Authority of the Church

[peary]

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]).

 

[elts1956]

**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.

I know that if you have been educated in parochial schools, you have had only the RCC history but if you will go to any library and look for any history of religion book or world history book, you will find out the truth. Do not rely on what you have heard. I recently gave a list of history books available at most libraries that have the truth and they are not authorized by any religious organization but are simply college text books. They will tell you the truth. Many have been misled by false teachers as the Bible says. **

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.

 

[peary]

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.

 

[anon52328184]

peary - wow, that is all good information. i think it should be posted here permanently for all those that question the authority of the early church of Rome and Peter and the Catholic church today.

 

[elts1956]

**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.

I know that if you have been educated in parochial schools, you have had only the RCC history but if you will go to any library and look for any history of religion book or world history book, you will find out the truth. Do not rely on what you have heard. I recently gave a list of history books available at most libraries that have the truth and they are not authorized by any religious organization but are simply college text books. They will tell you the truth. Many have been misled by false teachers as the Bible says. **

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.

The way I read it, Old Scholar is right on that point Peary. See my post to him.

 

[po18guy]

The people are the Church, at least that’s what I think…however a person experiences God is fine with me.

Monarchical Theism doesn’t work for me, but if it works for you, that’s a very good thing indeed.

It’s Apostolic, no more, no less. Very scriptural. The office of Peter continues, and we’re glad it does. He’s not a King, he’s the chosen leader of Christianity. Our faith is one of obedience, so our practices seem unusual to most of our separated brothers and sisters.

Christ’s peace.

 

[elts1956]

peary - wow, that is all good information. i think it should be posted here permanently for all those that question the authority of the early church of Rome and Peter and the Catholic church today.

What info. are you talking about deborahaz?

 

[peary]

What info. are you talking about deborahaz?

All the stuff I just posted, elts, with regard to the Early Church Fathers and the papacy. Did it come through on the forum yet for you?

 

[elts1956]

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]).

Got it Peary. Good stuff. I think Old Scholar was talking about the very beginning of the Church first to third century. But then what do I know? Don’t you come back with “nothing” either.

 

[peary]

Got it Peary. Good stuff. I think Old Scholar was talking about the very beginning of the Church first to third century. But then what do I know? Don’t you come back with “nothing” either.

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.

 

[elts1956]

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.

As I posted to Old Scholar, the bishops of the church, even in the earliest years of the church’s existence, gave defference to Peter and relied on him to clarify matters of faith. I know letters were written to him by some Bishops that are still in existence today, but can’t remember who wrote them. Was Timothy one of them? Do you know who I am talking about? Thanks.

 

[honeyspeak]

Hihi ladylinguist,

Try: Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler et al. As of 28 July 2008, one can even see the opening statement (ten minutes) of Scott Butler with respect to the papacy at an apologetics debate in Boston about ten years ago.

 

[Old_Scholar]

**AntiCatholics always have a field day with this one. They feel that if they can show Peter never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—the Catholic position that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the ‘supposed’ existence of the papacy.

• “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” ***(1 Pet. 5:13). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in other contemporary non-biblical works of the period. Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

And what about Rev.14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, and 18:21??
They all mention Babylon. But Babylon was practically gone by New Testament times and was an inconsequential village. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem. Take your pick.

There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome. The actual tomb of the first pope has been identified conclusively; Peter’s remains were found, and in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there.

It is discussed in detail in John Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason… and there’s a lot of that among nonCatholics in these forums.

**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.

Saying that Peter was never in Rome has nothing to do with Matthew 16. That is an entirely different matter all together. Trying to say that Peter was a pope in Rome for 25 years is what goes against the Scriptures when they place Peter everywhere but in Rome. If Peter was ever in Rome, then it was a well kept secret as Paul spent years there and never mentions Peter as being there at any time. He mentions everyone else but not Peter and if Peter had been there while Paul was in prison, don’t you think Paul would have been visited by Peter? Read the Scriptures and find references to Peter being in Rome. They simply aren’t there.

John Walsh’s book is full of speculation and no facts. A tomb has been found in Jerusalem that has been identified as Peter’s tomb and the bones there are human and the inscriptions all point to Simon Peter as being buried there. There is archaeological evidence there to support that—not like the claims made about the tomb in Rome. In addition to that, Rome was a Gentile city and Peter was sent to preach to the Jews, not the Gentiles. The only Gentile that Peter ever preached to was Cornelius and that was a special visit commanded by God for a special purpose. Peter didn’t even want to go then, but did as God told him.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS REFERENCES TO APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION:

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).*

Irenæwas writing 150 years after Christ and all he said was that all churches should agree with the gospel as taught in the church in Rome. There is no mention of any church having power over another. Read it again. All the churches were autonomous. These writings only talk of apostolic succession and simply says preachers should be ordained by other preachers.

 

[Old_Scholar]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS REFERENCES TO APOSTOLIC SUCCESION, PART 2:

Tertullian

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics *20 [A.D. 200]).

That’s correct. All churches taught the same gospel and made up the Church of Christ. No primacy mentioned here.

“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

Again, talking of the gospel—no primacy.

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).

This one condemns teaching anything that can’t be shown to be true as it should. No man-made traditions allowed here.

"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

**This is a very good statement of Sola Scriptura. Saying it must be proven to be true. **

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

**It is true, the church is one and neither has jurisdiction over the other as stated here. **

Jerome

“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Nothing heirarchal here either. It is one church, no church over another. Christ is still the head.

 

[Old_Scholar]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON THE PAPACY:

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (*Letter to the Corinthians *1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

**Leaders of the individual Churches of Christ. **

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons

“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, *Church History *5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

**Still no mention of any church primacy… **

Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (*Against Heresies *3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Irenæus doesn’t mention any primacy either. Because of the fact that Rome was the center of the world at that time, he says that the gospel taught there should be the same everywhere. No primacy mentioned here.

 

[Old_Scholar]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON THE PAPACY, PART 2:

Eusebius of Caesarea

“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Firmilian

“[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in *Cyprian’s Letters *74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

Pope Julius I

“[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. … Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. … What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (*Letter on Behalf of Athanasius *[A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

As I stated, these writings in the thrid century were the first that started attempting to claim any authority for the Bishop of Rome. Even in his statement, he is asking others to listen to him and others—not commanding anyone but asking for compliance. It would be another 150 years before any “Pope” claimed primacy as I said. Your own writings confirm me here.

 

[peary]

**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.

You will need to support that accusation. Where are your resources on this? Otherwise, your supposition is irrelevant to the evidence.**

Saying that Peter was never in Rome has nothing to do with Matthew 16. That is an entirely different matter all together. Trying to say that Peter was a pope in Rome for 25 years is what goes against the Scriptures when they place Peter everywhere but in Rome. If Peter was ever in Rome, then it was a well kept secret as Paul spent years there and never mentions Peter as being there at any time. He mentions everyone else but not Peter and if Peter had been there while Paul was in prison, don’t you think Paul would have been visited by Peter? Read the Scriptures and find references to Peter being in Rome. They simply aren’t there.

By ignoring the writings of the Church Fathers and relying on “scripture evidence” only, you are negating a large portion of your own argument. Again, your supposition is irrelevant because you ignore what is already known. Furthermore, I don’t think you even know what we’re talking about when the Church Fathers are referenced.

John Walsh’s book is full of speculation and no facts. A tomb has been found in Jerusalem that has been identified as Peter’s tomb and the bones there are human and the inscriptions all point to Simon Peter as being buried there. There is archaeological evidence there to support that—not like the claims made about the tomb in Rome. In addition to that, Rome was a Gentile city and Peter was sent to preach to the Jews, not the Gentiles. The only Gentile that Peter ever preached to was Cornelius and that was a special visit commanded by God for a special purpose. Peter didn’t even want to go then, but did as God told him.

There is absolutely no archaeological evidence in Jerusalem to support the claim that Peter stayed in Jerusalem and died there.
Furthermore, there was a large population of Jews in Rome. You seem to forget that a large majority of Jews lived in and about Rome at the time. Again, you ignore the obvious historical reality of where Jews were in the empire. The very fact that there was a septuagint and that Jews throughout the empire used it in their synagogues makes your claims laughable. Peter went to Rome to both preach and minister to the needs of the Jewish Christians there.

 

[Old_Scholar]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON THE PAPACY, PART 3:

Council of Sardica

“f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and** the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province**” (*canon 3 *[A.D. 342]).

"f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

**As I said, here in the 4th century was when it first started. Yet no primacy established, just cooperation by all. **

Optatus of Milevus

“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” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Council of Constantinople I

“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).

**Here the primacy of part of the churches is given to the bishop of Constantinople. What! No Papal supremacy yet??? **

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” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Synod of Ambrose

“We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you” (*Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius *[A.D. 389]).

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” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

**Primacy still unknown… **

Augustine

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (*Sermons *131:10 [A.D. 411]).

These writings show that part of the church was beginning to lean toward Rome. Still no primacy established.

 

[Tonks40]

Sooo…there’s a difference between “primacy” and “papacy?” Didn’t know you knew how to 3rd Century language, OS.