Authority of the Church

[Old_Scholar]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON THE PAPACY, PART 4:

Pope Innocent I

“If cases of greater importance are to be heard [at a council], they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See” (Letters 2:3:6 [A.D. 408]).

“In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . .” (ibid., 29:1).

Pope Celestine I

“We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]” (Letters 17 [A.D. 431]).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom” (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445]).

“As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter” (ibid., 110).

“If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).

Peter Chrysologus

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (*Letters *25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon

“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).

Pope Gregory I

“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (*Letters 40 *[A.D. 597]).

Now again, some of them are beginning to claim some sort of primacy but are unable to make it stick. Read what I post later that Gregory had to say about it.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You are right when you say for the first centuries there was no one church OVER all others. But in fact all of the bishoprics did defer to Peter in making decisions of faith. I don’t know if this is Tradition, or Scripture, but this is what I have been taught. On second thought, there are letters to Peter showing this. Can’t remember who wrote them off the top of my head, sorry.

Yes, there was rebellion among some of the other patriarchs of the East because the Bishop of Rome declared jurisdiction over all other patriarchs and which to this day has not been settled. But given the fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome and was deferred to by the other Bishops because of his special relationship with Christ and that I believe Christ gave the keys of the kingdom into Peter’s hand, I think I will stick with the Chruch in Rome. Not to sound disrespectful of your intentions to give information on the Catholic Church, I would rather believe what has been written by the Catholic Church and her history written by Catholic Scholars who have given lifetimes to its study than a so called “objective” book in a library written by a so called “objective” person. As anyone should well know, secular history especially is not non partisan no matter who has written it. Secular history is always from the view of the author. Thanks anyway.

I am not trying to “change hyour mind.” That is for you to decide. I only want you to take an objective look at the situation and decide then. So far you are only reading one side.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Originally Posted by **Old Scholar **
You can real all the writings of the early church fathers of the first three centuries and you will find nothing to say that there was a church that was over any other church. It just didn’t happen. History is quite clear on this. As I said earlier, it wasn’t until the 5th century before any bishop claimed authority over other churches. Most of the early church fathers rebelled and refused to accept the idea of one bishop or pope over all the churches. They knew it was not to be that way.

You must have a different source than I do with regard to that.

Just read what has already been posted…

 

[Old_Scholar]

I won’t Seriously, there has always been an apostolic tradition with regard to the papacy and apostolic succession, as early as 80 AD. That’s why Old Scholar confused me when he said that it wasn’t until the 5th century that it began to figure in the Church which technically (depending on how you look at it) may or may not be true. As centuries passed, the Church developed a more concise understanding of the chair of Peter with regard to its own tradition and Scripture.

You are beginning to understand it now. It was in 606 that the first pope claimed to have authority over the entire church.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You can certainly check out all this yourself if you really want to know the history. All I have said is that there was no pope in charge of the entire church until the 5th and 6th century. During the early years, there were five churches and they were all equal in power and authority with none claiming primacy.

We are told repeatedly in Scripture that Christ is Head of His church. No one else. There are many who “represent” the church and teach the gospel but there is no earthly “head” of the church. That goes against Scripture.

Regarding the “keys” which Christ gave to Peter and later to all. Origin had a lot to say about it.

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?… For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does.
Origin’s Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, Book XII, § 11

Origen says that we are all the “rock.”

Tertullian says in Scorpiace, Chapter X that he will carry the keys just as Peter did. In addition, he rebuked the Bishop of Rome, Callistus, calling him “bishops of bishops” and by the pagan high priest “Pontifex Maximus.”

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites {note: i.e. at the door of the house of prostitution}. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is a virgin! Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation!..Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter I

Eusebius tells us that James was chosen as the bishop of Jerusalem, the same James that presided over the first council of the church in Acts.

“Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of Jerusalem…But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “for they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” But the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after His resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one."
The Church History of Eusebius. Book II, Chapter 1, §§ 2. 3. 4

So if we wanted to consider a single leader over the church of those times, then it would appear to be James rather than Peter, and Jerusalem was the central headquarters. The Bible seems to be clear in that. Even in Cyprian’s day, it was true as well:

“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles…and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem…But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth…And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen (Bishop of Rome), that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom, but we join custom to truth, and to the Roman’s custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles…"
Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, to Cyprian, epistle LXXIV, §§ 6, 19

Couldn’t we use “tradition” to custom in this case?

The important point of these writings is that they show there certainly was no consensus of any primacy of any one who was called bishop or pope in those times as claimed. The title of pope was used often and many times by many priests. It in itself denotes no specific title. It was hundreds of years later that those other than the Roman Pope were denied the use of the term.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Stephen I, Bishop of Rome, was the first one to try and claim authority over the other churches on the basis of succession from Peter.

He sent letters to African bishops in an attempt to overrule a decision of a council there about baptism of heretics. That caused the Africans to hold another council and that council upheld their original decision, rejecting Stephen. That was the Seventh Council of Carthage in 258.

Before Stephen, Victor, another bishop of Rome tried to cut off parishes of Asia with those that agreed with them and wrote many letters excommunicating all there. That didn’t set too well with the bishops and they rebuked Victor. Irenæus was one of them and he sent letters maintaining that the mystery of the resurrection should be observed only on the Lord’s day and that Victor should not cut off churches of God which observed the ancient tradition. This is outlined in the Church History of Eusebius, Book V, Chapter XXIV §§ 9, 10

Gregory I, bishop of Rome, gives us clear proof that there was nothing like a papacy previous to or during his day. He lived from 590 A.D. to 604 A.D. John, bishop of Constantinople, wanted to call himself “Universal Bishop”, Gregory spoke against the arrogance in several letters to John. He says such a title had been offered to the bishop of Rome by the Counil of Chalcedon and others but none of the previous bishops would accept such a profane title. He called the title, “blasphemy”, and any who would accept it “the precursor of Antichrist.”

For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.
¶ And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title … .
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VIII, Epistle XXX. To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria

Gregory argued that Christ was the only head of the church and said that at one time there were three “sees” of the church:

…though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside … .
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop

It seems clear to anyone who seriously reads the early church leaders that they never bought into the primacy of a pope. Instead each church had its own heirarchy and controlled itself. It was only after Rome, in the 6th century claimed primacy that it began to be accepted. Another fabrication of man and not God.

The church has no authority except for who is a member and who isn’t. All authority in faith and morals remains with God. That is according to God’s word and the original tradition of the church.

 

[utunumsint]

You can certainly check out all this yourself if you really want to know the history. All I have said is that there was no pope in charge of the entire church until the 5th and 6th century. During the early years, there were five churches and they were all equal in power and authority with none claiming primacy.

Interesting…

We are told repeatedly in Scripture that Christ is Head of His church. No one else. There are many who “represent” the church and teach the gospel but there is no earthly “head” of the church. That goes against Scripture.

Where?

Regarding the “keys” which Christ gave to Peter and later to all. Origin had a lot to say about it.

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?… For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does.
Origin’s Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, Book XII, § 11

Later on in this passage, he says he is taking the litteral meaning of Matthew 16 and applying a spiritual (read metaphorical) meaning to the text. This is the only way I can make sence of the passage especially when later on in his commentary on Matthew 18 he specifically states that Peter had authority over all seven heavens, whereas the other apostles had authority over only one. For Origen, this gave Peter preeminent authority when binding and losing.

Origen says that we are all the “rock.”

In a spiritual sense, but the litteral sense is what he expounds in his commentary on Matthew 18.

Tertullian says in Scorpiace, Chapter X that he will carry the keys just as Peter did. In addition, he rebuked the Bishop of Rome, Callistus, calling him “bishops of bishops” and by the pagan high priest “Pontifex Maximus.”

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites {note: i.e. at the door of the house of prostitution}. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. But it is in the church that this (edict) is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and (the church) is a virgin! Far, far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation!..Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter I

This only strengthens the case for the primacy of the pope because at this time, Tertullian had become a heretic, embracing the Montanist heresy. True doctrine had remained with this church of bishops whom Tertullian had rejected. We also have from Tertullian that Callistus was claiming his authority based on the keys given to Peter in Matthew 16, and none of the other bishops and priests rebuked him for it. Only the heretic, Tertullian, who was not a deacon, not a priest, and not a bishop.

Eusebius tells us that James was chosen as the bishop of Jerusalem, the same James that presided over the first council of the church in Acts.

“Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of Jerusalem…But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “for they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” But the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after His resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one."
The Church History of Eusebius. Book II, Chapter 1, §§ 2. 3. 4

So if we wanted to consider a single leader over the church of those times, then it would appear to be James rather than Peter, and Jerusalem was the central headquarters. The Bible seems to be clear in that.

Then why don’t you submit yourself to the bishop of Jerusalem. There is one you know.

Even in Cyprian’s day, it was true as well:

“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles…and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem…But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth…And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen (Bishop of Rome), that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom, but we join custom to truth, and to the Roman’s custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles…"
Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, to Cyprian, epistle LXXIV, §§ 6, 19

But note that the entire church sides with Stephen and even Augustine defends Stephen, even though Augustine himself is the bishop of Carthage, with Cyprian as his predecessor.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Stephen I, Bishop of Rome, was the first one to try and claim authority over the other churches on the basis of succession from Peter.

He sent letters to African bishops in an attempt to overrule a decision of a council there about baptism of heretics. That caused the Africans to hold another council and that council upheld their original decision, rejecting Stephen. That was the Seventh Council of Carthage in 258.

Which was rejected a mere ten years later by the vary same council of bishops, submitting to the authority of Stephen, and again under Augustine when the Donatists tried to claim the same thing using the authority of Cyprian to back them up.

Before Stephen, Victor, another bishop of Rome tried to cut off parishes of Asia with those that agreed with them and wrote many letters excommunicating all there. That didn’t set too well with the bishops and they rebuked Victor. Irenæus was one of them and he sent letters maintaining that the mystery of the resurrection should be observed only on the Lord’s day and that Victor should not cut off churches of God which observed the ancient tradition. This is outlined in the Church History of Eusebius, Book V, Chapter XXIV §§ 9, 10

Rebuked is a strong word. More like suggested, and never once does he question Victor’s right to do what he does. Only the wisdom of his actions.

Gregory I, bishop of Rome, gives us clear proof that there was nothing like a papacy previous to or during his day. He lived from 590 A.D. to 604 A.D. John, bishop of Constantinople, wanted to call himself “Universal Bishop”, Gregory spoke against the arrogance in several letters to John. He says such a title had been offered to the bishop of Rome by the Counil of Chalcedon and others but none of the previous bishops would accept such a profane title. He called the title, “blasphemy”, and any who would accept it “the precursor of Antichrist.”

This has to do with politics, and is definetely an incorrect understanding of the situation. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Gregory the Great’s actions in the church will realize this.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Gregory I, bishop of Rome, gives us clear proof that there was nothing like a papacy previous to or during his day. He lived from 590 A.D. to 604 A.D. John, bishop of Constantinople, wanted to call himself “Universal Bishop”, Gregory spoke against the arrogance in several letters to John. He says such a title had been offered to the bishop of Rome by the Counil of Chalcedon and others but none of the previous bishops would accept such a profane title. He called the title, “blasphemy”, and any who would accept it “the precursor of Antichrist.”

For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.
¶ And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title … .
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VIII, Epistle XXX. To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria

Saint Gregory the Great was a Pope. It’s funny that you are trying to use his words to show there was no Papacy in his day. He was the first to habitually call himself the servus servorum Dei - servant of the servants of God, which is still what the Pope today is called. His thoughts on the title Universal Bishop are explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Ep. 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is signified by this title as used in the Vatican Decree. Thus he reverses (Ep. 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Ep. 9:12). The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, “Hist. eccl.”, saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)

In other letters, he is ruling on matters such as the validity of baptism outside the Church and chastity for subdeacons - he is writing to other bishops telling them what to do about these matters.

Please keep reading the Church Fathers, though - if you do, you will find that the early church was the Catholic Church, and if you are honest, you will have no choice but to conclude that the Catholic Church - with the real presence, with the sacraments, with apostolic succession - is the One True Church and you will be a Catholic yourself before you know it.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Interesting…

Where?

**Here! I don’t need but one verse but I will give you several:

EPH 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

COL 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

COL 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

EPH 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.**

Later on in this passage, he says he is taking the litteral meaning of Matthew 16 and applying a spiritual (read metaphorical) meaning to the text. This is the only way I can make sence of the passage especially when later on in his commentary on Matthew 18 he specifically states that Peter had authority over all seven heavens, whereas the other apostles had authority over only one. For Origen, this gave Peter preeminent authority when binding and losing.

In a spiritual sense, but the litteral sense is what he expounds in his commentary on Matthew 18.

This only strengthens the case for the primacy of the pope because at this time, Tertullian had become a heretic, embracing the Montanist heresy. True doctrine had remained with this church of bishops whom Tertullian had rejected. We also have from Tertullian that Callistus was claiming his authority based on the keys given to Peter in Matthew 16, and none of the other bishops and priests rebuked him for it. Only the heretic, Tertullian, who was not a deacon, not a priest, and not a bishop.

Then why don’t you submit yourself to the bishop of Jerusalem. There is one you know.

But note that the entire church sides with Stephen and even Augustine defends Stephen, even though Augustine himself is the bishop of Carthage, with Cyprian as his predecessor.

God bless,
Ut

So we just ignore what the early leaders actually said and just follow the lead of the church?

 

[utunumsint]

Here! I don’t need but one verse but I will give you several:

EPH 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

How does this preclude a Papacy?

COL 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Catholic do not believe that the Pope replaces Christ as head of the church. But we do believe that Christ confered authority on the apostles and Peter which is continued in apostolic succession.

COL 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

EPH 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Yes, but in Hebrews 13:17 the author says "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. " Does this authority also replace the headship of Christ?

So we just ignore what the early leaders actually said and just follow the lead of the church?

So you do believe there were actual early church leaders. Great! I believe that as well, and based on my reading of the evidence I also believe they looked to the successors of Peter as the final arbyter on doctrinal and moral disputes.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Old_Scholar]

Which was rejected a mere ten years later by the vary same council of bishops, submitting to the authority of Stephen, and again under Augustine when the Donatists tried to claim the same thing using the authority of Cyprian to back them up.

That’s the real problem. One thing believed for years and then later changed. That’s why the Scripture has to be the standard. You cannot rely on man to get it right. Without a standard, too many things change. Just look at what has happened throughout the last 2000 years.

Rebuked is a strong word. More like suggested, and never once does he question Victor’s right to do what he does. Only the wisdom of his actions.

This has to do with politics, and is definetely an incorrect understanding of the situation. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Gregory the Great’s actions in the church will realize this.

Strange how we can read the same thing and get different conclusions.



God bless,
Ut

 

[Mea_Culpa]

So you do believe there were actual early church leaders. Great! I believe that as well, and based on my reading of the evidence I also believe they looked to the successors of Peter as the final arbyter on doctrinal and moral disputes.

God bless,
Ut

Old Scholar is becoming more and more Catholic. He has abandoned *sola scriptura *and is now looking to the Church Fathers. Many a protestant has started their journey to the Catholic faith in this way.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

from Old Scholar
Without a standard, too many things change. Just look at what has happened throughout the last 2000 years.

You have now recognized the need for the Magisterium of the Church. Look at what has happened to the protestant sects without it, fracturing into 33,000 little pieces. It’s the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, that has kept the faith these 2,000 years. That’s why, in 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Paul calls the Church the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” He nowhere makes that claim for the Bible (which didn’t exist then).

 

[utunumsint]

That’s the real problem. One thing believed for years and then later changed. That’s why the Scripture has to be the standard. You cannot rely on man to get it right. Without a standard, too many things change. Just look at what has happened throughout the last 2000 years.

What it proves to me is that the conclusions of a local council is not infalible without the authority of the bishop of Rome to support it.

Strange how we can read the same thing and get different conclusions.

But the truth must be out there somewhere. I do believe that the Bible is that truth, but because you and I can look at the same texts and come out with such different results, there has to be other elements to guide us to the truth. The Holy Spirit is one. The magisterium of the church is another.

God bless Old Scholar.
Ut

 

[Old_Scholar]

Saint Gregory the Great was a Pope. It’s funny that you are trying to use his words to show there was no Papacy in his day. He was the first to habitually call himself the servus servorum Dei - servant of the servants of God, which is still what the Pope today is called. His thoughts on the title Universal Bishop are explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Ep. 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is signified by this title as used in the Vatican Decree. Thus he reverses (Ep. 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Ep. 9:12). The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, “Hist. eccl.”, saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)

In other letters, he is ruling on matters such as the validity of baptism outside the Church and chastity for subdeacons - he is writing to other bishops telling them what to do about these matters.

Please keep reading the Church Fathers, though - if you do, you will find that the early church was the Catholic Church, and if you are honest, you will have no choice but to conclude that the Catholic Church - with the real presence, with the sacraments, with apostolic succession - is the One True Church and you will be a Catholic yourself before you know it.

**Don’t you wonder why the writings have to be changed in order to conform to the church’s thinking?

Maybe I should list what Gregory said again. Apparently you didn’t see it.**

…though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See [Rome] in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See [Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside … .
Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop

**You can’t read this any other way. Gregory here says there are three “Sees” in different places. In his other writings, as I have already posted, he refutes the idea of a “Universal Bishop.” Why should the church want to change history?

And for your information, I do believe the early church, which was called Catholic because of it being universal, was the right church as Christ intended. I happen to think that when Rome took over the church, it became what it is today but there are still apostolic churches out there that continue to teach as the apostles did without changes by man.**

 

[Mea_Culpa]

**Don’t you wonder why the writings have to be changed in order to conform to the church’s thinking?

Maybe I should list what Gregory said again. Apparently you didn’t see it.**

**You can’t read this any other way. Gregory here says there are three “Sees” in different places. In his other writings, as I have already posted, he refutes the idea of a “Universal Bishop.” Why should the church want to change history?

And for your information, I do believe the early church, which was called Catholic because of it being universal, was the right church as Christ intended. I happen to think that when Rome took over the church, it became what it is today but there are still apostolic churches out there that continue to teach as the apostles did without changes by man.**

What is your date for the Great Apostasy?

Also, which churches still teach as the apostles did without changes by man?

 

[Old_Scholar]

How does this preclude a Papacy?

Because Christ is the head of the church, not the pope.

Catholic do not believe that the Pope replaces Christ as head of the church. But we do believe that Christ confered authority on the apostles and Peter which is continued in apostolic succession.

I believe most Roman Catholic would disagree with you. They make the claim that the pope replaces Christ on earth and is so infallible that he can decide anything he wants regardless of God’s word. He is said to even be able to trump Scripture, as he has done often.

Yes, but in Hebrews 13:17 the author says "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you. " Does this authority also replace the headship of Christ?

No it doesn’t. This is only authority of the church and not authority over anyone’s salvation or faith. The only authority the church has is in membership.

So you do believe there were actual early church leaders. Great! I believe that as well, and based on my reading of the evidence I also believe they looked to the successors of Peter as the final arbyter on doctrinal and moral disputes.

**Read my comments on a previous post of what I think of the early church. **

God bless,
Ut

 

[po18guy]

That’s your privilege to believe what you want but there is still no evidence of Peter ever being in Rome. As far as the “tomb” in Rome, it has been found that the bones there were animal bones and not human. There are no “facts” that place Peter in Rome…

OS, you must stop reading Dan Brown’s fiction! You are beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. You just stated as fact something that you cannot possibly know! If you “know” that the bones are of animal origin, why are you the only one? What’s next? Black Opus Dei helicopters circling overhead? Good grief…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar is becoming more and more Catholic. He has abandoned *sola scriptura *and is now looking to the Church Fathers. Many a protestant has started their journey to the Catholic faith in this way.

**Old Scholar believes that if it can’t be found in Scripture, then it is false. That’s Sola Scriptura and the early church agreed with that principle.

You are right about one thing. I would be a Catholic if many things were changed—back to the early church of the first two centuries. Actually that’s where my church is still today. With the apostolic teachings as instructed by Christ.**