Early Church Fathers that confirm the Catholic view of the Papacy?
- Status
C
concretecamper
Guest
Read “Upon this Rock” by Stephen Ray. Is is packed with references from the early fathers.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
K
Kirovsakya
Guest
If you are asking about the modern Roman Catholic, Vatican 1 “view” of the Papacy, there are none.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The Early church fathers beg to differ with you; who hold to the same views as both Vatican I and Vatican II and all councils before, never left their apostolic (true Orthodoxy) faith in Peter and his successors in the Bishop’s of Rome.
St.Clement of Alexandria; (Who is the rich man that shall be saved?, Chap. 21) “Nor does the kingdom of heaven belong to sleepers and sluggards, “but the violent take it by force” (Mt.11:12) Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying”…“Lo, we have left all and followed Thee”.
St.Cyril of Jerusalem; (catechesis, No. 2:19) "Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation.** Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the Apostles,** denied the Lord thrice before a little maid; but he repented hismelf…therefore he not only received forgiveness for this denial, but also held his Apostolic diginity unforfeited.
St. Ignatius of Antioch; (Letter to the Romans, Chap.4) **"I am writing to all the Churches…I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did. **
St.Irenaeus; (Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Chap. 3) "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of episcopate. Of Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy…succeeded Anacletus; and after him….Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them,… have the preaching of the apostles still echoing (in his ears)…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.
St.Cyprian; (letters, No. 55;8) "Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgement of God and of His Christ…When the place of Fabian, that is when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church".
St.Irenaeus; (Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Chap.3) “(I say)** by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority”…**
…(Bk 4, Chap. 26) …“But (it is also necessary) to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever”…
Vatican I views have not changed from these early Church Fathers, but holds to them unfailing.
It is today’s Orthodox who are Unorthodox from this apostolic unity from antiquity with the bishop’s of Rome.
Peace be with you
J
joe370
Guest
If I provide early-church-father quotes will you actually reconsider or just ignore them? I will even approach this from the perspective of the eastern early church fathers.
Gabriel of 12 has certainly provided some proof…You said: “The Latin Church delivered me to the doorstep of Holy Orthodoxy.” How so, if you do not mind me asking? I too considered eastern orthodoxy at one time…
K
Kirovsakya
Guest
As a Roman Catholic, I was taught to use the same quotations and did so with great success against protestants for many decades.
Saints Cyril of Jerusalem, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and Cyprian are all recognized as Saints by the Orthodox Church. St. Clement of Alexandria is not. If you put their isolated quotes back into their original context, you will learn why, and in the case of Clement, why not…
In your statement that V1 views have not changed from those of the Fathers, are you saying that Christians of good faith are free to disregard V1’s dogmatic proclamations on the Papacy, and defer to the teachings of the Fathers? Why or why not?
I’m not familiar with the term “Today’s Orthodox”. It sounds so contemporary and snappy. Is it a Western Christian denomination with Roman Catholic heritage?
S
shaky
Guest
Peter had a Vision from the Lord in Acts 10 that he would preach to the Gentiles. Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus Acts 9…And Jesus told Paul he would preach to the Gentiles.
The decision regarding the Gentiles was given to BOTH Paul and Peter by the Lord and when Paul and Peter come together the matter regarding the Gentiles was settled.
Peter being the ONLY Primary Apostle Spoke the decision to the rest of the people in the Church on this matter regarding the Gentiles.
It was Later backed up by OT Scripture that the Gentiles will be Included Hosea 1:9-10. Paul later confirmed this in one of his letters in Romans 9:25-26. Because of his Spiritual insight into OT Scripture. The bereans examined the Scriptures to see if Paul was teaching the Truth.
There are Many more examples in the letters of Paul that showed OT scripture in NT scripture to back up the Gospel he Preached.
Can you show me in scripture that Peter taught new things that ONLY came from himself through the Lord without it coming either from OT scripture or another Apostle Involved ?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
.
Funny I have been a Roman Catholic all my life, and I have never been taught by the Catholic Church to use scripture against protestants or anyone else.
The quote from St.Irenaeus dates back to 203 a.d and the saint is referencing directly the bishop of Rome who’s name is Clement, a direct apostolic successor to the apostle Peter who walked among the apostles living with the apostles teachings echoing in his ears.
St.Irenaeus reveals a high esteem for the bishop of Rome’s (Clement) letter to the Corinthian Church as being powerful that holds the Corinthian Church not the Roman Church but the Corinthian Church that exhorts this community “to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.”
This view is still held by the Bishop’s united to the Bishop’s of Rome unchanged including Vatican I.
As far as venerating saints go, the West does not venerate the Orthodox Saint Constantine who was the Roman Emperor who became a christian by being baptized on his death bed by an heretical Arian priest. Although we respect and honor his work for lifting the persecution of the Catholic Church.
St.Ignatius of Antioch 107 A.D, St. Irenaeus 203 A.D, St.Cyprian 258 A.D please take note that these Icons of the Church lived in unity with the bishop’s of Rome and held that Church in high esteem, long before the patriarch of Constantinople came into existence and began the course of schism with the Bishop’s of Rome. To which you appear to get your Orthodox interpretation of these early Church fathers writings as never being unified as one with the bishop’s of Rome. When recorded history proves these early church Father’s never new a patriarch from Constantinople because he and his office never existed and was never divinely given as the Bishop’s of Rome and all the other apostolic successors are by divine ordinance.
Apparently you may have been duped, if you are interpreting these early Church fathers who are pre- constantinople schism, with a post-constantinople schism interpretation.
We read these early saints in their context and from the same spirit from which these early church fathers wrote and taught. We know this to be true because the bishop of Rome was living and in office along with these Early Saints when they wrote. The patriarch of Constantinople did not exist yet, to offer another interpretation of disunity apart from the bishop’s of Rome. Realistically your Orthodox interpretation becomes Un orthodox when compared to these early church Father’s faith with the bishop’s of Rome.
If your interpretation of these letters and teachings has the scent of being separated and independently apart from the bishop’s of Rome communion, then you have been grossly mislead and your interpretation is post-Constantinople when these early church Fathers lived and wrote long before the patriarch’s of Constantinople came into power.
Holding to the subject you made of Vatican I. The quotes I have given are early church Fathers who lived pre-Constantinople period before the great Eastern heretical teachings and schisms.
These Fathers of the Church lived in unity with the bishop’s of Rome and held that office in high esteem, not only to instruct, hand on the apostolic Traditions to other church communities via letter from the bishop’s of Rome, they almost always reference the bishop of Rome as a divine office whom the Lord gave to Peter =rock, and as St Irenaeus states here;
St.Irenaeus; (Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Chap.3) "(I say) by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority"…
Your interpretation is going to prove that St.Irenaeus never held the Church of Rome as being the one that “every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre-eminent authority”?
I meant no disrespect to Ortrhodoxy, what I referenced was “Today’s Orthodox view” that hold to maintaining a disunity with the bishop of Rome, when this was never the case in the whole of the Catholic Church pre-Constantinople period.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
That’s never the way it works, When Peter tried to reveal his own agenda by preventing the Lord from going to his passion, it never went through the Lord, the Lord litterally said, “get behind me satan”. Peter tried to convince the Lord that he would never leave him, but the Lord told Peter, “you will deny me thrice, before the cock crows”.
Now the Father in heaven revealed to Peter who Jesus was, and heaven revealed to Peter to allow the gentiles into the church. This reveals the opposite when the divine is working through the office of Peter, not Peter himself working through the Lord. This still works today in the bishop of Rome.
Other examples show Peter walking on water with the Lord, Peter receiving the keys of the kingdom from the Lord Mt.16;15-19, Peter alone being commissioned by the Lord himself in John 21:15-17, Peter raising the dead and healing, such were the signs that followed Peter the sick and the lame would sit out in the streets just so the shadow of Peter might fall on them Acts 5:12-16. The authority of Peter get’s revealed when he informs a couple of the Holy Spirit revealed to him and their sin and their immenent death that came immediately after his speech. Acts 5:1-11
As Jesus promised Peter, “I will never leave you”.
Peace be with you
K
Kirovsakya
Guest
Although I have been RC my entire life as well, I would not characterize any part of the experience as “funny”.
Within your post, you have managed to address statements I have not made, and answered questions I have not asked. It reads like an essay. Good for you.
Over the past several years, I have sought out the best reasons to remain within the Roman Church of my birth. What I discovered was that there is no shortage of those willing to torture the writings of the Fathers to make the case for Rome. Overall, I find these methods desperate, shrill and pathetic in light of the historical record. “Apologetics”, done this way, tends to degrade the credibility of RC teachings across the board. This saddens me.
I will always remember the Roman Church fondly. It lead me, over the course of my life, to the doorstep of Holy Orthodoxy. For that, I will remain grateful.
May God have mercy on us all.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Funny is an expression that is used in the beginning of a response to reveal irony or something to the contrary. It is not used here to make a mockery.
I apologize for the large paste from another thread, I placed it here because it follows the OP and relates to the subject at hand. Sorry again for the shorthand.
I would agree with you, If I knew of someone who was mutilating the content from an Early Church Father’s writing, Church document, or Church doctrine. My response is generally to reveal and expose that mutilation with charity.
May God always bless you and keep you on your journey of faith
Peace be with you
S
shaky
Guest
The Lord Also revealed to Paul to Allow the Gentiles in the church on the road to damascus. And later it was backed up with OT Scripture.
The Lord Also reveals to Paul what Gospel it would be for the Gentiles through OT scripture with the spiritual Insight he had from the Lord. Which the bereans could verify through OT scripture that Paul was teaching the Truth.
Yes the Authority of Peter gets revealed when he informs the Couple of lying to the Holy spirit. I am sure if it was Paul it would have still been the same. Also the Authority of Paul gets revealed when Peter was Acting out of Order.
I am sure when the Church had bad Popes in the Past the rest of the bishops dealt with it. Can the Authority rest with One single Man/Pope whos teachings and Practies do not go by what is Approved by the Other bishops in the Church. ?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I disagree with you. Sauls’ vision came when he was acting as Pharisee attacking the body of Christ on the way to damascus. Paul was sent to the Jews first when he was rejected, The Holy Spirit sent him out to be an apostle to the gentiles, who were already being baptized into the Church by the Jerusalem Church and the other Evangelists sent out into the world.
It was too Peter alone that heaven revealed to Peter to allow in the Church what ever God makes clean “the gentiles” into the church, not Paul. Paul’s or Saul’s heavenly vision came to him to cease from attacking the Church.
I agree with you Jesus had already revealed to all the apostles what the scriptures revealed and said of him in all the law, prophets and psalms. Please read Luke24;12 especially vs. 44. But Paul was not made an apostle till later after this revelation.
Yet it was Peter first who proclaimed this revelation in his great speech after Pentecost. Including St.Stephen revealed the scriptures fulfilled in Christ, whom your Paul witnessed St.Stephen’s martydom.
Ok. Peter was not setting a good example by eating with the Jews only apart from the gentiles and Paul called him on it. What does this have to do with authority?
Yes many times providence chastizes and blesses those whom God loves as his children. When this took place, we don’t have bishops replacing the popes or acting as pope.
Never can one single man have such authority in the Church. It is only by divine office which means Jesus Christ always present in the office of Peter, the bishop of Rome that authority rests united to all Catholic bishops in one body of Christ who is our head. What the Pope’s teach cannot and will not teach against or contrary to the apostolic faith revealed through Jesus handed down to us through Peter and the apostles.
If a bishop disagrees with the Pope in matters of faith, doctrine and morals, this bishop’s teaching cannot conflict with the apostolic faith. The Pope is here to protect the faith as Rock, it cannot change and it has not changed.
Peace be with you
S
shaky
Guest
Sorry after re-reading i got things slightly mixed up before. In Acts 9:15 It was ‘‘Ananias’’ Who was FIRST told by the Lord that Paul is a Chosen Vessel to preach to the Gentiles.
This was BEFORE the Vision Peter Had in Acts 10 regarding the Gentiles. It was not Peter ‘‘Only’’ that got the message from the Lord regarding the Gentiles.
I am sure Ananias told Paul and there was a discussion with Peter regarding the Gentiles.
But Peter being Primary Apostle is the mouth piece to let everybody else know that the Gentiles will be Part of the Church.
When Paul was made a Apostle. We see In 1 Gal 11-17 Paul said the Gospel he Preached was not taught to him by other men. but by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Paul went to Arabia and did not conferred with flesh and blood the other Apostles.
Did Paul get this revelation regarding the Gospel for the Gentiles through his spiritual insight into Old Testament Scripture from Jesus Christ ?
I am not saying bishops or any bishop can replace a Pope because he is acting out of Order at times. Or if One bishop happens to disagree with the Pope.
I was Just wondering has there been any Pope that has come up with a new heretical teaching all by himself and try to impose it on the Church and ALL the rest of the bishops disagreed with Him ?
If that did happen did/would ALL the rest of the bishops have him deposed or resign ?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
.
That is true; When we take the whole of scripture, we find Paul entering the synagogues first to preach the gospel to the Jews first, when certain Jews took a vow not to eat until they kill Paul, we find Paul dusting off his shoes and hands to go out to preach to the Gentiles. Later when we arrive at the very first church council, there are already Gentiles in the Jersusalem Church what caused the council to be called. Paul later arrives in Jerusalem with Barnabas from preaching to the Gentiles. I say this because Peter has already informed the whole Church to allow the Gentiles in the Church.
Your point validates my position; Ananias who feared Paul, was instructed by the Lord to accept him and revealed is ultimate commission to the Gentiles. It was Peter alone that heaven instructed that the Gentiles be allowed into the Church. There is a huge difference between Peter being instructed by God to allow the Gentiles into the Church and the commissioning of Paul being sent to preach the good news to the Gentiles.
Heaven instructs Peter to allow the Gentiles in, while Paul is sent to bring in the harvest of the Gentiles
It was revealed at the Council of Jerusalem what God had revealed to Peter and after Peter spoke everyone fell silent. Then Paul’s speech followed Peter’s speech to confirm Peter’s revelation from Paul and Barnabas with signs and wonders.
Saul being a Pharisee lawyer has much knowledge of scripture, when Saul becomes Paul his knowledge and revelation of scripture is elevated to the fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Yes Jesus revealed to Paul his revelation, that is why Paul is an apostle, just like all the other apostles before him recieved revelation from Jesus about all the scriptures pertaining to him. Peter and the other apostles mind’s were opened to the scriptures by Jesus himself long before Paul recieved this first hand knowledge from Jesus.
First of all there are two things to consider here. When the Popes teach “ex Cathedra” this teaching is protected by the Holy Spirit and cannot error. It cannot happen and it has never happened less it proves our Lord wrong and the gates of hell prevail against the Church. Because “ex Cathedra” will never conflict with the Church’s apostolic faith, doctirnes, teachings and revelations from Jesus Christ. The Popes when teaching from Ex-Cathedra can never fall into heresy.
Now the bishops are free to disagree with the Popes personal writings, reflections, mediations, and his opinions. But they come against the Rock of Christ if they challenge his Ex-Cathedra teachings which cannot and do not change in any age.
Now an objection can be made to only one pope in all history who held to what appeared a heretical view. Pope Honorius. But this pope is excommunicated not while he lived, but 40 years after he was dead and buried. And it was his personal letters that condemned the 40 year dead pope as a heretic. This Pope Honorius never taught his personal view publicly nor from Ex-Cathedra that is binding on all believers. Thus the gates of hell have never prevailed against Peter and the Church. In fact all other apostolic sees have fallin in and out of heresy, Peter and his successors in the Popes is the only (rock) apostolic see that has never fallen in heresy.
No pope can be deposed for teaching Ex-Cathedra, but a Pope can be disciplined or disagreed with from his personal views, but never Ex-Cathedra when he teaches from the Chair of Peter for it is here that Christ Promises to be with Peter always.
Peace be with you
S
shaky
Guest
Sorry about this but after re-reading again i realised i did not get things mixed up regarding PAUL. I thought it was in Acts 9. But it was in Acts 26:16-17 when Paul explains in more detail what Jesus said to him on the road to Damascus. Jesus did say to Paul he would preach to the Gentiles. We got to say at least BOTH Paul and Peter got the Visions at about the same time ?
I understand Paul went away for 3 years to Arabia. What was also the 14 years all about for Paul ?
I will have to look into Ex-Cathedra to see what it is all about…
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Great observation, Gabriel of 12.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I would say Paul did that at the early stage of his ministry but perhaps there was no necessity for it if he was preaching what had been agreed to by the senior apostles. In other word, by the time he preached to Arabia, Paul had been quite proficient in apostolic teaching already. Unless it was something new, he did not have to check with the other apostles.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
- Status