I have made the argument that Jesus named Peter the Royal Steward of His kingdom in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=911422
The points in 23 & 39 (I think) specifically address the question of why the supremacy of the pope was not so evident in the early church. Once the logic of Newman’s and Fortescue’s arguments sink in, I’m not sure there is any real defense of Protestantism and Orthodoxy left.
I look forward to your thoughts.
I don’t think either Newman or Fortescue have convincing arguments.
Looking at Fortescue’s argument, I see this:
A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy.
This is patently false, and is disproven by Church history on more than one occasion. You can read more on this below.
And I also have massive problems with this part of Newman’s argument:
And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated
Papal supremacy wasn’t just challenged during the first thousand years of the Church. It wasn’t just violated. It was routinely shown to not even exist. I also discuss this in my post below.
I gave my reason for why I’m no longer a Catholic, and only one poster gave any sort of response to it (thank you Peter J
). However, I would really like someone to respond to the points I make. I’ve made a few additions to my original post for clarification:
As for Papal Infallibility, it seems murky at best as to when it’s actually been applied. My understanding of it is, “The Pope’s speaking infallibly when he talks all official-like and says something in line with the Tradition of the Church.” But with all the extra criteria that get added in, a lot of people say that the Pope has only spoken twice in recorded history, whereas others make up a way more massive list. The lack of agreement among Catholics as to when the Pope is infallibly speaking is pretty damning in my view.
And Papal Supremacy and Papal Universal Jurisdiction seem in my eyes to be completely against what everyone knows to be the history of the Church. The way Vatican 1 words those two things is impossible to get around. I understand that subsequent Popes have explained that their supremacy and universal jurisdiction are in terms of love, encouragement, advisement and checking in on how things are going, but that is not at all what I see Vatican 1 saying. As a disclaimer,
I do not in any way dispute Papal primacy. What I DO dispute, are the Vatican 1 dogmas of Papal Supremacy and Papal Universal Jurisdiction.
The idea that a Pope can’t be contradicted or overruled by an Ecumenical Council flies in the face of history, so I cannot possibly accept that. We’ve seen Popes being reviewed by Ecumenical Councils (the Council of Chalcedon thoroughly read and discussed Pope St. Leo’s Tome before accepting it as orthodox; it was by no means automatically accepted as authoritative just because Pope Leo issued it), and an Ecumenical Council has both condemned a Pope (i.e. Honorius, but I don’t feel like re-opening that can of worms).
And an Ecumenical Council forced another Pope to do an about-face on his position (I’m thinking Pope Vigilius being forced by the Fifth Ecumenical Council to change his position and condemn the Three Chapters, when he had previously accepted them as orthodox).
And we also see Pope Victor changing his mind about excommunicating the Quartodecimians after a bunch of people reprimanded him for his actions, including people within his own church.
And let’s not forget Pope Damasus’ track record in going against St. Meletius of Antioch, backing his opponents and breaking off communion with the rest of Antioch. Even though the Pope had clearly shown he didn’t like Meletius, St. Meletius still presided over the First Council of Constantinople, and indeed, it was the episcopal line of St. Meletius that won out (and is now the line of Antiochene Patriarchs in the Eastern Churches, including the Eastern Catholic churches might I add) whereas the Rome-backed Paulinian line died out.
In summation, we see Popes during the first millennium of the Church being routinely challenged by others in the Church–and in numerous cases, it was the Popes that had to back down and bow to the rest of the Church. The Popes were not monarchical rulers with supreme authority in the Church, but Patriarchs that could be and were overruled by others, including Ecumenical Councils (which, according to Vatican 1, the Ecumenical Council is not a superior authority to the Pope) and other bishops, and even priests–all of which are completely unthinkable in the post-Vatican I Roman Catholic Church.
So no, I see neither evidence nor support for the ideas of Papal Supremacy or Papal Universal Jurisdiction–at least not how Vatican 1 explains them. If only what later Popes say on the matter was the dogmatic definition of these, and not the decrees of Vatican 1. If it wasn’t for the overly monarchical sense I get from these two dogmas, I might still be Catholic today. As it is now, everything’s in flux about whether or not I find my way back into communion with the Pope.
.