M
MichaelP3
Guest
I also think it is very important to address EXACTLY when this Dogma was thought to be established.
When The Catholic Church lost any temporal power at all. What was left?
Should make many people think?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
On the supposed convenience of Papal Infallibility (As Protestants would claim)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
When The Catholic Church lost any temporal power at all. What was left?
Should make many people think?
D
DeepDeepTrouble3
Guest
I believe the way it unfolded was as prudent as it could be for the maximum salvation of souls, guided by the Holy Ghost. I believe that also about this Pontificate.
R
RedFan
Guest
With all due respect to Irenaeus, I fear he’s making a logical leap here in presuming the leadership transfer from Peter to the bishops of Rome. When it comes to Peter’s passing on the Keys to the Kingdom to his successor in Rome, and that successor to the next, and so on in an unbroken line of Roman bishops – well, where is the evidence?
Through the writings of the Church Fathers we can certainly trace the succession of Roman bishops from Peter onward, but not the transfer of any primacy power over the Church at large, i.e., beyond the See of Rome. The gospel passages which reference Peter’s special role are silent on handing off that leadership role to any single successor. Not to a surviving member of the Twelve. Not to someone otherwise close to Jesus (James’ leadership of the Church in Jerusalem even while Peter himself was active there is a special case, and a subject for another day). Not to a replacement chosen by lot (a la Matthias). Not to the next bishop of wherever Peter ended up at the end of his life. So why do we presume it must have been the latter?
Absent any early mention of such a transfer of worldwide leadership, we might look for some written record showing that, in the first several centuries of Christianity, believers throughout the rest of the Mediterranean world actually recognized the Bishop of Rome as having primacy. I have not found any prior to Irenaeus in the late Second century. What I do find is evidence of various sees – Rome, Antioch, Alexandria – having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy as between themselves, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch having no deference to Rome. (In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the “ancient” equal footing of these three sees. www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/ )
Then there is the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth toward the end of the First Century, urging them not to depose their own leaders. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html Because it responds to a matter on which at least some Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, one might think that these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)
Isn’t it logical to conclude that in the Fourth Century and prior, Rome had no jurisdiction over eastern bishoprics? Unless the primacy of the Bishops of Rome (beyond Peter) can be traced back to the traditions of the early Church, we are called upon to make the logical leap that the Eastern Orthodox Church found itself unable to make.
It is that tracing that I am hoping to find. Irenaeus neglected to lay it out. Who can step up and fill in the blank?
Through the writings of the Church Fathers we can certainly trace the succession of Roman bishops from Peter onward, but not the transfer of any primacy power over the Church at large, i.e., beyond the See of Rome. The gospel passages which reference Peter’s special role are silent on handing off that leadership role to any single successor. Not to a surviving member of the Twelve. Not to someone otherwise close to Jesus (James’ leadership of the Church in Jerusalem even while Peter himself was active there is a special case, and a subject for another day). Not to a replacement chosen by lot (a la Matthias). Not to the next bishop of wherever Peter ended up at the end of his life. So why do we presume it must have been the latter?
Absent any early mention of such a transfer of worldwide leadership, we might look for some written record showing that, in the first several centuries of Christianity, believers throughout the rest of the Mediterranean world actually recognized the Bishop of Rome as having primacy. I have not found any prior to Irenaeus in the late Second century. What I do find is evidence of various sees – Rome, Antioch, Alexandria – having authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy as between themselves, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch having no deference to Rome. (In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the “ancient” equal footing of these three sees. www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/ )
Then there is the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth toward the end of the First Century, urging them not to depose their own leaders. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html Because it responds to a matter on which at least some Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, one might think that these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)
Isn’t it logical to conclude that in the Fourth Century and prior, Rome had no jurisdiction over eastern bishoprics? Unless the primacy of the Bishops of Rome (beyond Peter) can be traced back to the traditions of the early Church, we are called upon to make the logical leap that the Eastern Orthodox Church found itself unable to make.
It is that tracing that I am hoping to find. Irenaeus neglected to lay it out. Who can step up and fill in the blank?
T
TommyT1
Guest
Have you read the link that Genesis315 posted above, it may give the answers you are looking for. It lists many sources from the Church fathers and other historians who talk about Rome and the Pope being the authority of the Church.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
He also said Jesus lived into his 50s. And that was just a few centuries of oral tradition…respect to Irenaeus, I fear he’s making a logical leap here in presuming the leadership transfer from Peter to the bishops of Rome
R
RedFan
Guest
It doesn’t give me the answers I’m looking for.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I think people apply to much significance to the Patriarchates, especially Jerusalem and Constantinople. They don’t represent equal portions of the Church–it’s wrong to say 4 of the 5 eastern patriarchates at the time of the schism were 4/5s of the Church. By divine institution, there is only the order of bishop with all being equal except Rome having primacy. Through positive law and custom, Alexandria and Antioch acquired additional authority based on their Petrine ties. These three Patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch–in that order of primacy–governed Europe, Africa, and Asia, respectively, with Rome as the final court of appeal.
As early as the First Council of Constantinople, the emperor tried to get the bishop of his city to replace Alexandria as the Eastern primate. This was opposed by Pope St. Damasus, who reiterated the traditional ordering. This was tried again at Chalcedon, but again, the Roman Pope (St. Leo the Great) vetoed it. However, when Alexandria rejected the definitions of Chalcedon and separated from the Church (leaving only Rome and Antioch), Constantinople filled the void and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria was instituted and was essentially a vassal of Constantinople. Jerusalem was was also separated from the jurisdiction of Antioch at Chalcedon and fell more under the influence of Constantinople, especially when the emperor later made it a patriarchate. The rise of Islam also significantly weakened Antioch to the point where it became significantly reliant on Constantinople.
So at the schism, you really only had the separation of two original Patriarchates–Rome and Antioch–and Antioch paled in significance at the time. If you prefer, it can also be looked at as a split between the chief See of the Church and the imperial power in the East, which held significance influence over the other eastern churches.
As early as the First Council of Constantinople, the emperor tried to get the bishop of his city to replace Alexandria as the Eastern primate. This was opposed by Pope St. Damasus, who reiterated the traditional ordering. This was tried again at Chalcedon, but again, the Roman Pope (St. Leo the Great) vetoed it. However, when Alexandria rejected the definitions of Chalcedon and separated from the Church (leaving only Rome and Antioch), Constantinople filled the void and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria was instituted and was essentially a vassal of Constantinople. Jerusalem was was also separated from the jurisdiction of Antioch at Chalcedon and fell more under the influence of Constantinople, especially when the emperor later made it a patriarchate. The rise of Islam also significantly weakened Antioch to the point where it became significantly reliant on Constantinople.
So at the schism, you really only had the separation of two original Patriarchates–Rome and Antioch–and Antioch paled in significance at the time. If you prefer, it can also be looked at as a split between the chief See of the Church and the imperial power in the East, which held significance influence over the other eastern churches.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
As I mentioned in my post, it was tied to the broader theme of the role of religion in public life and the sure norm of truth and morality the Church provided. As I mentioned, the point was to reaffirm that the teaching of the Church was not subject to the changing opinions of men as other topics were. It was more directly about the Church’s influence in society–which is a good thing for the salvation of souls.
The taking of the papal states were surely related to this, but indirectly. The whole reason the papal states were taken was because the Pope refused to participate in Italian unification under Rationalist principles. So yes, affirming the necessity of faith in the dogmas and morals proclaimed by the Church was a reiteration of the reasoning why the papal states could not join the Italian cause.
The taking of the papal states were surely related to this, but indirectly. The whole reason the papal states were taken was because the Pope refused to participate in Italian unification under Rationalist principles. So yes, affirming the necessity of faith in the dogmas and morals proclaimed by the Church was a reiteration of the reasoning why the papal states could not join the Italian cause.
T
TommyT1
Guest
Can you recommend an book to read about the history of the Early Church that actually quotes and cites historical sources? It would be very helpful to me.
M
mbmulkern
Guest
All we know for sure is that Jesus handed Peter the keys.
G
GaryM
Guest
“Church History” by Fr John Laux, M.A. A History of the Catholic Church to 1940. Republished by Tan Books And Publishers Inc. Very detailed reading!
R
RedFan
Guest
All we know for sure is that Matthew’s gospel recounts that Jesus handed Peter the keys.All we know for sure is that Jesus handed Peter the keys.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RedFan:
What kind of evidence are you looking for RedFan?
God bless.
Cathoholic
.With all due respect to Irenaeus, I fear he’s making a logical leap here in presuming the leadership transfer from Peter to the bishops of Rome. When it comes to Peter’s passing on the Keys to the Kingdom to his successor in Rome, and that successor to the next, and so on in an unbroken line of Roman bishops – well, where is the evidence?
What kind of evidence are you looking for RedFan?
God bless.
Cathoholic
R
RedFan
Guest
A reference in some writing dating from the first 100-150 years of the Christian era, or a reference in a later writing quoting from an earlier writing of that period.
Think about it: If there is no contemporary historical evidence from that time frame – none, nada, zip, zero – of anyone in Alexandria, or Antioch, or Athens, or Asia Minor, or anywhere other than Rome recognizing the authority of the Bishop of Rome over them, then how can we know that the Bishop of Rome’s claim to that authority isn’t a later fabrication – just as the EO asserts?
Think about it: If there is no contemporary historical evidence from that time frame – none, nada, zip, zero – of anyone in Alexandria, or Antioch, or Athens, or Asia Minor, or anywhere other than Rome recognizing the authority of the Bishop of Rome over them, then how can we know that the Bishop of Rome’s claim to that authority isn’t a later fabrication – just as the EO asserts?
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RedFan:
I want to know what evidence YOU think we need.
The Eastern Orthodox even recognize the Bishop of Rome as “first among equals”.
I would ask YOU, where is the evidence for that?
(I just want to see the standards you are seeking in more detail. THEN, I will try to provide MORE depth.)
The reason I use THIS example, is because if you can’t provide EXPLICIT details, yet the Eastern Churches ALL just matter-of-factly asserted at least this. . . .as well as the Western Church (which along with the Eastern CATHOLIC Church’s affirm even MORE concerning the Papacy. But I won’t hold you to that standard) . . . .THEN your standard is going to be one of “implicit evidence” so then I will get to use “implicit evidence” too, for other points.
But if you have “EXPLICIT evidence”, I want to see the degree you find “acceptable” so I can meet THAT STANDARD with regards to your questions concerning Apostolic Succession, and most especially, as this succession concerns Rome, and the Bishop of Rome’s authority.
So YOU defend Rome’s Bishoprick as to WHY you think it IS “first among equals”, I will see YOUR standards, then I will attempt to meet the standards you have already affirmed regarding your questions.
But WHAT kind of reference. Explicit? Implicit?A reference in some writing dating from the first 100-150 years of the Christian era, or a reference in a later writing quoting from an earlier writing of that period.
I want to know what evidence YOU think we need.
The Eastern Orthodox even recognize the Bishop of Rome as “first among equals”.
I would ask YOU, where is the evidence for that?
(I just want to see the standards you are seeking in more detail. THEN, I will try to provide MORE depth.)
The reason I use THIS example, is because if you can’t provide EXPLICIT details, yet the Eastern Churches ALL just matter-of-factly asserted at least this. . . .as well as the Western Church (which along with the Eastern CATHOLIC Church’s affirm even MORE concerning the Papacy. But I won’t hold you to that standard) . . . .THEN your standard is going to be one of “implicit evidence” so then I will get to use “implicit evidence” too, for other points.
But if you have “EXPLICIT evidence”, I want to see the degree you find “acceptable” so I can meet THAT STANDARD with regards to your questions concerning Apostolic Succession, and most especially, as this succession concerns Rome, and the Bishop of Rome’s authority.
So YOU defend Rome’s Bishoprick as to WHY you think it IS “first among equals”, I will see YOUR standards, then I will attempt to meet the standards you have already affirmed regarding your questions.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
From post 29.
Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
by Scott Butler (Author), Norman Dahlgren (Author), David Hess (Author)
Yes I can TommyT1.Can you recommend an book to read about the history of the Early Church that actually quotes and cites historical sources? It would be very helpful to me.
Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
by Scott Butler (Author), Norman Dahlgren (Author), David Hess (Author)
Last edited:
R
RedFan
Guest
My standard? Relevance! I’m not going to limit your offer of evidence in any other way. All evidence, explicit or implicit, is acceptable as long as it has some tendency in logic to make the proposition more probable than not. Once all the evidence is gathered, it can be assessed. The strongest evidence would be acknowledgements of non-Roman churches or church leaders that Rome holds Peter’s authority; the weakest would be a mere self-declaration, i.e., Rome’s own ipse dixit. But ambiguous evidence is unhelpful until the ambiguity is itself resolved by evidence of the true intended meaning of the ambiguous writing.
Let me give an example of the latter. Although I don’t know of any in the first two centuries of Christendom, I’m not including as evidence Eastern statements about Rome’s bishopric being “first among equals” yet, because at the moment – hopefully you’ll change this for me – I have no basis to equate that saying with the successorship to Peter’s keys. Given the common definition of “equals,” that could be a mere honorary title. An honorary title is no acknowledgement by other “equals” that they must yield to the honored “equal” in matters of faith or morals. If you have some evidence that it was so acknowledged that way, whether explicitly or implicitly, I welcome it! Otherwise it remains ambiguous.
Let me give an example of the latter. Although I don’t know of any in the first two centuries of Christendom, I’m not including as evidence Eastern statements about Rome’s bishopric being “first among equals” yet, because at the moment – hopefully you’ll change this for me – I have no basis to equate that saying with the successorship to Peter’s keys. Given the common definition of “equals,” that could be a mere honorary title. An honorary title is no acknowledgement by other “equals” that they must yield to the honored “equal” in matters of faith or morals. If you have some evidence that it was so acknowledged that way, whether explicitly or implicitly, I welcome it! Otherwise it remains ambiguous.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
RedFan:
.
Wait a minute RedFan.
Authority given by God, then proclaiming that authority is NOT ipse dixit.
Now you are going to reply:
“Well Cathoholic. That’s circular reasoning.”
And if it wasn’t true, it would be circular reasoning.
But when God gives this power out, it is not mere ipse dixit.
And if you REJECTED the Apostles message and walked away reassuring yourself you don’t need to listen because “after all, this is mere ipse dixit”, YOU will be judged wrong on that on your eventual deathbed judgment.
So you gotta be careful with throwing around the ipse dixit charge in an instance like this.
.
OK so we need evidence that God gave this power out.
Are we with each other so far?
RedFan:
“Relevance” to who?
(Because I have plenty of “relevance” for me.
You apparently do not. So HOW much evidence, WHAT are you looking for in specifics?
Because if you are looking for a specific statement from the Fathers talking about infallibility, you might not get the kind of explicit statement you want.)
.
.. . . Rome’s own ipse dixit . . .
Wait a minute RedFan.
Authority given by God, then proclaiming that authority is NOT ipse dixit.
Now you are going to reply:
“Well Cathoholic. That’s circular reasoning.”
And if it wasn’t true, it would be circular reasoning.
But when God gives this power out, it is not mere ipse dixit.
If the Apostles go out and preach this to the Jews, and you were around 2000 years ago to hear it, you and I both KNOW, this is NOT ipse dixit.LUKE 10:16 16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
And if you REJECTED the Apostles message and walked away reassuring yourself you don’t need to listen because “after all, this is mere ipse dixit”, YOU will be judged wrong on that on your eventual deathbed judgment.
So you gotta be careful with throwing around the ipse dixit charge in an instance like this.
.
OK so we need evidence that God gave this power out.
Are we with each other so far?
RedFan:
.My standard? Relevance!
“Relevance” to who?
(Because I have plenty of “relevance” for me.
You apparently do not. So HOW much evidence, WHAT are you looking for in specifics?
Because if you are looking for a specific statement from the Fathers talking about infallibility, you might not get the kind of explicit statement you want.)
Last edited:
R
RedFan
Guest
Brother, I do not reject the “ipse dixit” (not sure I’d call it that) of the Apostles’ message as recounted in Scripture. And I agree that if authority is given by God – as recounted in Scripture, for example – then proclaiming it is not an issue. But we cannot presume that authority given by God to Peter was given by Peter to Linus, by Linus to Anacletus, by Anacletus to Clement, and so on – WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF THIS. Do you have any beyond the declarations of the See of Rome itself? For if that is all you have, you are most certainly engaging in circular reasoning!
My standard of “relevance” is the same standard in the law of evidence in American law. Indeed, I used virtually the textbook definition: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401 If you “have plenty of relevance for [you],” but it does not objectively have any tendency in logic to make your proposition more probable, then we are not going to get very far. And that’s fine. It is not essential that we see things the same. But I may surprise you. Tell me what you think counts as evidence of the succession of Roman bishops to Peter’s Keys, and I just might agree with you!
My standard of “relevance” is the same standard in the law of evidence in American law. Indeed, I used virtually the textbook definition: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401 If you “have plenty of relevance for [you],” but it does not objectively have any tendency in logic to make your proposition more probable, then we are not going to get very far. And that’s fine. It is not essential that we see things the same. But I may surprise you. Tell me what you think counts as evidence of the succession of Roman bishops to Peter’s Keys, and I just might agree with you!
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Fair enough. I’ve never intended for you to accept it “without evidence”.But we cannot presume that authority given by God to Peter was given by Peter to Linus, by Linus to Anacletus, by Anacletus to Clement, and so on – WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF THIS.
I am just attempting to get your standard (which seems nebulous but I can deal with it).
Let’s begin with Matthew 16 and see what you think about that. (Don’t worry. We will get beyond that in the following days too).
Now let’s look more carefully at verse 19.MATTHEW 16:13-20 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
This COULD meanMATTHEW 16:19 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
- God is NOT going to ratify sin in Heaven, if St. Peter ratifies sin on earth (at least in SOME capacity). Therefore this is in essence a DECLARATION OF PROTECTION concerning what St. Peter “binds” on earth. (Highly likely)
- God IS going to ratify sin in Heaven, if St. Peter ratifies sin on earth (at least in SOME capacity). Therefore this is in essence a DECLARATION OF God caving into St. Peter’s whims. (Not a chance)
Are you with me so far?
At least St. Peter who was named “Rock” and was given “the keys” to the Kingdom of Heaven"clearly had power to bind and loose!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.