Arguments against the Papacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mr.fidelium
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I have read I don’t believe Virgilius was actually "anathematized. The Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematized the Three Chapters (a group of writings written by three theologians) which held some dubious theological claims that could be scrutinized as Nestorian, and they criticized the Pope for not rejecting the Three Chapters as well. However, the council at this time was being controlled by Emperor Justinian and the Pope had been taken captive by him. It is understandable that the Pope would find it hard to agree in principle to what the council said (regardless if it was true or not) while it was under the sway of the Emperor (and while the Pope was captured). Virgilius did, in fact, condemn one of the writings of the Three Chapters. It must be noted that the Pope, as far as I know, never affirmed the Three Chapters.

As far as Honorius is concerned, I need to do a little reading.
 
Last edited:
Hello Augustine;
Before I present some real historical facts. I would pose one question to you?

Can you give one heresy to which these two popes in question taught a heresy from the Chair of Peter = ex-Cathedra that was made binding on all believers? You would be hard pressed to name just one, but I would respectfully await your answer.

Pope Virgilius and Pope Honorius were both Byzantine or Greek speaking Popes, when tensions between the Greek speaking Catholic Church in the East and the Latin speaking Church in the west, mainly due to Imperial influence on the side of the Eastern Church’s particularly Constantinople, who has the ear of the Emperor and Emperess, who are vying to usurp the Authority and power from the bishop’s of Rome.

Pope Virgilius came to the throne of Peter, at the support of the Imperial Empress Theodora and security of her army, Which Virgilius had Pope Silverius arrested under harsh conditions and died. Due to the Vacancy of the Chair of Peter, Pope Virgilius became bishop of Rome under the Imperial agreement that Pope Virgilius would support the condemned heresy Monophysite.

In short Pope Virgilius never accepted the Monophysite heresy. Thereby bringing down the wrath of the Imperial brother, the Emperor Justinian, a heretic by the way, Justinian sent his guards to arrest Pope Virgilius and imprisoned him and I don’t say this lightly. Emperor Justinian FORCED Pope Virgilius to condemn three chapters from the Church council of Chalcedon. Which he did sign the Emperors document under false imprisonment and under force by torture and threat of death, then shortly died. So much for teaching heresy by Pope Virgilius.

Let me pause here. Consider a Roman Emperor requiring the signature of a weak Pope in order to ratify and Emperor’s document. This historical action proves how wanting and authoritative the bishop of Rome had in respect to the other existing apostolic sees. If the bishop of Rome had no authority, why did multiple Emperors and Church councils’ require the bishop’s of Rome ratification or acceptance?

Pope Honorius coming from the Greek side of the Catholic Church. In period when many of his Eastern brothers were excommunicated and found to be teaching the Monophysite heresy. Pope Honorius sentimental to his heretical Greek brethren, wrote PRIVATE LETTERS to these heretics, attempting to bring his brethren back to the fold. He never succeeded while sitting in the chair of Peter the bishop of Rome.

AFTER 40 YEARS WHILE POPE HONORIUS LAY DEAD. The Monophysite heretics surfaced Pope Honorius PRIVATE LETTERS to prove to the Church a Pope supported the Monophysite heresy.

The Church quickly counciled and condemned the 40 year dead Pope Honorius as a heretic and the Church rightly did so, to remove any support for the heretics and their Monophysite heresy, that the Church even went further to condemn and excommunicate the 40 year dead Pope Honorius’s PRIVATE LETTERS. Imagine the tension this created, that a Church council went as far as condemning Private Letters from a Pope to his friends.

You see, augustine, Condemning and excommunicating a Pope that was dead for 40 years later, never has a chance to make his case known or be reconciled back to the Church. Pope Honorius, was never condemned or excommunicated while he lived and sat in the Chair of Peter. Needless to say, Pope Honorius never publicly taught any heresy.

Now I place the burden of proof upon your theory. When did these two Greek speaking Bishop’s of Rome ever dare to try and bring their Eastern Heresies into the Western Latin speaking Church.

I would challenge you to Prove that these two Popes fell into heresy and taught their heresy officially to the Church.

There is much more to expose to these Greek speaking Bishop’s of Rome that we have not touched upon. But these subjects are left for our Orthodox Catholics in the East.

Peace be with you
 
Last edited:
I find the ex catedra exception rather specious, since obscure statements in highly dubious documents are taken as infallible (e.g., Pope Boniface VIII’s Unan Sanctam) while others, though worded carefully, are ignored (e.g., Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis). Moreover, popes declared the public teachings of previous popes as null and void (e.g., Pope Leo III stance on the Creed) or even heretical (e.g., Pope John XXII teachings on the Beatific Vision). We are probably witnessing a similar history in the making with Pope FI, so it’s becoming clear, at least to me, that the claim that popes have never taught error betrays history and resorting to picayune details is less than persuasive, as these tend to be pretty selective as in the first instances above.
 
“OriginalGabrielof12 said:
Hi rcwitness, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome all owe their primacy to St. Peter. One is hard pressed, by any Orthodox Church to try and disprove. Peter who appointed Mark as bishop of Alexandria,

What needs to be said here about these apostolic sees including Jerusalem. All of them fell into heresy, or fell in and out of heresy and found to teach error.

Peter’s apostolic see in Rome is the only apostolic see which has NEVER fallen officially into error.

Thus the Lord’s Words hold true to Peter today. “You are Peter (Rock) and on this Rock, I will build my Church…the gates of hell will come against you, but they will never prevail”.

Peace be with you
Click to expand...
I did think that I heard Peter had established Mark at Alexandria, but I didn’t want to assert that as factual, without historical evidence.

Do you have any sources?
And what are our sources for Peter establishing the Church at Antioch, for that matter? I think the evidence is undeniable he worked in Antioch, for sure, but where do we learn that he established Bishops in Antioch (and Mark in Alexandria)?
 
Our explanation for these claims, which we regard as more plausible, is that the Roman bishops were both power-hungry and in a position to exploit the situation.
PluniaZ said:
Pope Clement I asserted the authority of Rome over the Church of Corinth as early as 69-90 AD. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
Click to expand...
Nowhere in the letter is this asserted. In fact, the letter is from the church, NOT from a Pope. Compare the style to later papal documents. The appeal is to Scripture more than to Roman authority. This epistle can only be used to establish Catholic claims in a suspicious manner, and to use it indicates a certain dishonesty somewhere in the train of claims. You got it from New Advent, who got it from somewhere else. It is likely no one in the train has actually read it in centuries. I have. It seems the church at that time was presbyterian, with no single bishop and no pope.

There is a great distance between ‘presiding church’ and modern papal claims. I have not looked into your second assertion beyond that.

Irenaeus was one of the first champions of the papacy, I will admit. I have not read him, though.

The Eastern bishops’ actions are seen differently by the Orthodox in regards to Easter. Certainly not indicating that he was in any way ruling them.

Cyprian died out of communion with Rome, don’t you know, and he explicitly rejected some papal claims. He is a saint due to heroic martyrdom.

We regard papal actions towards strengthening their position as political moves, NOT as the intent of God. Not as what should have happened. To say that things are as God would have them would mean we should never reform anything.

We (the Reformed) strongly reject the papacy. We reject the office of bishops, upon which it is based. We affirm the ancient and original model of presbyters being the same as episcopoi, with no one exalting someone else above another. Anything past that we regard as a corruption.
 
Pope Clement I wrote, “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ.”

The undisputed tradition of the first millennium church attributes this letter to Pope Clement I. The notion that it was written by a council of elders is a modernist invention, as are all claims against the Papacy. The first millennium church recognized the primacy of Rome:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5ry0pk/rome_has_always_been_the_head_of_all_churches
 
PluniaZ said:
Pope Clement I wrote, “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ.”

The undisputed tradition of the first millennium church attributes this letter to Pope Clement I. The notion that it was written by a council of elders is a modernist invention, as are all claims against the Papacy. The first millennium church recognized the primacy of Rome:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5ry0pk/rome_has_always_been_the_head_of_all_churches
Click to expand...
Just read the thing. He is not mentioned. There is none of the “To my loyal children at Corinth from your father in Rome” type language you find in papal writing. It is very clear to me it is NOT from some Roman bishop and the claim that it was is historical revisionism. I don’t think there was a bishop in Rome at the time, as indicated by this letter.
 
There is only ONE Head of the Church, and that is Jesus Christ.

Look at Ephesians 4, where Paul discusses the offices in the church. No pope. No supreme bishop.

Nowhere in Paul’s epistles is there a concept of one ruler on earth, a man, to settle disputes.

When Jesus asked Peter, "do you love me?’ three times, and Jesus said,“Shepherd my sheep”, he turned to John and said, “Lord, what about this man”. Jesus did not tell Peter he was his pope. Or his shepherd. Or over him. Jesus’ reply was that it was none of his business, not “shepherd him”.

Immediately after the “Rock” quote Catholics are so fond of,which we hold is the faith and not the man Peter, Jesus calls Peter Satan. You can look it up.

As I said, we reject the papacy. On solid and overwhelming evidence. I think you disagree.
 
There are two scenarios to consider. One is that the papacy is valid, and the other that it is not.

If it is valid, then the popes are the severely accountable, because they are held accountable for what happened on their watch. I am mindful of the three huge splits of the church (EO, OO, Protestant), in which the actions of the popes can not be considered favorablly, the corruptions of such as the Borgia popes, etc. The world-wide child-sex scandal. The current abandonment of Christianity by Europe. Ireland is now rejecting Catholicism because of the actions of her bishops and nuns and other religious.

If it is an arrogation, it is not surprising that they fouled up as much as they did, and further foul ups can be expected. Well,yeah, they were just men acting against divine order.

To my mind the second explanation is far more plausible.

I am not saying there has not been a great deal of good done by Catholics. And by the Church. Often that has been in spite of the leadership. Wasn’t there a saint who confronted a pope with “Peter had no riches but he had miracles. You, however, have riches but no miracles”?

The deep and profound distrust Protestants have for the popes is not unfounded. We remember Jan Hus, promised safe conduct to the Council of Florence, who was arrested and burned alive, and the sacking of Christian Constantinople, as examples of how we can expect to be treated. If somehow I can work towards alleviating that, I think I might do some good.
 
if people believe that the Mystical Body of Christ can be one without any human being having the final say in matters of faith and morals, i disagree with them.

i invite them to explain how the unity of the faithful can exist if no human being has the final say.

if Jesus did not establish His authority on earth, then it is every man for himself when it comes to preaching the Lord’s gospel. that means that we will never and can never know Jesus and His Gospel.
 
Last edited:
eddietoo said:
if people believe that the Mystical Body of Christ can be one without any human being having the final say in matters of faith and morals, i disagree with them.

i invite them to explain how the unity of the faithful can exist is no human being has the final say.

if Jesus did not establish His authority on earth, then it is every man for himself when it comes to preaching the Lord’s gospel. that means that we will never and can never know Jesus and His Gospel.
Click to expand...
We affirm that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. We deny He sent the pope. Catholics seem to think God sent the pope and cannot act without a human in control, which we regard as blasphemous. God is still in control. Jesus is still on the Throne. He is in charge. To say that the church cannot be run unless some human is in charge is an insult to God’s power.

God appoints leaders in His church. To say that it is all up to man, as you seem to think,is wrong.

We do not need a pope. We (the Reformed) do not want one. And we believe the institution is wholly human. That does not mean God cannot use it, and has used it. The pope has not exactly been an instrument of unity (think Chalcedon,1054, Reformation) in keeping the church together.
 
I commend you on developing that list. The opposition by big names shows it was not widely accepted. And history cannot be read in a neutral manner anyway.

I don’t think asking a Protestant to evaluate the Catholic Church by its fruit will do anything but backfire.

There are two schools of thought among Protestants that I’ve run across regarding the papacy. 1) It was never intended to be what it claims to be, and never was, anyway. 2) It was God’s instrument for a time to preserve western civilization, but has gone off track. Both of these views I have heard among the Reformed. No, I have not heard anyone among the Reformed holding to the Trail of Blood idea. I tend towards the first, and that there has been a lot of historical revisionism inside the Church.

The Great Schism happened for a number of reasons. The filioque, language, culture were among them. But also it was a rejection by the Orthodox of papal claims - a rejection they then and still maintain they have always had. They admit a primacy of Rome but not the full papacy. I’m not sure now where the cutoff is of what they accept and what they don’t. I don’t think they would ever accept the pope appointing bishops, and the pope telling them “you will accept the filioque” in an outrageously offensive manner was the last straw.
 
The opposition I listed does not show that Papal primacy “was not widely accepted.” As my previous link shows, Papal primacy was in fact widely accepted in the first millennium church. It is possible for something to be widely accepted, while at the same time having a few voices of opposition.

And the voices of opposition I listed tend to support rather than detract from Papal primacy, as in nearly every case the wider church submitted to the Pope.

Pope Clement I’s letter to the Corinthians was highly venerated in the first millennium and many wanted to include it in Scripture, indicating that the church acknowledge that Rome was right and the rebels in Corinth were wrong.

Pope Victor I prevailed over the church of Ephesus regarding the date of Easter. There is no further record of any bishop in Asia opposing the Sunday celebration of Easter following Pope Victor I’s threat of excommunication. And as you well know today, the entire church celebrates Easter on Sunday and has since time immemorial. The Pope was right. His opponents were wrong.

Likewise, Saint Cyprian of Carthage and bishop Firmilian of Caesarea were wrong on the issue of rebaptism. The wider church accepted Pope Stephen I’s teaching that heretics do not need to be rebaptized, as Saint Augustine is explicit in his writings on Saint Cyprian. The Pope was right. His opponents were wrong.

Again, the Meletians were accepted once their orthodoxy was established. Saint Gregory Nazianzus even sided with the Paulinists after Meletius of Antioch died. The Pope was right. His opponents were wrong.

The Optaremus turned on a technical question of the canons of Nicea. The Pope had accidentally referred to the Council of Nicea concerning the Pope’s appellate jurisdiction, when he meant to refer to the Council of Sardica, which explicitly affirmed the Pope’s appellate jurisdiction. The African church simply said, “We don’t see that in the canons of Nicea.” If the African church was being obstinate, they surely paid for it when the Arian Vandals conquered them within a few years of the Optaremus - a fate which nearly all enemies of the Pope have met throughout history. The Pope was right. His enemies were wrong.

Dioscorous was a monophysite heretic. The Pope was right. His enemies were wrong.

Bishop Photius of Constantinople was anathematized by the Eight Ecumenical Council. The Pope was right. His enemies were wrong.
 
PluniaZ said:
The opposition I listed does not show that Papal primacy “was not widely accepted.” As my previous link shows, Papal primacy was in fact widely accepted in the first millennium church. It is possible for something to be widely accepted, while at the same time having a few voices of opposition.

And the voices of opposition I listed tend to support rather than detract from Papal primacy, as in nearly every case the wider church submitted to the Pope.

Pope Clement I’s letter to the Corinthians was highly venerated in the first millennium and many wanted to include it in Scripture, indicating that the church acknowledge that Rome was right and the rebels in Corinth were wrong.
Click to expand...
Not by Clement. He’s not even mentioned. Most of it is Scripture quoting - suggesting Sola Scriptura rather than Roman imposed authority.
Pope Victor I prevailed over the church of Ephesus regarding the date of Easter. There is no further record of any bishop in Asia opposing the Sunday celebration of Easter following Pope Victor I’s threat of excommunication. And as you well know today, the entire church celebrates Easter on Sunday and has since time immemorial. The Pope was right. His opponents were wrong.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. The Orthodox use a different date for Easter and have since the beginning. Whoever told you the date is the same is a liar. Don’t pass on false information. It does not help your cause, it only makes me believe you less.

I’m not going to go over any more of your points. For one thing, you are wrong on the first two. Secondly, I would have to look into them more. When I have time, I have some passages of my own demonstrating ancient non-acceptance of the papacy, but I would have to root around for them, which would take time.
 
The early church attributed the letter to Clement. Modern historians, most of whom with a bias against the papacy, are the ones who introduced the question of authorship. In any event, no one disputes that it was a letter from Rome to a distant church in Greece - thus showing Roman primacy regardless of who the specific author was.

Pope Victor I ordered Easter to be celebrated on Sunday. That was the issue - the day of the week, not the date. The date was later settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. And yes, the entire church celebrates Easter on Sunday, and has since the Pope prevailed over the bishops of Asia. Differences in the date (not the day of the week) today are due to the Roman Catholic adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1582, while the Eastern Orthodox still use the Julian calendar, which has nothing to do with the issue Pope Victor I was addressing.

Please let me know what evidence you have against the papacy from the first millennium.
 
Last edited:
perhaps you missed this sentence i wrote and to which you referred?

“i invite them to explain how the unity of the faithful can exist if no human being has the final say.”

it is not to keep “the Church” together. it is to keep the understanding of the Gospel correct.

almost all, if not all, divisions among the faithful are related to understanding the Gospel.

if the Lord left us without a mechanism to preserve the correct understanding of the Gospel, then all understandings are suspect. if all understandings of the Gospel are suspect, the Gospel, at its best, is a tool for division and at its worst, is meaningless.

if the Gospel does not meaning anything for certain, it becomes a tool for personal gain.
 
Last edited:
Jesus Christ has the final say. He is the Lord of the Church.

He also sent the Holy Spirit.

To us, it sounds like you are saying they are incompetent and so a man has to step in and take charge.
 
I mean, God intended for man to be in charge from the beginning:
And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.
Click to expand...
Genesis 1:28

And Jesus renewed this command for those whom He set in charge over the Church:
As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
Click to expand...
John 17:18
 
Perhaps one is the presence of corrupt Popes in history, and in relation to that corruption among the clergy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top