Historical Papal supremacy

[ni8_shadow]

Reading a great history text called Medieval Europe a short history by Hollister and Bennett. Great reading and fast pace. In a section on early Christianity during the Empire, the book states that in the west, the Bishop of Rome claimed authority over all christians, due to St. Peter and the keys etc., but that he never got the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to bowe to his authority and that even after the empire, it would take a long time before he could “make good” on his claim. This would seem to support the Orthodox’s view. But he also criticizes how in the East, the Emperors had more power than the Patriarchs in church matters?!

It also states that it was Pope Leo I, and his successors who stated that the Bishop of Rome is the highest position in the Church and that he had power over kings in all things spiritual and moral.

Can I get some historical quotes that support the idea that the Bishop of Rome was accepted as THE authority during these years?

Now I don’t think the book takes an “anti-Catholic” stance because it is on point with the development of the New Testament, how churches were administered by Bishops etc. It even has an insert about the councils and how they defined orthodoxy, and surprisingly enough, there was an insert all about the “Blessed Virgin Mary” and how the early christians viewed her as the theotokos (first time I saw in a history text the Blessed Virgin actually called “Blessed!”).

thanks all

 

[Mark77]

Look at the Catholic.com website; Library; Faith Tracts; Church and Papacy; (catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp, catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp, catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp, catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp, catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp, catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp …)

Also; Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham, in ‘Beginning Apologetics 1 (www.catholicapologetics.com) say;

“**Please note that the Early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church. Around AD 80, the Church of Corinth deposed it’s lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome.

St Irenaus, who was taught by St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), stresses that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He then lists all the bishops of Rome up to his time.

For 250 years the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred-the Romans certainly knew who the head of the Church was!”

St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) appointed by St. Peter also recognizes Rome’s Primacy.
**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[diggerdomer]

Reading a great history text called Medieval Europe a short history by Hollister and Bennett. Great reading and fast pace. In a section on early Christianity during the Empire, the book states that in the west, the Bishop of Rome claimed authority over all christians, due to St. Peter and the keys etc., but that he never got the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to bowe to his authority and that even after the empire, it would take a long time before he could “make good” on his claim. This would seem to support the Orthodox’s view. But he also criticizes how in the East, the Emperors had more power than the Patriarchs in church matters?!

It also states that it was Pope Leo I, and his successors who stated that the Bishop of Rome is the highest position in the Church and that he had power over kings in all things spiritual and moral.

Can I get some historical quotes that support the idea that the Bishop of Rome was accepted as THE authority during these years?

Now I don’t think the book takes an “anti-Catholic” stance because it is on point with the development of the New Testament, how churches were administered by Bishops etc. It even has an insert about the councils and how they defined orthodoxy, and surprisingly enough, there was an insert all about the “Blessed Virgin Mary” and how the early christians viewed her as the theotokos (first time I saw in a history text the Blessed Virgin actually called “Blessed!”).

thanks all

The primacy of the Bishop of Rome evolved over time. It had different receptions among Christians. It would be hard to define one point at which all Christians agreed on a singular understanding of what that meant.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother diggerdommer,

The primacy of the Bishop of Rome evolved over time. It had different receptions among Christians. It would be hard to define one point at which all Christians agreed on a singular understanding of what that meant.

The idea that there is a primatial bishop for the WHOLE Church is not a development. Jesus Himself asserted in Matthew 24 that he will set one servant over the household. Rather, what has not exactly been agreed on down through the centuries is how this primacy is to be exercised. Not even Vatican 1 was able to resolve this issue. Vatican 2 helped a lot, but we may need another Ecumenical Council to fully resolve it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[diggerdomer]

Dear brother diggerdommer,

The idea that there is a primatial bishop for the WHOLE Church is not a development. Jesus Himself asserted in Matthew 24 that he will set one servant over the household. Rather, what has not exactly been agreed on down through the centuries is how this primacy is to be exercised. Not even Vatican 1 was able to resolve this issue. Vatican 2 helped a lot, but we may need another Ecumenical Council to fully resolve it.

Blessings,
Marduk

I really don’t see Matthew 24’s relevance, but you’re free to interpret it how you want. The Church certainly doesn’t base the primacy of the Pope on it.

Yes, HOW the primacy was exercised has changed. That’s my point. It was not something that has been exercised – or understood by the Church – the same in all times.

 

[mardukm]

I really don’t see Matthew 24’s relevance, but you’re free to interpret it how you want. The Church certainly doesn’t base the primacy of the Pope on it.

Yes, the Church formally utilizes John 21 (“Feed my sheep”) as the (partial) basis for the dogma of papal primacy. But a student of Scripture cannot fail to notice that in Matthew 24, Jesus informs us that he will set ONE SERVANT over His household in order to feed it. John 21 identifies who this one servant is.

Yes, HOW the primacy was exercised has changed. That’s my point. It was not something that has been exercised – or understood by the Church – the same in all times.

Would you agree, then, that the concept of primacy itself is not a development?

Blessings

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, the Church formally utilizes John 21 (“Feed my sheep”) as the (partial) basis for the dogma of papal primacy. But a student of Scripture cannot fail to notice that in Matthew 24, Jesus informs us that he will set ONE SERVANT over His household in order to feed it. John 21 identifies who this one servant is.

Would you agree, then, that the concept of primacy itself is not a development?

Blessings

I don’t think I can understand a “concept” of primacy apart from its actual, historical incarnation. Primacy is a function, an act, an experiential reality, not merely a concept.

Although if I try to consider it as a concept (only) I would say that certainly such a concept is consistent with Scripture but not explicitly taught by Scripture. Interpreting apocalyptic type literature (as I understand Matt 24 is an example) in a way like that can be acceptable but hardly deductive. John 21, similarly, as an allegory can be interpreted many ways legitimately.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother diggerdomer,

I don’t think I can understand a “concept” of primacy apart from its actual, historical incarnation. Primacy is a function, an act, an experiential reality, not merely a concept.

Maybe “concept” was a wrong word. How about “teaching?” Are you familiar with Apostolic Canon 34 (“the bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence withou his consent…”)? I don’t know if you are a Latin Catholic. I know that the Latin Catholic Church regards them as spurious (not that they are false, but that they are not apostolic), but in my Oriental Tradition, we view the Apostolic Canons as very ancient, established either by the Apostles themselves or apostolic men (ancient witness attributes the canons to Pope St. Clement of Rome).

Although if I try to consider it as a concept (only) I would say that certainly such a concept is consistent with Scripture but not explicitly taught by Scripture.

Do you recall the story of Korah’s rebellion against Moses? ISTM that primacy is taught rather explicitly throughout the Old and New Testaments.

Interpreting apocalyptic type literature (as I understand Matt 24 is an example) in a way like that can be acceptable but hardly deductive. John 21, similarly, as an allegory can be interpreted many ways legitimately.

Doesn’t the Church recognize that a certain text can be interpreted allegorically in addition to a literal understanding? Indeed, there are many things in Matthew 24 that have both an allegorical and a literal meaning (e.g. the desolating sacrilege in v. 15). What allegorical meaning can you place on Mt 24:45 - 51? If it applies to the End Times, it can certainly be literally interpreted to mean that when Jesus returns, there will be a Servant over whom the Lord set over His entire household when He left. Who else could this be, but the successor of him who was first set over that selfsame household, St. Peter?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ni8_shadow]

So far we have a view that accepting the Bishop of Rome’s (BOR) primacy over the entire Church was either developed through time ( similar to Marian Dogmas) or accepted at first but HOW he exerted authority developed later on.

According to the text I am reading, the authors would agree with the former, however SOME statements from the Fathers would point towards the latter. Statements about being loyal to the faith that came from there because of Peter and Paul etc.

Has the Church formally stated when the primacy of the BOR began? Having trouble finding it.

 

[Mark77]

So far we have a view that accepting the Bishop of Rome’s (BOR) primacy over the entire Church was either developed through time ( similar to Marian Dogmas) or accepted at first but HOW he exerted authority developed later on.

According to the text I am reading, the authors would agree with the former, however SOME statements from the Fathers would point towards the latter. Statements about being loyal to the faith that came from there because of Peter and Paul etc.

Has the Church formally stated when the primacy of the BOR began? Having trouble finding it.

**Read my first post, the primacy of Rome was always believed from the beginning by most Catholics! **

there will never be a 100% belief, look at today’s clear teachings on things like abortion or even attending Mass on Sunday!

Just because some people dissent on certain issue, does not change the fact that the BOR always had primacy.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[mardukm]

I just wanted to point something out to my Latin brethren regarding the title of this thread.

I, as a Catholic of the Oriental Tradition, have no problem with the term “supremacy.” Among the Oriental Orthodox, the word is often used of its head bishops. The term “supremacy” in the Oriental Tradition simply means “highest,” and is always exercised in the context of collegiality. It does not imply “monarchy,” but rather something more akin to “presidency.” In fact, I sincerely believe that V1 had in mind presidency instead of monarchy when it established the papal dogmas (I’ve given the solid reasons for this in many threads).

I know that in the Latin Tradition, though the Oriental understanding of the term “supremacy” is also present (and I would hope it is the majority understanding), I have also noticed that the word, in addition to the term “highest” also implies the term “singular.” In other words, to some Latin Catholics, “supreme” carries the meaning of “monarchy” instead of “presidency.”

What I would like to point out to my Latin brethren is that the word “supreme” in the EASTERN Tradition (as distinct from the Oriental Tradition") seems to always carry the meaning of “monarchy.” Thus, you will find many Eastern (i.e., Byzantine) Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) reject the “supremacy” of the Pope. I have also noticed that there are some cradle Oriental Catholics, who, not having grown up among the Oriental Orthodox, also view the term “supreme” in the same manner as the Easterns do.

Take from this what you will, my Latin brethren. I would just caution that when speaking to Christians of the Eastern Byzantine Tradition, it would be well to always use the term “primacy,” instead of “supremacy.” IOW, the word “supremacy” is generally a REAL turn-off to Eastern Byzantine Christians. For the sake of unity, I also humbly suggest that Latins divest themselves of the monarchial understanding of the papacy, a view which I sincerely believe is insupportable from the COMPLETE teaching of V1 on the matter, anyway, as well as V2 and all the canons of the Church, not to mention the Sacred Tradition of the Church in the first millenium when the Church was united, the ideal that the last two Popes want us to use as the model for understanding papal primacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[John_Augustine]

I suppose this is how I view the Primacy. Coming from a Protestant background my first instinct is to search the Scriptures. In the New Testament Church we see Peter as chief among the Apostles; not lord over them.He doesn’t overrule them out of hand, rather he acts more as a spokesperson to articulate the personal faith of each apostle as a concerted whole to present to the world. He is open to criticism and correction from among the Apostles when his personal views seem a bit dodgey, but when he speaks as spokesman for the Apostles he teaches something upon which they agree.

Peter is the first of the Apostles, not a super-apostle. In the same way, the Pope is the first of the Bishops, not a super-bishop.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John Augustine,

I suppose this is how I view the Primacy. Coming from a Protestant background my first instinct is to search the Scriptures. In the New Testament Church we see Peter as chief among the Apostles; not lord over them.He doesn’t overrule them out of hand, rather he acts more as a spokesperson to articulate the personal faith of each apostle as a concerted whole to present to the world. He is open to criticism and correction from among the Apostles when his personal views seem a bit dodgey, but when he speaks as spokesman for the Apostles he teaches something upon which they agree.

Peter is the first of the Apostles, not a super-apostle. In the same way, the Pope is the first of the Bishops, not a super-bishop.

Your understanding is actually not averse to the Catholic teaching on the matter. Indeed, the Pope never gives new revelation, but simply defends the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Further, his primatial authority is intended to defend and uphold the ordinary authority of his brother bishops. And down through the centuries, there are instances of the Pope being publicly corrected by his brother bishops and other holy persons. But please permit these two points for your consideration:

1. As far as the biblical evidence is concerned, do you suppose that if Peter’s assertion that the Gentiles should be let into the Church was not shared by the other Apostles, then it would not be considered authoritative by the Church?
2. Though the Pope as spokesman for the Faith of the Church is acceptable according to Catholic teaching, it should be noted that this is not his only duty for the good order of the Church. One of his other jobs is to confirm the Faith of his brethren (which was also St. Peter’s job). Would you agree that such a job entails the discpline and correction of his brethren if they stray from the Faith?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[John_Augustine]

Dear brother John Augustine,

Your understanding is actually not averse to the Catholic teaching on the matter. Indeed, the Pope never gives new revelation, but simply defends the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Further, his primatial authority is intended to defend and uphold the ordinary authority of his brother bishops. And down through the centuries, there are instances of the Pope being publicly corrected by his brother bishops and other holy persons. But please permit these two points for your consideration:

1. As far as the biblical evidence is concerned, do you suppose that if Peter’s assertion that the Gentiles should be let into the Church was not shared by the other Apostles, then it would not be considered authoritative by the Church?
2. Though the Pope as spokesman for the Faith of the Church is acceptable according to Catholic teaching, it should be noted that this is not his only duty for the good order of the Church. One of his other jobs is to confirm the Faith of his brethren (which was also St. Peter’s job). Would you agree that such a job entails the discpline and correction of his brethren if they stray from the Faith?

Blessings,
Marduk

1. It’s hard to tell, given that such a situation didn’t arise. Needless to say, had James and John, who were as close to Jesus as Peter was, opposed the inclusion of Gentiles then I’d have serious reservations about Peter’s authority to overrule them.

As it was, however, the Apostles seem to have agreed with Peter, and Peter with the Apostles.

1. Oh absolutely. The problem is not with the Papacy’s authority, but as to how that authority should relate to the episcopate. Both are of divine origin. Both are given the authority to bind and loose. Both have recieved the Tradition of the Church.

The way I see it is that only revelation, being the Jewish scriptures and apostolic traditions (whether written or otherwise), is truly infallible. When Rome makes a statement which is in accordance with said revelation it is infallible. I just don’t see how this is any different to the magisterium of the Bishop of any other Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John Augustine,

First, thank you for this conversation. You are bringing up points really worth discussing.

The way I see it is that only revelation, being the Jewish scriptures and apostolic traditions (whether written or otherwise), is truly infallible.

Let’s analyze this form a historical perspective. Let’s take, say, the Sixth Ecumenical Council which defined the doctrine of Two Wills. This is certainly a development of doctrine (would you agree?), based, of course, on the infallible Sacred Tradition of the Church. It was something new, yet old. When the Council decreed itself to be doing the work of the Holy Spirit, do you suppose it did not recognize itself to be speaking with the voice of God (i.e. infallibility)? And what about the Seventh Ecumenical Council?

Would you agree that the Church, at certain times in history, is called not just to simply reinforce Sacred Tradition, but actually called to judge between two or even more competing theologies/philosophies, and to make decrees with a self-understanding that it is the Living voice of God?

You say only Sacred Tradition (which the Church understands to naturally include the Scriptures) is infallible. Do you mean that infallibility is no longer present in the LIVING and PRESENT voice of the Church, but only in the past?

When Rome makes a statement which is in accordance with said revelation it is infallible. I just don’t see how this is any different to the magisterium of the Bishop of any other Church.

If you read my responses in the infallibility thread you started, you will see that the Catholic Church does not deny this at all. In fact, Vatican 1 teaches that infallibility is co-extensive with the Deposit of Faith. Note especially (I will repeat it here) the information I gave in the Vatican 1 thread I provided. Vatican 1 actually changed the name of the title of the dogmatic decree from “the Infallibility of the Pope” to “the Infallible Magisterium of the Pope” precisely to indicate that the Magisterium as a whole possesses infallibility (under certain conditions of course, just like papal infallibility is constrained by certain conditions).

The question of papal infallibility revolves around Christ’s singular and unique assignment to St, Peter to be the confirmer of the brethren, which the Vatican decree discusses extensively. Let’s say the Pope is called by several bishops to judge on a matter of Faith and/or morals between them. Certainly, this is not a far-flung scenario for it occurred several times in the early Church. What do you think? In this scenario, would God leave his Church without the special guidance of the Holy Spirit? IOW, would God fail to provide the Church this infallibility through the Pope to be able to confirm the Faith of his brethren in his decision? As a Catholic, it goes without saying that I would personally answer in the affirmative, primarily because Christ Himself gave this promise to St. Peter. What is your response?

SUGGESTION: It seems we are now moving into the topic of infallibility. Perhaps we should continue this conversation in the other thread you started.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[diggerdomer]

Dear brother diggerdomer,

Maybe “concept” was a wrong word. How about “teaching?” Are you familiar with Apostolic Canon 34 (“the bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence withou his consent…”)? I don’t know if you are a Latin Catholic. I know that the Latin Catholic Church regards them as spurious (not that they are false, but that they are not apostolic), but in my Oriental Tradition, we view the Apostolic Canons as very ancient, established either by the Apostles themselves or apostolic men (ancient witness attributes the canons to Pope St. Clement of Rome).

HI Marduk. Thanks. Just now catching up on posts. I am unclear as to what your reference is…what exactly is Apostolic Canon 34? I am familiar with many early Christian writings…but not sure what you’re referring to. Thanks for the help!

Do you recall the story of Korah’s rebellion against Moses? ISTM that primacy is taught rather explicitly throughout the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, but I don’t see how it relates. I don’t know what ISTM means either (sorry)…again, any clarification would be appreciated.

Doesn’t the Church recognize that a certain text can be interpreted allegorically in addition to a literal understanding? Indeed, there are many things in Matthew 24 that have both an allegorical and a literal meaning (e.g. the desolating sacrilege in v. 15). What allegorical meaning can you place on Mt 24:45 - 51? If it applies to the End Times, it can certainly be literally interpreted to mean that when Jesus returns, there will be a Servant over whom the Lord set over His entire household when He left. Who else could this be, but the successor of him who was first set over that selfsame household, St. Peter?

Yes, of course, Scripture has many “senses” as the Church teaches (CCC 115-119). Interpreting something allegorically means there can be a number of meanings associated with a verse or passage, all of which may be true. I have no problem if people interpret the passage you suggest as you interpret it…but it’s still allegory. For those who don’t see it that way, well, I don’t presume they’re in error only because their allegorical interpretation differs from yours.

 

[Ignatius33]

Can I get some historical quotes that support the idea that the Bishop of Rome was accepted as THE authority during these years?

Here are some patristic passages that at least arguably shed light on how the early Christians viewed Peter and the bishop of Rome (some are clearer than others, but here they are anyway):

1. In the first century, the Church in Corinth apparently appealed to Rome and St. Clement, the third successor to St. Peter, who in turn exercised authority by writing a letter of admonition to the Corinthian Church (it is not altogether clear whether Corinth appealed or Rome intervened without invitation). He restored deposed presbyters in the Church at Corinth (Greece), stating: “If anyone disobey the things which have been said by [the Holy Spirit] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger” (Letter to the Corinthians [ca. 80/96 AD]). If, as many believe, the Apostle John was still alive and most likely living in Ephesus at the time (which was geographically closer to Corinth), Clement’s use of authority is all the more telling.
2. St. Ignatius of Antioch singled out Rome for special honor, writing that it held the “presidency of love” (Letter to the Romans [ca. 105 AD]).
3. St. Irenaeus: “[A]ll Churches must agree [with Rome], 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 [180 AD]).
4. The Montanist controversy occasioned the first post-apostolic Church council of which I am aware. Montanism (named after Montanus) was the teaching of a “new prophesy” which arose in Phrygia in the mid-to-late second century. In the year 177 AD, a letter was sent from Gaul to Pope Eleutherus asking his assessment of the Montanist movement. It is certain, then, that the East (Asia Minor) was appealing to the teaching office of the Roman bishop before the end of the second century. This is a theme that will repeat itself throughout church history: when a heretical movement arises, Rome is habitually asked to give a public assessment of the matter. The bishop of Rome ultimately rejected the “new prophesy” – as demonstrated by Tertullian’s venomous attacks on the Church of Rome when he became a Montanist in the early 200’s.
5. In 190 AD, the question regarding the proper date of Easter became an issue in some Eastern Churches, and the question was put to Pope St. Victor I. He considered (and may have initially) excommunicating those Churches that celebrated Easter on a date different from that of the rest of the Church. Although a number of bishops (e.g. St. Irenaeus) exhorted Victor not to excommunicate entire Churches on a matter that was not de fide, they didn’t question Victor’s power to issue such a sweeping excommunication.
6. During the second century, heretics like Marcion, Valentinus, Cerdo and Marcellina made there way to Rome to get their views accepted. Anti-gnostic writers also came to Rome, including St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, Hegessippus and St. Irenaeus. In 250 AD, Novatian claimed to be the bishop of Rome, causing confusion throughout the entire Church and sending his “bishops” throughout the world. Hence, from the very beginning of the Church, both orthodox and unorthodox Christians attempted to influence or control the universal Church by means of gaining credibility in Rome.
7. After Tertullian left the Catholic Church and became a Montanist, he mentioned Pope St. Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him (On Modesty [ca. 220 AD]). Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided in Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus firth bishop. In fact, On Modesty – a bitter polemic – 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 attacked “the peremptory edict,” which “the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops,” had sent forth. The words were intended as sarcasm but, nonetheless, indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. Notably, while he was a Catholic, Tertullian had earlier identified Peter as the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 and said in “Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives” (The Prescription Against the Heretics [ca. 200 AD]). Of course, nothing prevents a double meaning in the passage (i.e., the rock can also be seen as Peter’s confession), but the primary meaning is undoubtedly Peter himself.
8. St. Clement of Alexandria refers to Peter as “the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples” (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? [190/210 AD]).
9. The Letter of Clement to James (221 AD) refers to Peter as “the foundation of the Church.”
10. Origen wrote that Peter was “the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church” (Homilies on Exodus [after 244 AD]).
11. St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote extensively about the Roman primacy, saying that “false faith can have no access” to Rome and that “sacerdotal unity has its source [in] the chair of Peter” (Letter [252 AD]). In the mid-third century, reading St. Cyprian’s appeals to Pope St. Cornelius and Pope St. Stephen on the issue of re-baptism, it is fairly clear that St. Cyprian (and the entire African episcopate) regarded Rome as having authority (or at least a claim of authority) over them, even if certain of Cyprian’s writings demonstrate an inflated view of the local episcopacy.
12. Also in the middle of the third century, Pope St. Dionysius heard that the bishop of Alexandria erred on certain matters of faith and demanded an explanation. The patriarch of Alexandria, in obedience to his superior, humbly vindicated his own orthodoxy.
13. Poem Against the Marcionites (267 AD): “In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter, in mighty Rome, commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down . . .”

continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. St. Peter of Alexandria referred to Peter as “the first chosen of the Apostles” (Penance [306 AD]).
2. As far as I know, every bishop of Rome up through Constantine’s legalization of Christianity in 313 AD was martyred for the faith. In other words, to be consecrated bishop of Rome was tantamount to a death sentence for Christianity’s first three centuries. After Constantine, the popes were able to come out of hiding in the catacombs and fully become what Christ intended. Relatedly, the United States today looks nothing like it did in 1787, when it ratified our Constitution. Should it come as a surprise that the Catholic Church looked different in the 5th century than in the 1st century? Certainly not.
3. In the fourth century, St. Athanasius, the de-posed bishop of Alexandria, appealed to Pope St. Julius, who reinstated Athanasius, reversing the sentence of an Eastern Council. Pope Julius wrote: “[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. For they were bishops who suffered; and they were not ordinary Churches which suffered, but were those which the Apostles themselves had governed. And above all, why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there * notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him . Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I beseech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter to Bishops of the Eusebian faction at Antioch [341 AD]).

This passage is significant. If Rome did not have a supremacy over the Church, as Protestants and the Orthodox assert, why didn’t any Eastern bishops take issue with Julius’ clear assertions of jurisdiction over the East? I mean, here we have a Pope rebuking the East for failing to consult Rome (alone) before deposing the bishop of Alexandria. To me, the answer for the East’s silence is simple – it’s because Pope Julius was not saying anything controversial here. The East recognized Rome’s primacy, built on Peter’s primacy.

1. St. Athanasius: “When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having my case before the Church, I spent my time in the public worship” (Letter to Emperor Constantius).
2. Council of Sardica, canon 3 (342 AD): “But if any bishop loses the judgment in some case, and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew, if it pleases Your Charities, let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter, by having those who gave the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that, if it seem proper, he may himself send arbiters, and judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province.”
3. St. Ephraim wrote that Jesus made Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies [351 AD]).
4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem stated that Peter was the “chief” and the “first and foremost of the Apostles” (Catechetical Lectures [ca. 350 AD]).
5. St. Hilary said that Peter was “the foundation of the Church” and wrote: “And you [Pope Julius], most dearly loved brother, though absent from us in body, were present in mind concordant, and will . . . For this will be seen to be best, and by far the most befitting thing, if to the head, that is to the see of the Apostle Peter, the priests of the Lord report from every one of the provinces” (Fragment 2 ex opere Historico [ex Epistle Sardic. Concil. Ad Julium [before 367 AD]).
6. St. Optatus observed that in “Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter” and explained that the true Church must always possess the chair of Peter and orthodox doctrine, which clearly entails that Rome could never abandon the orthodox faith (The Schism of the Donatists [367 AD]).
7. St. Epiphanius apparently endorsed the Roman primacy (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [375 AD]).
8. St. Basil the Great: “Nearly all the East is being agitated, right honorable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared . . . I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution to our difficulties . . . I have been constrained to beseech you by letter and to be moved to help us . . . In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our own day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case” (Letter 70 [ca. 379 AD]).
9. St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote that Peter was the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 (Oration 26 [ca. 379 AD]).
10. St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Jesus built the Church on Peter (Oration on St. Stephen [ca. 395 AD]).
11. St. Jerome: “I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails . . . Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to [Rome]” (Letter to Pope Damasus [379 AD]).

continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Pope St. Damasus: “The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior [in Matthew 16:18-19] . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (The Decree of Damasus [382 AD]).
2. Ambrosiaster: “Whereas the whole world is God’s, yet is the Church said to be His house, of which [Pope] Damasus is at this day the ruler” (Commentary on the Epistle of First Timothy [366-384 AD]).
3. Pope Siricius: “We – or rather, the blessed apostle Peter in us, who, as we trust, protects and keeps us in everything as the heirs of his government – bear the burdens of all these that are burdened” (385 AD).
4. St. John Chrysostom wrote that Christ entrusted His “sheep” (i.e., Christians) “to Peter and his successors” (The Priesthood [ca. 386 AD]). In the early fifth century, Chrysostom, then the bishop of Constantinople, appealed to Pope St. Innocent I for a redress of grievances inflicted on him by several Eastern prelates.
5. St. Ambrose: “They [the Novatians] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church” (Penance [388 AD]).
6. St. Augustine: “[On this matter of the Pelagians] two Councils [at Carthage and Milevis] have already been sent to the Apostolic See *; and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end [due to the authority of Rome]; would that the error too might sometime be at an end!” (Sermons [inter 391 – 430 AD]). He also wrote: “There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church . . . The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius], keeps me here” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” [397 AD]).
7. Pope St. Innocent: “In seeking the things of God, . . . following the examples of ancient tradition, . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the Apostle himself from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have merged . . .They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the total authority of this See” (Letter to the Council of Carthage [417 AD]).
8. In the fifth century, St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, appealed to Pope St. Celestine to render a decision on the orthodoxy of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople: “God requires us to be vigilant in these matters and the ancient customs of the Churches persuades that we should communicate with your Holiness [in Rome]. We do not openly and publicly break off communion with [Nestorius] before communicating these things to your Piety. Deign therefore to declare what seems to you right; and whether one must remain still in communion with him, or ought it to be proclaimed publicly that no one communicated with one who professes to teach such errors?” (Letter to Pope Celestine [ca. 431 AD]). Nestorius, likewise, appealed to Pope Celestine, attempting to persuade him of the orthodoxy of his views. In response to these cross-appeals, Pope Celestine authorized Cyril to act with Rome’s authority in condemning Nestorius “assuring to yourself the authority of our See [Rome] and using our stead and place, you will execute this sentence with the utmost severity” (Letter [ca. 431 AD]). After he was deposed (at the Council of Ephesus), Nestorius bitterly commented about the proceedings: “Who was judge? Cyril. Who was accuser? Cyril. Who was Bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was everything.” The fact that Nestorius equated his judge and accuser with the bishop of Rome sheds light on his views on the Roman primacy. In his eyes, Cyril had arrogated to himself the authority and prerogatives of the pope himself.

Again, why did Cyril feel the need to appeal to the Pope before proceeding against Nestorius? There is no need to speculate; he says so in his own words – “ancient customs” require it. And as far as I know, neither Cyril nor Nestorius appealed to the other two Eastern sees – Antioch or Jerusalem. Rather, they appealed to Rome alone.

1. Council of Ephesus (431 AD): The legate of Pope Celestine came to “ratify [the Council’s] determination” in the name of the Pope, stating “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod.” (Acts of Council, Session 3).
2. St. Peter Chrysologus: “We exhort you in every respect, humble brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome” (Letter to Eutyches [a monophysite] [449 AD]).

continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Pope St. Leo the Great: “Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. From this formality there arose also a distinction among bishops, and by a great arrangement it was provided that no one should arrogate everything to himself, but in individual provinces there should be individual bishops whose opinions among their brothers should be first; and again, certain others, established in larger cities, were to accept a greater responsibility. Through them the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (Letter of Pope Leo I to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica [ca. 446 AD]).
2. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD): “After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘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! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers! . . . Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present and 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, has stripped him [Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria following Cyril’s death] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, Sessions 2 and 3).
3. Theodoret, bishop Cyr, was condemned at the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449 and appealed to Pope St. Leo, writing: “I await the decision of your Apostolic See, and I supplicate your Holiness to succor me, who invokes your righteousness and just tribunal; and to order me to hasten to you, and to explain to you my teaching, which follows the steps of the Apostles . . . I beseech you not to scorn my application. Do not slight my gray hairs . . . Above all, I entreat you to teach me whether to put up with this unjust deposition or not; for I await your sentence. If you bid me rest in what has been determined against me, I will rest, and will trouble no man more. I will look for the righteous judgment of our God and Savior. To me, as Almighty God is my Judge, honor and glory are no object, but only the scandal that has been caused; for many of the simpler sort, especially those whom I have rescued from diverse heresies, considering the See which has condemned me, suspect that I perhaps really am a heretic, being incapable themselves of distinguishing accuracy of doctrine” (Epistle 113). In response, Pope Leo declared the deposition invalid and Theodoret was restored to his See. Theodoret also wrote: “This most holy See [Rome] has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace” (Epistle 116 to Renatus [before 466 AD]).
4. In the sixth century, it is true, Pope St. Gregory the Great repudiated the title of “universal bishop.” But, his repudiation was proper in light of his understanding of that title – that being an outright denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21). In his view, no one could usurp that apostolically constituted power. Yet, he was a strenuous asserter of the immediate jurisdiction of Rome over all the faithful. For example, he reversed a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act that involved a claim to a universal authority (Epistle 6:15), and explicitly stated that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See, writing that “who can doubt that [Constantinople] is subject to the Apostolic See [Rome], as both the pious lord and emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?” (Epistle 9:12). He also remarked: “Your most sweet holiness, [Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles” (Letter to Eulogius [597 AD]).
5. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a short treatise called “Against the Errors of the Greeks” (Opusculum contra errores Graecorum) in 1263 AD as a defense of Catholic doctrine against misunderstandings by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Seven chapters are devoted to the papacy. Aquinas also wrote: “Hence since the whole Church is one body, it behooves, if this oneness is to be preserved, that there be a governing power in respect of the whole Church, above the Episcopal power whereby each particular Church is governed, and this is the power of the Pope. Consequently those who deny this power are called schismatics as causing a division in the unity of the Church” (Summa Theologica Suppl., Q.40, Art. 6 [1265-1274 AD]).