Defenses of the Papacy

[FireFromHeaven]

I have recently been seeing several arguments by Eastern Orthodox and secular historians that the Papacy’s supremacy was constructed by Rome long after the early church. I was wondering if anyone had any good scholarly resources and/or books to refute this claim?
Thanks.

 

[dochawk]

an interesting place to start is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger on what can be expected in terms of reunion.

The best overall source I can give you is the East & West subforms on byzcath.org; its been hashed over more than once by folks who are actually well educated on the topic, with plenty of references.

In short, there is no reasonable contention that the Pope in the first millennium had the absolute power exercised today through the RCC.

Conversely, there is no honest argument that there was not a primacy of Rome.

Which leaves a lot of room in between . . .

(If you try to join and it doesn’t work; pm me. The administrator has been able to set it straight for others)

’

 

[CRM_Brother]

There is a long tradition and theology stemming from Christ’s own renaming of Simon through the Early Church to us today. According to all the recorded oral histories of the Church of Rome, it was St. Paul that not only ordered the passing down of Peter’s place among the Apostles, but also oversaw the drawing of lots among the clergy of Rome and the election of Linus to fulfill Peter’s office as Apostle.

Jesus did not give the name ‘Peter’ to Simon. ‘Peter’ is a Greek translation of the Aramaic name ‘Kêfa’ meaning ‘Rock’. (In the original Greek text of the Gospels, it was slightly changed to Cephas to conform to Greek grammar.) This is the same word in Aramaic that was used to describe Mt. Moriah, the Temple Mount around which Jerusalem was built. This Kêfa was known in Scripture as the “True pole of the Earth”. It was the physical location where God stooped down to live among his people. Peter was now the rock of the Church, the new Temple where God’s people may encounter Him.

It is important to note that Peter is not the only person with the name Kêfa in the New Testament. While spelled differently and meaning something different in Hebrew, the High Priest Caiphas had the same name when pronounced aloud. In naming Peter ‘Kêfa’, Christ is also saying that ‘you are Caiphas’, not in the sense of Peter seeking to kill Christ, but in the sense that ‘you are the High Priest’. This also comes into play in Christ’s preaching in the Temple. In the original language with which Christ would have spoken, he would have said that ‘not one kêfa would stand upon another’ when the Temple is torn down. This has a triple meaning. First, it means that the Temple will be completely destroyed. Second, it means that no Kêfa will find its foundation in the kêfa of Mt. Moriah. Neither the High Priest Caiphas, nor Peter, will build their authority upon the Temple Mount. Caiphas was removed as High Priest soon after Chrsit’s death. Peter never turned to the Temple as the source of authority, instead finding his authority in Christ himself. Third, it means that Peter is not founded upon the authority of the High Priest. It is not that the High Priesthood of the Temple has passed on to Peter but rather that Peter’s office is a rock of authority in and of itself.

(post 1 of 2)

 

[CRM_Brother]

(post 2 of 2)

Most, if not all, Orthodox Christians believe in Peter’s supremacy. Many Ecumenical Councils have affirmed this. They simply believe that it was a personal authority and did not pass on to the bishops of Rome. This is refuted by the traditions of Rome dating back to the early Church. Tradition states that when Peter died, the Church of Rome gathered around St. Paul to seek direction. Paul, knowing of the Apostle’s casting lots to have St. Matthias replace Judas after his suicide, commanded the Church to cast lots to determine who would replace Peter in his Apostolic office.

The lots were cast and the lot fell on Linus, the elder of the two bishops which Paul, himself, had installed to lead the Church of Rome when he had first visited the City. After Paul died, the Church of Rome continued the tradition and cast lots to choose who would replace Paul in his Apostolic (or ministerial, depending upon who you ask) office. The lot fell to Clement, the younger of the two bishops which Paul had installed in the Church of Rome years earlier. Through the tradition of lots, Cletus followed Linus when he was martyred. After Cletus’ eventual death, the lots were cast again and Clement was chosen. While Clement was the 3rd (4th if you count Peter), it was from his papacy onward that the Papacy claimed the Apostolic office of both Peter and Paul.

The authority of the bishops of Rome as successors of Peter’s Apostolic Office was, indeed, recognized in the Early Church. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130 - c.202) used Peter’s authority to reject the Gnostic belief of a secret knowledge of salvation. If that secret knowledge existed, then the successors of Peter, in his office as leader of the Apostles, would know of that secret knowledge. They did not know the existence of any such secret. Thus, the Gnostic beliefs were not true.

Hope this helps!

God Bless,
Ben

 

[FireFromHeaven]

I had never heard that lots story. What is your source on that?

 

[CRM_Brother]

I had the chance to study abroad in Rome during College. I learned this there during my Papal History class. The professor, Dr. David Dawson-Vasquez, explained that this story had not only been passed down in oral legend in the Church of Rome but had also been found in various forms amongst early Dark Age chroniclers. The style of the chronicles denoted an earlier formulation and not the Medieval fable as it had been dismissed as in the early 1800s. I have even encountered Protestant scholars who agree on its authenticity.

The practice of using lots to choose the next Pope is well recorded down to St. Pope Calistus I. He was martyred with seven of his eight deacons. The remaining deacon, St. Lawrence, was Pope Calistus’ second-in-command and was never in the same place as the Pope, for fear that both would be caught and martyred. This did not matter, as Lawrence was martyred three days later, before new lots could be cast to replace the Pope. At this point, there were no more clergy left in the city. The faithful of Rome turned to the clergy of the surrounding towns to choose the new Pope. Because they were hesitant to journey to Rome to cast lots for fear of Martyrdom, clergy of the surrounding towns sent their votes to the bishop of the town now known as Ostia Antiqua since he was the bishop closest to the City. Today, this Cardinal Bishop is also the Dean of the College for this very reason. Its because of this history that he is the one to announce “Habemus Papam!” At the election of a new Pope (unless they, themselves, were elected Pope like Pope Benedict XVI in 2005).

 

[jochoa]

From your research, who does Eastern Orthodox and secular historians declare has the keys to the kingdom of heaven?