Early Papal Authority question

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_The_1st
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Marduk,

I asked for the source of your post, because it is hard to tell, from the way you wrote it, who exactly is speaking, and what you are quoting from. The red highlights are followed by black commentary that may be yours, but it is not clear. Would you please give the citation so we can read it in context?
 
Dear Marduk,

I asked for the source of your post, because it is hard to tell, from the way you wrote it, who exactly is speaking, and what you are quoting from. The red highlights are followed by black commentary that may be yours, but it is not clear. Would you please give the citation so we can read it in context?
Almost all my citations are from the given link in the OP. The red portions are from the author of the article in the link. Didn’t you read the article?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Okay, Marduk. Thanks for clarifying your post. No, I did not read all of the OP’s link, which is why I had difficulty sorting out who was speaking.
 
Yes. That is explicitly stated in Pastor Aeternus:
“The Holy spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His reveleation, but rather that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explina the revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles.”

Blessings,
Marduk
Yet this never happened in the first millenium, where such things were decided by the ecumenical councils.

“The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.” - Cyprian, on the unity of the Church

“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles;” - Firmilian to Cyprian, letter 74
St. Cyprian’s words of censure in his tract on Unity are some of the strongest I have read.
What a pity that the Popes have been the most divisive figures in Christendom, breaking the unity of the Church not only the Great Schism of 1054 but to a lesser extent that of 451 as well. Ask the “Copt in communion with Rome” about how the Pope was the person to unite in the aftermath of 451.
To be perfectly clear, it is not the Catholic teaching that “one singular bishop would shepherd the universal Church.”
Tell that to your ultramontane friends. Sadly this is the praxis of the Latin church today, the bishops being bishops in name only.
 
Yet this never happened in the first millenium, where such things were decided by the ecumenical councils.
And? :confused:
“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles;” - Firmilian to Cyprian, letter 74

What a pity that the Popes have been the most divisive figures in Christendom, breaking the unity of the Church not only the Great Schism of 1054 but to a lesser extent that of 451 as well. Ask the “Copt in communion with Rome” about how the Pope was the person to unite in the aftermath of 451.
Whose opinion is that, young man? And what qualifies it as truth?
Tell that to your ultramontane friends. Sadly this is the praxis of the Latin church today, the bishops being bishops in name only.
All 5,065 of them? Aren’t you stretching things just a tad due to your bias?
“The Vatican said the number of bishops in the world increased to 5,065 from 5,002.”
And they have no authority? :rolleyes:
 
Sadly this is your misunderstanding of the praxis of the Latin church.
What’s a bishop who can be deposed or moved around at any time by order of an Italian prelate?
Whose opinion is that, young man? And what qualifies it as truth?
The holy fathers St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian, called by St. Basil “the ancient authorities”. What I posted were quotes from their works.

Oh, I see you might have referred to the second paragraph. That’s just how history was.
 
40.png
Cyrillic:
Oh, I see you might have referred to the second paragraph. That’s just how history was.
What’s a bishop who can be deposed or moved around at any time by order of an Italian prelate?
I see, too. Private interpretation of Cyrillic - your words have no authority, therefore I give you no audience. Come back and visit when you are open to discussing Catholic truth about the papacy and episcopy. 😉
 
I see, too. Private interpretation of Cyrillic - your words have no authority, therefore I give you no audience.
So because I’m not some big guy in the hierarchy my interpretation couldn’t possibly be true?
Come back and visit when you are open to discussing Catholic truth about the papacy and episcopy. 😉
Nice dodging the second quote. Again, what’s a bishop who can be deposed or moved around at any time for any reason by order of some Italian prelate?
 
Sadly this is your misunderstanding of the praxis of the Latin church.
No it is not. Where are the primates today? Do Suffragan Bishops commemorate their Archbishops? The Ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church has become flat, everyone is just under the Pope. Whereas in Eastern Churches we have retained the structure that has been in place since the second half of the First Millennium.
 
No it is not. Where are the primates today? Do Suffragan Bishops commemorate their Archbishops? The Ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church has become flat, everyone is just under the Pope. Whereas in Eastern Churches we have retained the structure that has been in place since the second half of the First Millennium.
Is this a plug for Eastern Churches, Constantine? 😃

This comment is disturbing because it has no verifiable sources; just your opinion, or that of someone from whom you repeated it. As I noted earlier, there are in excess of 5,000 bishops worldwide. On what do you base a statement like this? How many Latin Rite bishops do you know personally? Upon whom or what do you rely for your information to make this comment?

Can you see that it would be offensive to those of us who love the Church?
 
Is this a plug for Eastern Churches, Constantine? 😃

This comment is disturbing because it has no verifiable sources; just your opinion, or that of someone from whom you repeated it. As I noted earlier, there are in excess of 5,000 bishops worldwide. On what do you base a statement like this? How many Latin Rite bishops do you know personally? Upon whom or what do you rely for your information to make this comment?

Can you see that it would be offensive to those of us who love the Church?
No verifiable sources? Go check out the Primates today. Where are they? Gone. Most Primates today are only honorific titles because there was such a Primate in the past. Suffragan dioceses should be under the Archdiocese, but they are not. The only difference between an Archbishop today and a suffragan Bishop is the other gets the word “arch” with his title and name of diocese. He is no longer the “First Among Equals” among the bishops of those suffragan diocese.
 
No verifiable sources?** Go check out the Primates today.** Where are they? Gone. Most Primates today are only honorific titles because there was such a Primate in the past. Suffragan dioceses should be under the Archdiocese, but they are not. The only difference between an Archbishop today and a suffragan Bishop is the other gets the word “arch” with his title and name of diocese. He is no longer the “First Among Equals” among the bishops of those suffragan diocese.
Yes, but I asked you for the source. Enlighten me, please.
What do you mean they are gone? I have the sense you have a disdain for Western Catholicism and are finding fault without having solid merit.
 
=James The 1st;9779370]I came across this website, and it is confusing to say the least. What does one make of this article? Basically, it says Catholicism is wrong in the way it uses St. Cyprian and that he actually did not believe the Bishop of Rome had primacy over the other Bishops.
The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

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 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
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" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him 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 that also which 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 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
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 — 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 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
 
Dear brother Cyrillic,
Yet this never happened in the first millenium, where such things were decided by the ecumenical councils.
Sure it happened. The Second Ecum was based strongly on the Tome of Pope St. Damasus on the Holy Spirit (the Fathers of the Second Ecum referred to it as the “Tome of the Westerns”); Pope St. Cyril himself did not want to act without the prior approval of Pope St. Celestine at the Third Ecum (even before the Council convened); the Fourth Ecum Council revolved around the Tome of Pope St. Leo; the Sixth and Seventh Councils made similar statements about and adherence to the doctrinal pronouncements of contemporary Popes.

Don’t confuse infallibility with certainty.
“The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.” - Cyprian, on the unity of the Church.
If you knew anything about Catholic ecclesiology, you would understand this does not contradict it in any way.
“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles;” - Firmilian to Cyprian, letter 74
Yeah, on a matter thought by many to be a matter of mere discpline, to be determined according to each bishop. Get us something on a matter of doctrinal Faith, and your argument will begin to have some merit.
]What a pity that the Popes have been the most divisive figures in Christendom, breaking the unity of the Church not only the Great Schism of 1054 but to a lesser extent that of 451 as well. Ask the “Copt in communion with Rome” about how the Pope was the person to unite in the aftermath of 451.
Actually, OO in general historically blame the Easterns for the schism, not the Latins.
Tell that to your ultramontane friends. Sadly this is the praxis of the Latin church today, the bishops being bishops in name only.
Can you give an example of a Latin bishop not having authority in and of himself by virtue of his office?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
No it is not. Where are the primates today? Do Suffragan Bishops commemorate their Archbishops?
Every Latin Catholic Church I’ve been to commemorates their Archbishop. It’s possible that others don’t, though I’ve never been to one that doesn’t. Maybe it’s the difference between High Mass and Low Mass?

Granted, Latin archbishops do not have the same jurisdictional prereogatives as Eastern/Oriental Metropolitans. They used to, however, until the 13th century (IIRC). It would be interesting to find out why the power of Latin Metropolitans was reduced progressively.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
=Erick_Ybarra;9790721]Thanks a ton for those links.
Do you think you could elaborate a bit on just what the boundaries are of the Church with respect to what doctrine it teaches ? I know the papacy is more of a governing concern than making up a new doctrine. The papacy is there to preserve and shepherd the Church with the original apostolic deposit. Do I have it?
For Doctrine Info check out

secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/doctrine.htm

and for Dogma’s

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.

The Unity and Trinity of God
God the Creator
God the Redeemer
The Mother of the Redeemer
God the Sanctifier
The Catholic Church
The Communion of Saints
The Sacraments
Baptism
Confirmation
Holy Eucharist
Penance
Holy Orders
Matrimony
Extreme Unction
The Last Things

God Bless,
pat /PJM
 
Dear brother Cyrillic,

Sure it happened. The Second Ecum was based strongly on the Tome of Pope St. Damasus on the Holy Spirit (the Fathers of the Second Ecum referred to it as the “Tome of the Westerns”); Pope St. Cyril himself did not want to act without the prior approval of Pope St. Celestine at the Third Ecum (even before the Council convened); the Fourth Ecum Council revolved around the Tome of Pope St. Leo; the Sixth and Seventh Councils made similar statements about and adherence to the doctrinal pronouncements of contemporary Popes.
The Second Council was based more on the writings of the Cappadocians, Caelestinus didn’t really participate a lot in the debates surrounding the Third Council. It is however interesting that a Copt in communion with Rome should boast about the Tome. The sixth council did indeed adopt the Lateran creed and the seventh council was based on the writings of St. Theodore the Studite and St. John of Damascus.
Yeah, on a matter thought by many to be a matter of mere discpline, to be determined according to each bishop. Get us something on a matter of doctrinal Faith, and your argument will begin to have some merit.
Whether baptism exists outside of the Church is a matter of “discipline”?
Actually, OO in general historically blame the Easterns for the schism, not the Latins.
Usually the anathemas of the orientals were directed towards Pope Leo.
Can you give an example of a Latin bishop not having authority in and of himself by virtue of his office?
Here’s a story about a bishop from Italy firing bishops all over the world without a (local) synod.
 
Every Latin Catholic Church I’ve been to commemorates their Archbishop. It’s possible that others don’t, though I’ve never been to one that doesn’t. Maybe it’s the difference between High Mass and Low Mass?

Granted, Latin archbishops do not have the same jurisdictional prereogatives as Eastern/Oriental Metropolitans. They used to, however, until the 13th century (IIRC). It would be interesting to find out why the power of Latin Metropolitans was reduced progressively.

Blessings,
Marduk
No, they commemorate their bishop only and then the Pope. If you are in an archdiocese then yes they commemorate the archbishop. But a suffragan diocese would only commemorate the suffragan bishop then the Pope.
 
“The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament.” Dr. Layman Abbot, in the Christian Union, June 26, 1890.

company website
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top