Are there patristic objections to the Papacy?

[david_ruiz]

The Didache another early church writing says to “appoint yourselves bishops/deacons” nothing monarchical here, no central governance. Barnabus(100 A.D.? )- "I beseech you who are superiors…show kindness, be good lawgivers, one to another and be ye taught of God, inquiring diligently what the Lord asks of you ". Again there is a layer of authority and that The Lord is still with us being His own vicar, over all “shepherds”. Mathetes(120 A.D.?) - “Trust in His kindness, esteem Him our teacher, counselor,wisdom and light”. How much have we all abrogated from such simplicity and instead trusted in our magisterium , traditions,a priestly class etc,which could be the heart of the pope or no pope debate. Again this is an individual challenge, not necessarily one of denomination or rite.

 

[david_ruiz]

Justin Martyr Second Apology ch113-" For I have shown that Christ was proclaimed by the prophets in parables a Stone and a Rock (as does St. Paul in one of his epistles ).Ch 114 “…we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which cause living water to burst forth in our hearts…” I think we all agree that Christ is this Rock and does not directly address the Peter /rock discourse.Again Martyr like ,Ignatius ,do not equate Peter with "rock’ . Shepherd of Hermas Par. 9, ch.12…“This rock, he answered, and this gate are the Son of God” Again does not address Peter as rock.

 

[david_ruiz]

Tertullian (200A.D.) Identifies Christ as rock but in The Prescription Against Heretics, clearly states Peter as the rock on which the church should be built, who obtained the keys of the kingdom. Again , even this does not address the full Petrine doctrine, nor does it say that Revelations is also correct in that all 12 apostles are the church’s foundation. In his five books against Marcion ,he goes into detail of Peter’s name change,supposing it to be for his faith ,and because it also identified ,figuratively, with Christ(for he was a “rock” also). Again, no inference of future Petrine office. Finally, On Modesty ( written after he became a Montanist-heretical)-ch 21, "If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build my church, to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever thou shall have bound or loosed in earth shall also be bound or loosed in heaven, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is ,to every church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord conferring this gift on Peter? On thee, He says, will I build my church and I will give thee the keys,not to the church, and whatever you (Peter) will bind or loose ,not what they have bound or loosed ". Again explicit Peter is rock/keys , but explicit denial of any “succession”.

 

[MilesVitae]

Like many such quotes here they are simply a few lines and are devoid of historically understanding and also are not presented in original language. St. Maksim Ispovednik - you call Maximus - would I think never have used word pontificate - the pontifex maximus - this was Pagan roman term. But poor Theodor Studiyski - he is trying to gain support of Pope against Ikonobortsi - so like any good Greek - (have you not read Homer) - he praises his protector ! Praise is not a theological treatise!!

I agree that one has to be careful in evaluation praise which may be hyperbolic. For instance, if someone were to address the successor of Peter as Peter (as some speak of him in the Fathers), I’d be careful in how I’d interpret that.

But, these passages seem to me more than merely hyperbolic praise. Yes, these statements are made within the context of praise - none the less, they make claims which seem incompatible with non-Catholic notions of the papacy. Praise or not, Saint Maximus does say that the primacy of Rome was received in part from the Apostles, that she is not subject to “writings or issues in synodical documents,” and explicitly affirms connects Christ’s promises from Matthew 16 to refer to the Church in Rome.

Saint Theodore similarly affirms that novelties must be referred to the Bishop of Rome, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against Rome, because of Christ’s promises. I have a great deal of trouble seeing these statements as “mere praise.”

Also, what of Jerome, and Damasus’ claim for himself?