Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[joe371]

Opinion and rhetoric. Circular reasoning.

So, it really comes down to your understanding/interpretation of scripture and my understanding, in terms of Peter being the rock on which Jesus’ church was built. What did Jesus leave us with to definitively settle our difference of opinion vis-a-vis Peter?

 

[joe371]

Opinion and rhetoric. Circular reasoning.

This is why the Holy Spirit was sent: to guide Jesus’ church “into all truth”. If Jesus did not then there is no way to know if I’m right or you are right i.e. it would just be opinion and rhetoric on your part and on my part - correct?

 

[prodromos]

Jesus renames Simon to Peter (Rock). How many times has God renamed people? Each time He has, there was a monumental shift of identity and mission.

Ok, so what was the monumental shift of identity and mission when Jesus renamed James and John “Sons of thunder”?

 

[joe371]

My goal is truth, not to not offend anybody.

I find the RC reluctance to call themselves a denomination simply posturing and equivocation.

How many protestant churches today existed prior to the formation of the catholic church?

How many existed prior to the protestant reformation?

How many denominations existed prior to the protestant reformation?

 

[Denise1957]

Did you read the Ravenna document? Did you read the part where the Vatican developed the doctrine and the dogma of the Papacy?

If not, can you please go read them and then come back and ask the same questions?

I haven’t read it. Either the Vatican agrees with all of your facts, or it doesn’t. However, I don’t think that the Vatican agrees with your view that the Pope does not have supremacy, but maybe I’m wrong about that. I really don’t see how there can be primacy without supremacy. I mean, what’s the point in having primacy without supremacy?

You know, the idea of having a Pope as the head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is not all that scary. Really, it isn’t. The Church has survived all these centuries while having a Pope.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I haven’t read it. Either the Vatican agrees with all of your facts, or it doesn’t. However, I don’t think that the Vatican agrees with your view that the Pope does not have supremacy, but maybe I’m wrong about that. I really don’t see how there can be primacy without supremacy. I mean, what’s the point in having primacy without supremacy?

You know, the idea of having a Pope as the head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is not all that scary. Really, it isn’t. The Church has survived all these centuries while having a Pope.

Well here’s the link to the Vatican website.

[JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

ECCLESIOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE SACRAMENTAL NATURE OF THE CHURCH

ECCLESIAL COMMUNION, CONCILIARITY AND AUTHORITY

Ravenna, 13 October 2007](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...rstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html)

1. During the first millennium, the universal communion of the Churches in the ordinary course of events was maintained through fraternal relations between the bishops. These relations, among the bishops themselves, between the bishops and their respective protoi, and also among the protoi themselves in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church, nourished and consolidated ecclesial communion. History records the consultations, letters and appeals to major sees, especially to that of Rome, which vividly express the solidarity that koinonia creates. Canonical provisions such as the inclusion of the names of the bishops of the principal sees in the diptychs and the communication of the profession of faith to the other patriarchs on the occasion of elections, are concrete expressions of koinonia.
2. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.
3. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.
4. Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church, local, regional and universal, must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy.

Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:

1. Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.
2. While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.

There is a lot to be read, I opened a thread that treats Primacy vs Supremacy:

Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

Here’s another document of interest:

The Council of Constance 1414-18 produced a very interesting document:

Sacrosancta, 1415
In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity; of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows: - It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law. . . . (trans J. H. Robinson in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, Series I. Voll III:6 [1912], 31-32 )

So imagine my surprise when you asked that question

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How many protestant churches today existed prior to the formation of the catholic church?

How many existed prior to the protestant reformation?

How many denominations existed prior to the protestant reformation?

So when you are filling out forms that ask about your denomination you answer:

None?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Despite my earlier misgivings, I did want to follow this discussion to it’s conclusion (which seems to be approaching).****

This overall exchange has only reinforced my belief that there is still a lot of misunderstanding/ignorance regarding us.

Isaiah (who is not Orthodox) has presented Orthodox objections eloquently, and his focus on the primary sources themselves was refreshing as it goes with internet discussions.

Isaiah’s points have been answered in the following ways-----

1.) Re-hashing of the Roman Catholic position on the Papacy, despite the fact that:
-There is more than one way to interpret the scriptural proof texts provided
-The Early Church Fathers certainly did not view the Papacy or Papal Perogatives the way modern Latin apologists claim
-Those same Church Fathers are often taken out of context
-Ecumenical Councils and Canons do not say what Catholic Apologists say they say, which an examination of the Primary Sources (in their entirety) will reveal
-That the above points have been answered by others in past posts…Catholic posters ignore our rebuttals and circle the wagons.

2.) Disregarding the Early Church Fathers: The history and Church Fathers do not support your arguments, therefore the Church Fathers “Don’t Matter” because that was the past and the Church has “evolved” to meet the needs of the present day Church. The Papacy developed to address issues that the Church Fathers may not have foreseen. There is just one problem with this argument----We Orthodox, by our existence and history are a living rebuttal of this argument. We have maintained our unity of Faith despite what has gone on (unity of adminstration is not required, which is something Latins have a hard time grasping). We have preserved the Faith and continue to do so. The fact that we have not collapsed into Protestant factionalism counters any such arguments.

3.) Disregarding Non-Catholic Sources: Isaiah has used Catholic sources to present his arguments and was met with bluster and dismissal. To ignore Non-Catholic sources is ludicrous, because Orthodox have no problem reading and citing Roman Catholic stuff. If there is something wrong with our position, surely you can highlight some of the things our guys have been saying. To quote another exchange—

“Why do you refuse to try?”

4.) Emotional appeals to Unity: The implication here is that it is our “hardness of heart” that has lead to the fracturing of Christendom, nevermind that this argument can just as easily be turned around on you. The call for reconciliation flows both ways…

---

This is just a summary of what I have gotten out of these discussions.

Catholic apologists seem to be very uncomfortable dialoguing with the Orthodox, because what happened all those centuries ago was not so cut and dry, from either side.

This will be my last post here, and anybody can have any last word or no last word. Dialogues between us inevitably turn to these issues…

I can see now why so few Orthodox seem to post here.

Thank you.

I have also been told: “why not?” and that “those first one thousand years are really not important”… It’s frustrating beyond belief.

 

[Denise1957]

Concerning primacy at the different levels, we wish to affirm the following points:

1. Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church.
2. While the fact of primacy at the universal level is accepted by both East and West, there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.

Thank you posted taking the time to post all of the info, but I don’t see how it answers my question. Maybe I’m just being dense, but where does the info you provided state that the Vatican thinks that the Pope should not have supremacy, but only primacy?

Regarding universal primacy, it is mentioned above in #2…“There are differences in understanding with regard to the manner to which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.”

So nothing has really been settled, from what I can see, by the Joint Commission regarding agreement on the universal primacy issue.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t expect you to understand.

Oh I understand very well. This was a common theme in my sojourn amoung my separated brethren.

Because you have faith in all the words written down by humans, take much if not all of their words literally,

Where on earth did you come up with this drivel?

and perhaps most importantly of all you have faith in how the Catholic Church interprets the words and everything throughout history. So with all of that faith, you believe you know with certainty.

Yes, this is true because we Trust the Head, who has promised that He will guide us into “all Truth”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you.

I have also been told: “why not?” and that “those first one thousand years are really not important”… It’s frustrating beyond belief.

Apparently you ignored a lot of the posters who have tried to help you with your weak view that contradicts everything the historical Christian faith records from antiquity, when you appear to be stuck on councils that are irrelevant to circumstances the proceeded them and those which preceded them before they ever came into existence Peter is always present and recognized worldwide by secular powers, pagan religions, Jewish faith, and the Early Church Fathers. Lets begin one of your councils, which you neglected Jon S from post 107.

In consideration of all others who have read your opinion to Church councils, respect the council of Chalcedon here; Learn why it takes the supremacy of the Pope to assist the East with their pride and their heretics.

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a35.htm

The Council of Chalcedon & the Papacy
by Mark J. Bonocore

Around 448, the aged Byzantine monk Eutyches, who had been a zealous ally of St. Cyril of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus, became rigid and inflexible on his views regarding the Incarnation. He argued that Christ’s Divine nature so absorbed His human nature that His human nature ceased to be – thus giving birth to the heresy of Monophysitism.

This heretical doctrine spread throughout the Eastern Church, and forced St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, to call a local synod to condemn it. However,** Eutyches **refused to submit to the synod, appealing his case to Pope Leo I. This is what he wrote:
I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith. – Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep 21.

Patriarch Flavian also appealed to Rome for a ruling, moving Pope Leo to produced his famous Tome, which totally condemned Monophysitism. And so, responding to Eutyches, St. Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, writes:

We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

However, Eutyches would not submit. **Having the ear of the Eastern Emperor **(who, being opposed to the dynasty that supported Nestorius, favored Eutyches’ views), the heretical monk persuaded him to call another Council of Ephesus – the so-called “Robber Council” of 449, in which the Roman teaching was rejected, and Monophysitism declared to be the orthodox doctrine of the Church. At this council, **Patriarch Flavian **was physically abused; and so writes to Pope Leo in appeal:
When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. – Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

At this same “Robber Council” of Ephesus, several other Eastern bishops were deposed from their sees for refusing to embrace Monophysitism. Among them, were Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum, both of whom appeal to Pope Leo, saying…We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. – Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113

The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. – Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo

Thereafter, Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At this Council, attended by about 600 bishops (almost all of the Eastern Church), Pope Leo’s Tome against Monophysitism and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ was embraced with the pronouncement:

"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! . . . This is the true faith!’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Now, many anti-Catholic scholars have tried to chip away at the significance of this statement. However, when compared to other contemporary writings, the meaning of the Council Fathers becomes abundantly clear:

Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. …And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see. To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops. When, therefore, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are. – Pope Leo, Sermon 3:3-4

Now the Lord desired that the dispensing of this gift should be shared as a task by all Apostles, but in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire Body from Peter himself, as it were from the Head. Thus, a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the Divine mystery. – Pope Leo, Ep 10

cont’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Similarly, the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, speak of Leo, saying…
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." – Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

In the same way, upon concluding their synod, **the Council fathers write to Pope Leo, saying…

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo,** Ep 98

For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of **whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo **(Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

So, the Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church. However, the Council did have one problem. One of its canons, Canon 28, had given Constantinople primacy in the East. The Canon read:

“…we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome…” (Canon 28, Chalcedon)
However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of “line item veto,” ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying …

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

However, when canon 28 was first rejected by Rome, the Monophysites tried to exploit the situation claiming that Leo had rejected the authority of the entire Council. So, at the urging of the Eastern Emperor, Pope Leo drafted a letter to the bishops, explaining how Chalcedon was doctrinally sound:

I have willingly complied, therefore, with what the most clement emperor thought necessary by sending a letter (Ep 114) to all brothers who were present at the Council of Chalcedon to show thereby that the decisions taken by our holy brothers concerning the tenets of the Faith were pleasing to me. My doing so was naturally on account of those who want the decisions of the council to appear weak and dubious, as an occasion for cloaking their own perfidy, on the grounds that decisions were not ratified by assenting opinion of mine (canon 28), whereas I did dispatch a letter. – Pope Leo, Ep 117

There’s more historical evidence that silences your view of the Supremacy the Bishop of Rome is held in high esteem by heretics, Orthodox Saints, ECF’s, Jews, pagans, and the Roman Empire Emperors

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah;First - Keep analogies to analogies. Not outside the context of the conversation

.

Lol… Iam not the one who compares the Kingdom of God to a democratic secular military government ruled by a secular president.

Second - Stop using the name of our Lord in vain. You don’t get to determine what Jesus meant or not.

Source please.

Third - Your view is absent for more than 1,000 years of Church history. No amount of words you type presenting empty facts will take away from that. The Vatican is aware of this fact. Get on the bus.

You do not have all the facts, just an opinion to the issues the Eastern Church’s are suffering through from their own heresies and heretics, when the West is not infected during the councils you reference, thus the subject you seek about the supremacy of Peter is not revealed in them. Although, the bishop of Rome is sought after to settle disputes among these Eastern Church’s especially when it affects the Apostolic faith, it is assured the bishop’s of Rome are engaged during these trouble times in the East.

Commentaries to these councils is what you miss from the Saints who write to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome who presides in the Chair of Peter in all ages.

There exist no Church council that contests’ or rejects the supremacy of Peter’s Chair of whom the Bishop of Rome presides period, contrary to the opinion of a select few from the Orthodox side of the Church.

In 189 a.d, assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome indicated in Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies” (3:3:2): “With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree…and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

In AD 195, Pope Victor I, in what is seen as an exercise of Roman authority over other churches, excommunicated the Quartodecimans for observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, the date of the Jewish Passover, a tradition handed down by John the Evangelist (see Easter controversy). Celebration of Easter on a Sunday, as insisted on by the pope, is the system that has prevailed (see computus).

The Edict of Milan in 313 granted freedom to all religions in the Roman Empire,[51] beginning the Peace of the Church. In 325, the First Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism, declaring trinitarianism dogmatic, and in its sixth canon recognized the special role of the sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.[52] Great defenders of Trinitarian faith included the popes, especially Pope Liberius, who was exiled to Berea by Constantius II for his Trinitarian faith,[53] Damasus I, and several other bishops.

In 380, Nicene Christianity was declared the state religion of the Roman Empire, with the name “Catholic Christians” reserved for those who accepted that faith.[55][56] While the civil power in the East controlled the church, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the capital, wielded much power,[57] in the West, the Bishops of Rome were able to consolidate the influence and power they already possessed.

The title of “Pontifex Maximus,” was given to Pope Damasus I by the Emperor Gratian 360 a.d, history also records Pope Leo I 440-446 a.d takes on this title of Pontifex Maximus. The terms pontifex maximus and summus pontifex were for centuries used by the Bishop of Rome also known as the Pope. After Christ himself, the pope is considered to be the “high priest” (the veritable meaning of summus pontifex and “pontifex maximus”). However, this term is not officially included in his titles, but it is used in practice in the headings of his encyclicals and other papal documents.

It can be argued that other bishops take on the pontiff title less the maximus, but it is to the bishop’s of Rome the Emperor surrenders his pontifex maximus title. When no other Apostolic see is given such a title officially by any of the Emperor’s to be officially Pontifex Maximus = high priest over the Roman Empire.

Covering your eyes from the sun does not make the sun go away. It just gives you the impression that it’s not there anymore.

That may be your unjust opinion of me, but thank you for the blessing

I don’t have a view. I have facts, whereas you have none. That is glaringly obvious.

In June 6, 445, Pope Leo recieved from the Emperor the famous decree which recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome based on the merits of Peter, the dignity of the city, and the Nicene Creed. The decree ordered that any opposition to his rulings, which were to have the force of law, should be treated as treason and provided for the forcible extradition by provincial governors of anyone who refused to answer a summons to Rome.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

When Eutyches of Constantinople was excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople for teaching that Jesus had a single, divine nature into which his human nature was absorbed, he appealed to Leo. Leo replied in his Tome (449), upholding the doctrine of two distinct, unconfused natures.

In Leo’s eyes, the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon acquired their validity from his own confirmation of them, not from unanimity. Chalcedon established what became orthodox dogma in the West but failed to reconcile genuine differences of opinion on the issue of Jesus’ nature as human and divine.

According to Pope Leo, the Church is built upon Peter, in pursuance of the promise of Matthew 16:16-19, Peter participates in everything which is Christ’s; what the other apostles have in common with him they have through him. The Lord prays for Peter alone when danger threatens all the apostles, because his firmness will strengthen the other apostles. What is true of Peter is true also of his successors. Every other bishop is charged with the care of his own special flock, the Roman with that of the whole Church. Other bishops are his assistants in this great task.

Through the see of Peter, Rome had become the capital of the world in a wider sense than before. For this reason, when the earth was divided among the apostles, Rome was reserved to Peter so that there, at the very center, the decisive triumph might be won over by the earthly wisdom of philosophy and the power of the demons. Thus, from the head, the light of truth streams out through the whole body.

The Roman Catholic and many Anglican churches mark November 10 as the feast day of Saint Leo (formerly April 11), while the Eastern Orthodox churches mark February 18 as his feast day

The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his “Epistle to the Corinthians”, written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. “If any man”, he says, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger” (Ep. 59).

Moreover, he bids them “render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit”. The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as “the first step towards papal domination” (Clement 1:70).

Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. **It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men’s minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head. **
A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes]

The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus — a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work “Adversus Haereses” (III:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes:

Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings.** For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere** [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].

He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

During the pontificate of **St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. **A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action…Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so.
**Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. **It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. **St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty. **

Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. **The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hierapolis (d. about 200), contains an account **of his travels couched in allegorical language. He speaks thus of the Roman Church: “To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled.” It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See.

Tertullian’s bitter polemic, “De Pudicitia” (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks “the peremptory edict”, which “the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops”, has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic.

St. Cyprian
The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion. He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as “the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise” (ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est).
The force of this expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the Church. This was, he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Epistle 66:1).
He holds, also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Arles fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen “to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place” (Epistle 66:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light believed that the pope possessed a real and effective primacy.

At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

St. Dionysius of Alexandria
Contemporary with St. Cyprian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents bearing on the present question are related of him.
Eusebius (Church History VII.9) gives us a letter addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it appeared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had been frequenting the sacraments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St. Xystus’s advice and begs for his decision (gnomen), that he may not fall into error (dedios me hara sphallomai).
Again, some years later, the same patriarch occasioned anxiety to some of the brethren by making use of some expressions which appeared hardly compatible with a full belief in the Divinity of Christ. They promptly had recourse to the Holy See and accused him to his namesake, St. Dionysius of Rome, of heretical leanings. The pope replied by laying down authoritatively the true doctrine on the subject.
Both events are instructive as showing us how Rome was recognized by the second see in Christendom as empowered to speak with authority on matters of doctrine. (St. Athanasius, “De sententia Dionysii” in P.G., XXV, 500).
Emperor Aurelian
Equally noteworthy is the action of Emperor Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9).
The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But **the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles. **

Hence the papal prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital welfare of souls demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which led to the intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St. Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the Chair of Peter was not disputed.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone, these early popes employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by Protestant controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its origin in papal ambition, disappears. The motive which inspired these men was not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith and the consciousness that to them had been committed the responsibility of its guardianship.

The controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in refusing to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating from a Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence. Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with the statements of an individual, but with the tradition of a Church — of that Church which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its doctrine, and which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. That tradition, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the long series of popes bear witness.

Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in which the popes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian Churches, form part and parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing not merely from the Western Fathers but from those of Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the evidence which comes to us from Rome may be skilful as a piece of special pleading, but it can claim no other value. The first to employ this argument were some of the Gallicans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his “Defensio cleri gallicani” (II, 1. XI, c. vi).
**The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”: **
**“If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema.” **“If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. — let him be anathema” (Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, nn. 1823, 1825).

A question may be raised as to the precise dogmatic value of the clause of the second canon in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is Peter’s successor. The truth is infallibly defined. But the Church has authority to define not merely those truths which form part of the original deposit of revelation, but also such as are necessarily connected with this deposit. The former are held fide divina, the latter fide infallibili.

Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head, Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the headship should descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to determine, it is plain that the Apostle need not have attached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to another.

Some have thought that the law establishing the succession in the Roman episcopate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church’s chief pastor would be the conclusion from two premises — the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation, and is accepted fide infallibili.

According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church.
These quotes are taken from this site; newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

 

[guanophore]

I hate to admit it, but perhaps the biggest heresy of all is from the West… it’s called Protestantism.

Which, interestingly, begins with the denial of the role of Peter as the Rock, and the validity of this office passed on to his successors.

 

[guanophore]

And, frankly, those are the only people that count. Why should I care what those who have wandered away from the fold think about the shepherd that they refuse to follow?

I can think of many reasons. Peter was assigned to care for the whole flock, not only those who are listening to his voice.

Jesus prayed for unity, so clearly it is of great importance to him. We are obligated to work toward unity.

To say that any of God’s creation "doesn’t count"is an insult to human dignity.

They may be nice folks, they may have interesting things to say on some topics, but on this…nope.

An unwillingness to listen to the causes of disunity only perpetuates it. The Church sets the model we are to follow in seeking amicable dialogue and finding areas of agreement.

Nope. :yawn:

The idea of using Catholic documents to disprove a core belief of Catholicism is ludicrous.

Actually it is an excellent approach, just as using Scripture to refute the errors of “bible based” Christians is very effective. Finding refutation within your opponents support base is a powerful tool in any debate.

Either way, I don’t think it’s a good use of my time to read reams of documents in a vain effort to convince you that you’re wrong. There’s not much likelihood of a return on that, is there?

Not everyone is called to the ministry of ecumenism. You have presented some very powerful arguments, but are limited by the attitude in this post that is apparently lacking in charity, and by a lack of familiarity with the scholarly base of your opponents.