Are there patristic objections to the Papacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MilesVitae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MilesVitae

Guest
This question is addressed primarily to any non-Catholics (particularly Orthodox) on the threads, though Catholics are of course welcome to answer as well.

I have come across a number of patristic passages (Western and Eastern) which seem to express belief in the headship of Peter and the divinely established headship of Peter’s succesor’s at Rome.

Are there any patristic objections to this headship, any denials on the part of Church Fathers of the necessity of communion with Rome, the primal authority of the Pope, or direct responses to the claims of such writers as (for instance) Saint Jerome or Saint Maximus?
 
Not that I have ever seen, but I would be interested to see if someone can drag one up.
 
theidler,

On another note altogether…what is the picture in your signature?
 
I’ve seen some people quote a modest statement by St. Gregory the Great to support a position rejecting the Pope’s universal jurisdiction, but as I recall the quote had to do with not dishonoring other bishops by undue interference in their affairs and did not really contradict the assertion of the Pope’s universal and immediate jurisdiction over all Catholics.

Also there are those Fathers who said that the rock upon which Christ built the Church was Peter’s faith or some such. To that one could reply, first, that there can be multiple senses of Scripture, and second, that even the Fathers of the Church could make mistakes and they didn’t always agree with each other.
 
MilesVitae said:
This question is addressed primarily to any non-Catholics (particularly Orthodox) on the threads, though Catholics are of course welcome to answer as well.

I have come across a number of patristic passages (Western and Eastern) which seem to express belief in the headship of Peter and the divinely established headship of Peter’s succesor’s at Rome.

Are there any patristic objections to this headship, any denials on the part of Church Fathers of the necessity of communion with Rome, the primal authority of the Pope, or direct responses to the claims of such writers as (for instance) Saint Jerome or Saint Maximus?
Click to expand...
I’ve never really heard of Orthodox rejection of the papacy as an institution. Indeed, one Orthodox priest I know mentioned that, should the Catholic and Orthodox Churches ever reunite, that “Benedict would sit at the head of the table, not Bartholomew.” So there is a recognition of some kind of papal primacy, including that Rome is the seat of Peter. The question comes in on whether Peter had authority over the apostles, or was merely a primus inter pares (“first among equals”).

At any rate, from my readings of the Church Fathers, I see a suggestion that the Pope has more authority than simply a symbolic headship.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
I’ve seen some people quote a modest statement by St. Gregory the Great to support a position rejecting the Pope’s universal jurisdiction, but as I recall the quote had to do with not dishonoring other bishops by undue interference in their affairs and did not really contradict the assertion of the Pope’s universal and immediate jurisdiction over all Catholics.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, the Patriarch(?) of Constantinople tried to call himself the Universal Bishop, or some such thing. Gregory rejected the title.
Also there are those Fathers who said that the rock upon which Christ built the Church was Peter’s faith or some such. To that one could reply, first, that there can be multiple senses of Scripture, and second, that even the Fathers of the Church could make mistakes and they didn’t always agree with each other.
Click to expand...
I would side with the former explanation. Furthermore, of course, there are abundant examples of Church Fathers referring to Peter himself as the rock, or the foundation of the Church.

Church Fathers can make mistakes, which is why I am interested in seeing if there are any patristic denials of the divine establishment of the papacy, primal authority of Peter, or primal authority of Rome (three distinct issues). If there aren’t, then I feel like the patristic case for the Papacy (as understood by Catholics) is fairly strong.
 
I want to say there may also be something in St. Cyril of Jerusalem that has given me pause in the past, but I can’t remember it.

Regarding Peter and the Rock, I have a hard time seeing any layer interpretation of Matthew 16 likely to have been intended by the inspired author in which the rock would be Peter’s faith or anything else other than Peter himself, but that’s another discussion. I included both possibilities just to cover all the bases.

Regarding Gregory, let me see if I can find the exact quote I’m thinking of.
 
I think this is the quote I was thinking of, which some have tried to use in defense of the primacy of honor idea:
My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
 
PAPALISM

Very difficult to discuss Papalism in history from "quotes’ since there are some many forgeries - proven even by Roman Catholics to be forgeries.

In regard to forgery of quote of St Kyprian Karfagenskiy about equaity of all bishops was added forgery “sed exordium ab unitate poticiscitur et primatus Petro” - in order to make it seem he says just what he didn’t say - that Bishop of Rome is “different and better” than other bishops.

Pseudo Clementine writings - which support such things as priestly celibacy and the superiority of Pope - written in style not consistent with age to which attributed.

Furthermore, as the Bishop of Rome grew up to be the Vicar of Christ he produced such known forgeries as the Decretals of Pseudo Isidor and the Donation of Constantine to support his views. These known forged documents also support the idea of Bishop of Rome as “different super-bishop”.

Papalism further rejected St. Paul’s assertion that he was founder and first Bishop of Rome as Paul wrote to Timothy. But Papalism is not idea of Church Fathers - in fact except for Kliment of Rome who was a Greek father - there are no Bishops of Rome amongst fathers of Church. What is the Vicar of Christ - this is the placeholder of Christ - Christ himself says this is the Holy Spirit. Why do you say, the Bishop of Rome??

The views of Vicar of Christ as BIshop of Rome and infallibility of such were recognized as a deviance from Apostolic teaching and called Ultramontane until 1871. Then these became accepted because of forceful running of socalled Ecumenical Council of Vatican by Bishop of rome. So read the opposition of Roman Catholics to 1871 decree of papal infallibiity at this internet site:

William John Sparrow Simpson - Wikisource, the free online library
 
Volodymyr said:
What is the Vicar of Christ - this is the placeholder of Christ - Christ himself says this is the Holy Spirit. Why do you say, the Bishop of Rome??
Click to expand...
This, unfortunately, often gets misunderstood. The teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and one which remains taught in post-conciliar documents, is that the Pope and all diocesan bishops are the vicars of Christ.
 
Volodymyr said:
PAPALISM

Very difficult to discuss Papalism in history from "quotes’ since there are some many forgeries - proven even by Roman Catholics to be forgeries.

In regard to forgery of quote of St Kyprian Karfagenskiy about equaity of all bishops was added forgery “sed exordium ab unitate poticiscitur et primatus Petro” - in order to make it seem he says just what he didn’t say - that Bishop of Rome is “different and better” than other bishops.

Pseudo Clementine writings - which support such things as priestly celibacy and the superiority of Pope - written in style not consistent with age to which attributed.

Furthermore, as the Bishop of Rome grew up to be the Vicar of Christ he produced such known forgeries as the Decretals of Pseudo Isidor and the Donation of Constantine to support his views. These known forged documents also support the idea of Bishop of Rome as “different super-bishop”.
Click to expand...
I have never read any of these, so they have asserted no influence over my thoughts on the matter. What I have read are writings or pieces of writings by John Chrysostom, Jerome, Leo, John Chrysologos, Maximus the Confessor, and others.
Papalism further rejected St. Paul’s assertion that he was founder and first Bishop of Rome as Paul wrote to Timothy. But Papalism is not idea of Church Fathers - in fact except for Kliment of Rome who was a Greek father - there are no Bishops of Rome amongst fathers of Church.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church recognizes some of the Bishops of Rome as Church Fathers, but I don’t know if the Orthodox do or not. That, however, is beside the point. There is support for the Catholic understand of the papacy in the writings of Church Fathers, both Eastern and Western.

In any case, however, you did not answer my question, which is whether there are any patristic objections to the Catholic understanding of the papacy. Are there Church Fathers who deny that the Bishop of Rome was head of the Church, or who object to the claims which some of the Popes made for themselves, or which other Church Fathers made for them?
 
How about Tertullian ? I know he spoke of or against “succession”,or transferring of Peter’s keys. Part of the problem is not what we read , but what we don’t read in church fathers. We find writings that have no mention of the primacy of the bishop of Rome,when they could have (when discussing bishops,authority etc).Generally speaking , where you sit is where you usually stand ( on a matter,such as this). Seek and ye shall find, either for or against papal doctrine. And the seeking begins right with scripture (as does the divergence in interpretation) .As you are encouraged to find more and more fathers with primacy views as the centuries passed, I am encouraged to find less and then little or none as you go back thru the centuries to our foundation/beginnings. As you find richness for papal views in scripture, so do many but against primacy notions. As my old Dominican teacher used to shout at us in class, “be a banana and stick to the bunch”. Trouble here is, as it has been from the beginning, which “bunch” ? I certainly find comfort with my “bunch”, such as Volodymyr when he states belief that the Holy Spirit is indeed the Vicar of Christ, leaving room for only one to be first amongst equals…As a side note ,one could also look at church councils to see how this has played out in our history. While one can not deny the emergence/evolving of primacy over time, one can not also deny resistance to it. Blessings fellow pilgrims.
 
MilesVitae said:
I have never read any of these, so they have asserted no influence over my thoughts on the matter. What I have read are writings or pieces of writings by John Chrysostom, Jerome, Leo, John Chrysologos, Maximus the Confessor, and others.
Click to expand...
But these documents particularly the forgeries - had great influence on the development of doctrine of Papalism. Mr. Ruiz is right - you are looking for something that cannot exist! Why would anyone in 60-1054 AD write that such is opposed to Infallible, universal authority of bishop of Rome, when this does not exist until after Cluny reforms of Papacy and as defense for return of Pope to Rome at time Avignon papacy. During this time 1100-1500 in West, this idea of Papalism takes form. Why would anyone in 600 AD say such does not agree with something that will be in future!! Of course, Church fathers say that Saint Leo spoke with voice of Peter and such things! But to draw deep conclusions from what is already hyperbolic praise, is a serious problem!
 
Paul himself acknowledges that someone went to Rome before him and spread the Gospel there. When he wrote the Epistle to the Romans he had not yet been to Rome. There is no mention in the Bible of who that was, but a firm and old tradition that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, where he was martyred. St. Peter and St. Paul are commemorated together in the Roman Liturgy as founders of the Church in Rome since they are the two apostles to have preached there. Nevertheless Paul was never bishop of Rome.

The Donation of Constantine was indeed a forgery, whose primary purpose was to further solidify the Papal claim to the Papal States, and in general the Pope’s independence from the Holy Roman Emperor.

I think most scholars agree that 1 Clement is authentically from the first century St. Clement of Rome. 2 Clement is probably from another author, in the second century, who does not identify himself (likely the “epistle” was originally a homily) but was later mistakenly identified as Clement. Other supposedly Clementine writings, such as the Letter of St. Clement to James which I suspect is something you are referring to, can more properly be called frauds, though still from around the third century and so a useful look into the beliefs of the early Church, though it’s hard or impossible to justify the fiction of pretending it’s an authentic letter from St. Clement.

I have not encountered Catholics misrepresenting the origins of these documents in order to support the Papacy.
 
What I’ve seen is not so much objections as silence or a different interpretation of the supporting scriptural passages. For example, regarding Matthew 16:18, one might interpret the rock as Peter, another as his faith, another as both, etc. For a dogma as fundamental to Catholicism as the papacy I would expect to find support for it in virtually every patristic treatment of ecclesiology, but I find this to not be the case. For another example take Ignatius, who treats the ecclesiology frequently and writes repeatedly about the bishop as representative of Christ. Nowhere however do we see him speak of a papcy.
 
Volodymyr said:
But these documents particularly the forgeries - had great influence on the development of doctrine of Papalism. Mr. Ruiz is right - you are looking for something that cannot exist! Why would anyone in 60-1054 AD write that such is opposed to Infallible, universal authority of bishop of Rome, when this does not exist until after Cluny reforms of Papacy and as defense for return of Pope to Rome at time Avignon papacy. During this time 1100-1500 in West, this idea of Papalism takes form. Why would anyone in 600 AD say such does not agree with something that will be in future!!
Click to expand...
I understand your point.
But what I am arguing is that there are Church Fathers and others in the patristic period who support the divine establishment of the papacy and the Catholic understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome (see below). In light of this fact, I am wondering if there are any rejections, from that time period, of the ideas expressed by these men.

Saint Maximus

“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate”

“For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him”

Saint Theodore the Studite

“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.”

“Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter.”

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

Saint Optatus

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church”

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are 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 whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it”

Saint Jerome

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails”

catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
 
dcointin said:
What I’ve seen is not so much objections as silence or a different interpretation of the supporting scriptural passages. For example, regarding Matthew 16:18, one might interpret the rock as Peter, another as his faith, another as both, etc. For a dogma as fundamental to Catholicism as the papacy I would expect to find support for it in virtually every patristic treatment of ecclesiology, but I find this to not be the case. For another example take Ignatius, who treats the ecclesiology frequently and writes repeatedly about the bishop as representative of Christ. Nowhere however do we see him speak of a papcy.
Click to expand...
As far as the patristic evidence goes, I have to admit that what I find most troubling is, indeed, the silence (since I have seen few positive objections). Apologists often cite Saint Irenaeus, Saint Ignatius, etc…and these fathers do lend support to the idea of some sort of primacy of the Church of Rome, at least one of honor. But why are there not frequent assertions of a divinely established primacy of authority of Rome, of the necessity of communion with Rome, etc., if the Catholic claims are indeed true?

This is why I wonder if the claims made by Fathers, Popes, and others within the next several centuries represent an erroneous understanding of Rome’s primacy. But if such an understanding is an erroneous and later development of thought, I might expect to see some objection to it.
 
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!!
 
For what it is worth:St. Ignatius of Antioch -Letter to the Philadelphians ch 9, “The Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all things, and exercises a providence over them all. This the way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, thru which have entered Abraham,Isaac, Jacob and Moses and all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out his own blood, as her marriage portion, that he might redeem her.” Seems Christ is the “rock” and still has “keys”, as Revelations also attest. The apostles are given equal credit , as “pillars”. Revelations calls them ( the 12) our “foundation”. This is the same Ignatius, as Dcointin pointed out, who named bishops and presbyters of most of the city churches he wrote to (was it seven ?), except for Rome . I would have to reread but I believe he was silent on naming any Roman bishops. Were there too many of them (bishops) on account of the enormity of the city ? Is this not strong evidence for a presbtyery governance and not monarchical episcopacy ? He further states to the Ephesians that we are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Comforter), yet in obedience to the bishop and presbytery. To the Magnesians he says “yield to him (bishop) reverance, submit to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of us all.” Again, Ignatius is fantastic for “uplifting” those in church governance, so much so that some ,a few, scholars think all 14 of his letters are spuroius , not just the seven most agree are. Yet no mention of anyone in “Rome”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top