

Notes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Sir Steven Runciman, "The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XII Centuries," pp17-18, quoted in Whelton, p82.
[2] Francis Dvornik, “Byzantium and the Roman Primacy” (Roman Catholic scholar at Harvard University) , p165 quoted in Whelton, M., p83.
[3] Cambridge Medieval History - vol 2, pp246-247, quoted in Whelton, M., p81.
[4] Whelton, pp81-82.

Originally Posted by flip2

But I am encouraged by the inter-faiths dialogue began by John Paul II, being continued by Benedict XVI, and on this thread.

Flip2 thanks for your words of peace however I'd like to raise another example similar to that in post#18 Where-by the Catholic church spreads false quotes concerning Orthodox fathers.. Eight different ones lead to claims that Orthodox Fathers supported the Papacy.

For instance this site[1] states that

""Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).



"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2)."



This would seem prima facie quite convincing. However they also left out a bit

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”[2]



Once again the case for papal supremecy is faulty, because they are not (when we read more of the text) claiming to follow the Bishop of Rome ALONE, but that as taught by all the Apostles through all the bishops... this is because each church, headed by a bishop, contains the fullness of the church, and is thus 'catholic'.

There can be little genuine progress when many Catholic sites continually (liberally) edit quotes.

Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.catholic.com/library/Auth...ope_Part_2.asp
[2] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-1...m#P4844_991182

More misrepresentation can be found at one site [1] which claims to give a list of New Testament quotes supporting Petrine supremacy.
Just a sample

Website: 1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
The Bible says...
1 Cor. 9:3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don't we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

I would think that two people are singled out here, James, and Peter.

Website: Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

And when Paul and Barnbas speak, everyone else is silent. This is called 'being polite'. It is James who sits in judgment, and he's the one who makes the ruling; because he is bishop of Jerusalem.

Website: Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

Bible: Romans 15: 19 by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.

This means Paul's been preaching in places where the church is already etablished; such as in Jerusalem. But he intends to go where it has not been established; his ambition - to go to Rome where he co-founded a church there; with Peter.

Notes
[1] http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church

a better translation would be

"And I tell you that you are Rock , and on this rock I will build my church "

Peter is derived from the greek "Petros" which is greek for rock. From the same word from which we get "Petrified", etc.

oh and don't forget:

"You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas"

John 1:42

Cephas is Aramaic for rock.

...

This is not to say i'm a fan of papal supremacy.

IMO, you guys are really looking way too much into this in terms of metaphors. Jesus never said anything specifically about papal supremacy so now everyone tries to twist his words to say that he did. That is not the way to find answers, this is the way to find answers:

"According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- the work of each builder will become visable, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire. "

The first letter of paul to the corinthians, 3:10-15.

The way i interpret this is nothing can be known about papal supremacy until the "Day discloses it" which depending on your interpretation can either happen at any time or is specifically refering to the end times.

I might mention that this is in the context of paul attempting to repair a break in an early division of the church. They are free to disagree, but regardless, the only church at fault in this is one that doesn't recognize the christianity of the other.

"And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not merely human? "

"What then is Appolos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, and the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. For we are God's servants, working together; you are God's field, God's building."

the previous passages, 3:1-9

Originally Posted by Nathan44

a better translation would be

"And I tell you that you are Rock , and on this rock I will build my church "

Peter is derived from the greek "Petros" which is greek for rock. From the same word from which we get "Petrified", etc.

The problem with the Catholic claim is that they assert that 'rock' must equal something in particular, when in fact the church fathers were not in agreement with what it meant.

I stated this in a previous post...

But what in fact did the early church make of this statement?

A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27. On the issue of ‘the Rock’ and ‘the Keys’ we can look to other great thinkers… (see also Appendix A) to determine how they interpreted these words. Also
http://www.tecmalta.org/tft305.htm


So one of their 'clear-cut' evidences is simply a matter that has been actually interpreted very differently. Also harking back to an earlier statement...
One Father, Augustine of Hippo wrote “See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church. What meaneth, ’Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build My Church” (Homily X on John V. 1-3).[1]

St. Cyprian stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5).[2]

Turning again to Augustine: “Therefore Peter is so called from the
rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the
Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art
Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which
thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living
God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself
upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and
I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the
Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.

“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that
Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
(Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25).[3]

Thus, St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held
primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
(Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics). [4]


Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ibid, pp27-8. also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-0...#P4618_2490251

[2] Ibid, p28. Note that St. Cyprian re-occurs a number of times as one of the so-called ‘champions’ of Papal Primacy – we shall visit him again as well.

And at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6832_2190664

[3] Ibid, pp31-32 quoted also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-0...#P4186_1789723

[4] Whelton, p34.

Another 'evidence' used by Catholics is the controversy over the celibration of Easter, and the machinations of Pope St Victor; claims by the Catholic church on the ‘exercise’ of papal power fail upon closer inspection.

Pope St. Victor (189-199) is sometimes claimed by Catholics as the first to demonstrate supreme power over the whole Christian world. The Church in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from the rest of the Christian churches, and although he initiated a synod to investigate, this was done by request, not command. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus wrote to St. Victor “Victor and the Roman Church”, (Eusebius – v. 24). [1]

Eusebius further says “There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem; and from those at Rome a similar one, arising out of the same controversy, which names Victor as bishop. There are others from the Pontic bishops, presided over by Palmas as the senior; from the Gallic province, over which Irenaeus was archbishop, and from the bishops in Osrhoene and the cities of that region. There are personal letters from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more, who voiced the same opinion and judgment and gave the same vote. All these laid down one single rule the rule already stated.” [2]

Thus the decree came from the conference, not from the Pope. Polycrates disputed the council, however. Eusebius said “Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman Church attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian diocese, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy.” [3] NOTE: Attempted He failed because “…this was not tot the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the
words of these men who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was
responsible for in Gaul.”[4] This hardly suggest universal over-lordship as understood by the early church.

Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Whelton, M, "Two Paths", p45.
[2] Ibid, p45.
[3] Ibid, pp46-47.
Note that the Catholic Church regards Eusebius as the "Father of Church History" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm)
[4] Whelton, Ibid.

One man who converted from Protestantism to Catholicism claimed that there is ample evidence of the early church fathers supporting Papal supremecy.[1]

He states with conviction…

“Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heritics, written about the year A.D. 200, and continuing to challenge the heretics who have departed from the doctrine of the Church says, "Come now,...run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place...Achaia...Corinth...Philippi...Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [John the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffered no hurt, was exiled to an island"[36,1-3]. (p.122).” (emphasis his)
Oddly enough he fails to understand that he highlights the part that doesn’t support his argument. If you are near to Italy, Rome is your head church… that is to say, only if you are near Italy. But what about ‘whence also our authority derives’?
Let’s just take a moment to look at Tertullian, is he a whole-hearted supporter of the Papacy?
A Catholic web-site[2] states…
“Tertullian (QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS).
Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries, b. probably about 160 at Carthage, being the son of a centurion in the proconsular service. He was evidently by profession an advocate in the law-courts, and he shows a close acquaintance with the procedure and terms of Roman law, though it is doubtful whether he is to be identified with a jurist Tertullian who is cited in the Pandects. He knew Greek as well as Latin, and wrote works in Greek which have not come down to us. A pagan until middle life, he had shared the pagan prejudices against Christianity, and had indulged like others in shameful pleasures. His conversion was not later than the year 197, and may have been earlier. He embraced the Faith with all the ardour of his impetuous nature. He became a priest, no doubt of the Church of Carthage. Monceaux, followed by d'Ales, considers that his earlier writings were composed while he was yet a layman, and if this be so, then his ordination was about 200. His extant writings range in date from the apologetics of 197 to the attack on a bishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 218 ).”

Note two things. 1) he is from North Africa; close to Italy – therefore his church then probably did come under the headship of Rome. 2) He was known to be critical of bishops of Rome.
This misguided writer goes on. Another of his so-called proofs is the opening address of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, which reads;

“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father's name; which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness.”[3]

Again note… ‘to the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans’, that is, to the area around Rome! Note also ‘to the church that is beloved…’ not ‘to the church that is MOST beloved…’

Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.saveourchurch.org/faithfather.html
[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm
[3] http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

Your posts have been fascinating, but you are mounting a one-sided debate.
Why the crusade?

Originally Posted by Rev.

Your posts have been fascinating, but you are mounting a one-sided debate.
Why the crusade?

In a sense I'm trying to post what I can, when I can... because I've been kicked off two other forums by Catholic moderators who won't engage me in debate on this issue, but simply siffled my 'rant' by censorship. So, now that I've been able to go unmolested* here, I've got a chance to air my stuff at last ! Even though my posts are (if I'm not being too arrogant) well researched it seems that Catholics have no wish but to provide their own one-sided accounts.
I am aware of several Catholic sites that use Holy Fathers out of context.
http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp
http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebe...patriarchs.htm
This last list itself is linked from a vast number of sites:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html
http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS4.HTM
http://www.catholicsource.net/articl...ertherock.html
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/the_rock.htm
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=239960
http://srv1.ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ206.HTM
http://www.americancatholictruthsoci.../ecfpapacy.htm

I've written to the 'bumblebee' site and all they responded was shock that I would even question their statements.

I've got much more, if you like I'll post some. Here's a bit more.
One of their misquotes read...

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

To which I stated...
Actually your quote is quite liberal in it's interpretation and thus misses a bit... " Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity"
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6832_2190664

Do you want to know more?


*unmolested in the sense that no one has warned me for these postings. I would welcome Catholics defending their church; after-all I could be wrong on some or all points.

It's all very interesting but I'm afraid you'll get no debate from me. I don't understand how anyone can read "On this rock I will build my Church" and get out of it "Peter, I annoint you Pope."

Originally Posted by Montalban

In a sense I'm trying to post what I can, when I can... because I've been kicked off two other forums by Catholic moderators who won't engage me in debate on this issue, but simply stiffled my 'rant' by censorship. So, now that I've been able to go unmolested* here, I've got a chance to air my stuff at last ! Even though my posts are (if I'm not being too arrogant) well researched it seems that Catholics have no wish but to provide their own one-sided accounts.

What are you hoping to accomplish through these posts? Correct history, just for the record? Or that Catholics will realize the truth and...?