Is the Papacy based on these two "lies"?

[CutlerB]

I would never agree, though I would like to hear your take on the matter. While I was reading through comments on a news story about the Holy Father’s General Audience today, I came across one commenter’s remark that the Papacy was “as everyone already knows based on the two lies” of:

1. The Donation of Constantine; and
2. The addition of St Matthew 16:18 to the Gospel.

I must admit that I have heard of the donation of Constantine before, and from what I know it is a forgery, but I wasn’t really awake that history lesson… could anyone bring me up to speed about it? Secondly, I do not believe that the passage was added, but maybe some of you have additional points to make.

Thanks, and God bless you all and Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[105lynne]

I’m curious as well…

 

[R_C]

That is not just an erroneous idea, it’s actually stupid. Sorry, but I personally do not feel like this argument deserves to be the incipit for a thread on the origins of the papacy. Perhaps if you start a new thread specifically asking that question, then it would be better. But if I were you, I’d start by reading the writings of the Church Fathers.

In fact, Pope Benedict - of whom we are all talking about these days - had a series of Wednesday audiences dedicated to each of the Church Fathers, which have all been gathered into a book that is short, simple to read, and which underscores the major aspects of their teachings, among which we find that of the primacy of the Apostolic See of Rome.

 

[EphelDuath]

I would never agree, though I would like to hear your take on the matter. While I was reading through comments on a news story about the Holy Father’s General Audience today, I came across one commenter’s remark that the Papacy was “as everyone already knows based on the two lies” of:

1. The Donation of Constantine; and
2. The addition of St Matthew 16:18 to the Gospel.

I must admit that I have heard of the donation of Constantine before, and from what I know it is a forgery, but I wasn’t really awake that history lesson… could anyone bring me up to speed about it? Secondly, I do not believe that the passage was added, but maybe some of you have additional points to make.

Thanks, and God bless you all and Pope Benedict XVI.

There’s no evidence, textual or otherwise, that Matthew 16 was added to the Gospels. (Not that this would even matter since the Petrine apostolic succession predated the canonization of the Gospels as “books of the Bible” anyway…) Anybody that tells you otherwise is either lying or operating on false information.

Now, the Donation of Constantine was indeed a forgery. But that wasn’t a foundational aspect of the Papacy as the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church (considering the document itself claims to have been under the reign of Constantine, who lived three centuries after the foundation of the Church), all that document was used for was as a legal argument that the Pope should be able to overrule monarchs on political matters as well as spiritual/moral.

 

[R_C]

Quite outstanding is the case of Pope Atanasius I and the Council of Carthage, in which the Pope is consulted by the Council with these words:

This act, lord brother, we thought right to intimate to your holy charity, in order that to the statutes of our mediociry might be added the authority of the apostolic see to protect the safety of many

And his reply:

"you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due the apostolic see, since all we who are set in this place desire to follow the very apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this name emerged… and that you ask for a decision which may benefit all the churches of the world together; so that the Church, being established in her rules, and confirmed in this decree of just proclamation against such errors, may be unable to tolerate those men.

And St. Augustine of Hippo also wrote around the same time one of his most quoted statements:

already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also reports have come. The cause is finished.

As for the so-called “addition”, I’d remind whoever came up with such an idiocy that the only “addition” we know of with certainty is that of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 by a certain Augustinian monk. One of the earliest manuscripts to contain the whole gospel of Matthew is the Codex Sinaiticus, c. 330–360 AD, which we find in the website codex-sinaiticus.net:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=16195&stc=1&d=1360769017

 

[jonathan_hili]

I would never agree, though I would like to hear your take on the matter. While I was reading through comments on a news story about the Holy Father’s General Audience today, I came across one commenter’s remark that the Papacy was “as everyone already knows based on the two lies” of:

1. The Donation of Constantine; and
2. The addition of St Matthew 16:18 to the Gospel.

I must admit that I have heard of the donation of Constantine before, and from what I know it is a forgery, but I wasn’t really awake that history lesson… could anyone bring me up to speed about it? Secondly, I do not believe that the passage was added, but maybe some of you have additional points to make.

Thanks, and God bless you all and Pope Benedict XVI.

Hi Cutler,

I suspect what the person commenting meant was that Matthew’s Gospel, presumably being written after Mark’s, added this verse to justify papal authority. Unfortunately, regardless of the chronological authoring of the Gospels, that argument wouldn’t wash for a number of reasons, such as: (i) Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, and one certainly not based in Rome, at a time when papal authority wasn’t yet really fleshed out, so to be trying to invent it doesn’t make much sense; (ii) he could have made the point much clearer, e.g., “And Jesus said, 'Peter, I give you command over all the churches, and all you apostles listen to him”; and (iii) what Jesus says in Matthew 16 is corroborated by other New Testament sources which clearly show the primacy of Peter and his role.

As for the Donation of Constantine…

I think what we do see with papal authority is that its understanding developed over time. However, we have Irenaeus very early (and in a sense, Clement of Rome earlier still) evidencing the special authority of the Bishop of Rome over the other churches.

The Church does not base papal authority on one or two texts but on (i) the entire witness of Scripture (where Peter is clearly the leader), (ii) the Tradition of the Church, and (iii) the growing understanding of these two over time in a living Church, headed by a magisterium and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God bless.

Jonathan

 

[Rosinante]

I would never agree, though I would like to hear your take on the matter. While I was reading through comments on a news story about the Holy Father’s General Audience today, I came across one commenter’s remark that the Papacy was “as everyone already knows based on the two lies” of:

1. The Donation of Constantine; and
2. The addition of St Matthew 16:18 to the Gospel.

I must admit that I have heard of the donation of Constantine before, and from what I know it is a forgery, but I wasn’t really awake that history lesson… could anyone bring me up to speed about it? Secondly, I do not believe that the passage was added, but maybe some of you have additional points to make.

Thanks, and God bless you all and Pope Benedict XVI.

I’ll defer on the Donation of Constantine; as for the assertion re. Mt 16:18, I’d suggest asking the proponent if the identified references below, were also added on subsequently:

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
…

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

…

scripturecatholic.com/pri…l#tradition_II

NOTE: I just cut & pasted this (sans Mt 16:18 reference, for obvious reasons), from a thread in which I posted it yesterday; but the website from which I got it, is linked below the specific citations. You will note that I eliminated several–in order for it to fit in a single post–so there’s even more than the ones referenced.

…and I recommend book marking that website–it’s an excellent resource.

Peace.

 

[BTNYC]

A quick study of the role Pope Victor I played in the Quartodeciman controversy, and a reading of St. Irenaeus’ chapter on the successors of St. Peter in Adversus Haereses ought to clear the matter up.

 

[Zekariya]

I would never agree, though I would like to hear your take on the matter. While I was reading through comments on a news story about the Holy Father’s General Audience today, I came across one commenter’s remark that the Papacy was “as everyone already knows based on the two lies” of:

1. The Donation of Constantine; and
2. The addition of St Matthew 16:18 to the Gospel.

I must admit that I have heard of the donation of Constantine before, and from what I know it is a forgery, but I wasn’t really awake that history lesson… could anyone bring me up to speed about it? Secondly, I do not believe that the passage was added, but maybe some of you have additional points to make.

Thanks, and God bless you all and Pope Benedict XVI.

I will not debate but, here is my reply:

Isaiah 22: 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: 21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Eliakim is the vicar of King Hezekiah, the son of David. Eliakim alone is given the key of the house of David. Eliakim is a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Note: Only Eliakim has the key. There is no mention of eleven others also having the key.

Matthew 16: 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee [second person singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou [second person singular] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou [second person singular] shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peter is the vicar of King Jesus, the Son of David. Peter alone is given the keys of the kingdom of the Son of David: heaven. Peter is a father to the inhabitants of Rome and to the Church of Christ. Note: Only Peter has the keys. There is no mention of eleven others also having the keys.

2 Maccabees 6:2 And to pollute also the temple in Jerusalem [Judah], and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius; and that [temple] in Garizim [Northern Israel/Samaria], of Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the place.

There were two temples. There was one on Mount Moriah, instituted by God, used by the Jews [Judah]. And there was another on Mount Gerizim, instituted by man, used by the Samaritans [Northern Israel].

In all the time that Judah was idolatrous, did God ever permit the righteous to break communion with Jerusalem and the son of David? No. Did idolatrous priests who changed the sacrificial rituals invalidate the sacrifices? No [read 1 Samuel 2:12-17].

Judah called themselves Judah. The schismatic Samaritans called themselves “Shamerim” which means “Observant Ones”.

The prophets worshipped in Jerusalem even though the anointed of God, the king, was idolatrous. No righteous Israelite would ever think of leaving communion with Jerusalem, the house of David. The Catholics worshipped in the Catholic Church even though anointed of God’s vicar, the pope, was idolatrous. No righteous Catholic would ever think of leaving communion with Rome, the See of Peter.

Judah became inhabited by idolatrous men and was sent into the Babylonian exile. Afterwards, the righteous re-entered Jerusalem. The Catholic Church became inhabited by idolatrous men and will be exiled by the Antichrist. Afterwards, the righteous will enter New Jerusalem.

One must not leave communion with the Son of David’s vicar, Peter, even though the Catholic Church militant has become corrupted. Note: Even today, the Samaritans follow the Law more strictly than the Jews. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that they went in schism away from Jerusalem.

1 Kings 19:16-18 16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. 17 And the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha put to death. 18 Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."

It does not matter how corrupt that “the powers that be” are. God preserves his Catholic Church just as he preserved 7,000 righteous Israelites in Elijah’s days.

 

[CutlerB]

Hi Cutler,

I suspect what the person commenting meant was that Matthew’s Gospel, presumably being written after Mark’s, added this verse to justify papal authority.

Hi The person’s comment did not mean that, unfortunately. Rather, it was stated that the passage was inserted after the original Matthew was written.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi The person’s comment did not mean that, unfortunately. Rather, it was stated that the passage was inserted after the original Matthew was written.

Really? Did he or she produce any manuscript evidence for this remarkable claim? I’ve never heard of it, even from more radical Matthean scholars.

 

[Arthropod]

I would never agree, though I would like to hear your take on the matter. While I was reading through comments on a news story about the Holy Father’s General Audience today, I came across one commenter’s remark that the Papacy was “as everyone already knows based on the two lies” of:

1. The Donation of Constantine; and
2. The addition of St Matthew 16:18 to the Gospel.

I must admit that I have heard of the donation of Constantine before, and from what I know it is a forgery, but I wasn’t really awake that history lesson… could anyone bring me up to speed about it? Secondly, I do not believe that the passage was added, but maybe some of you have additional points to make.

Thanks, and God bless you all and Pope Benedict XVI.

As to that second ‘lie’, my only answer is

The second lie is actually the pseudo isodorian decretals.

 

[mab23]

get this book OP

The Fathers Know Best - by Jimmy Akin

 

[CutlerB]

get this book OP

The Fathers Know Best - by Jimmy Akin

I’ve already got it.