On the Universal Jurisdiction of the Papacy

[Randy_Carson]

I came across the following in an article by Patrick Madrid, and I want to ask if these early quotes from the Church suggest an understanding of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope.

Your thoughts will be much appreciated. Thanks!

+++

The earliest account we have of a bishop of Rome exercising authority in another diocese comes from St. Clements Epistle to the Corinthians. It was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, around the year A.D. 80. In it he responds to the Corinthians plea for his intervention. The entire letter is written in a fatherly, kind way but it, is also clear that Clement was quite aware he had a special authority. Two key phrases stand our as testimony of this:

But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [Christ] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in sin and no small danger ; and

For you will give us joy and gladness if, obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you root out the lawless anger of your jealousy (59, 63).

Clearly, this early bishop of Rome wrote as one who expected his words to be obeyed.

Pope Victor I (reigned 189-199) worked to settle a dispute among the bishops of the East and West over when to celebrate Easter known as the Quartodeciman controversy. The other bishops recognized his unique authority when they followed his directive to convene local and regional synods to deliberate on the issue. Most of the bishops decided to adopt his proposal that the whole Church celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after Passover. Those who didnt, he threatened with excommunication. The fact that no bishop in the world - not a single one - disputed his authority as bishop of Rome to carry out such an excommunication is a powerful piece of evidence that the early Church recognized the unique authority of the bishop of Rome.

Shortly before his death in A.D. 200, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote to Pope Victor asking him to relent and allow the Eastern bishops to maintain their celebration of Easter according to the Hebrew lunar calendar, evidence that he recognized the popes authority to threaten excommunication. Pope Victor did not in fact relent, but its important to note that St. Irenaeus, like most of the bishops, submitted to the popes ruling. After all, it was Irenaeus who wrote of the Church at Rome:

For with this church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree; that is, all the faithful in the whole world, for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved for the benefit of the faithful everywhere (Against Heresies 3:3).

Around the year 220, Pope Callistus wrote,

Callistus, archbishop of the Church Catholic in the city of Rome, to Benedictus, our brother and bishop, greetings in the Lord. By the love of the brotherhood we are bound, and by our apostolic rule we are constrained, to give answer to the inquiries of the brethren, according to what the Lord has given us, and to furnish them with the authority of the seal of the apostles (First Epistle 1).

Clearly he was well aware of his special role and authority in settling problems in the Church, even in other dioceses.

Later, the same pope wrote a letter to all the bishops of Gaul, saying,

Callistus to our most dearly beloved brethren, all the bishops settled throughout Gaul … We beg you not to permit anything to be done in those parts contrary to the apostolic statutes; but, supported by our authority, you should stop what is injurious, and prohibit what is unlawful. Observe this law, which has been laid down by the apostles and fathers, and our predecessors, and has been ratified by us … We have replied to your interrogations shortly, because your letter found us burdened overmuch, and preoccupied with other judgments (Second Epistle, To All the Bishops of Gaul 2, 6).

In the year 382, Pope Damasus wrote about his authority as bishop of Rome, anchoring it to the fact that he was the successor of St. Peter,

He said the Church at Rome has been placed at the forefront, not by the conciliar decision of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelistic voice of our Lord and Savior Who says, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven . . . The first See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish (Decree of Pope Damasus 2-3).

In A.D, 404, St. John Chrysostom wrote to Pope Innocent,

I beseech your Charity to rouse yourself and have compassion, and do everything so as to put a stop to the mischief at this point (First Epistle to Pope Innocent 1).

Note that Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, a powerful diocese, recognized the need to appeal to the bishop of Rome to resolve a controversy.

Pope Fiction: Answers to Five Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy
PATRICK MADRID
catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/pope-fiction-answers-to-five-myths-and-misconceptions-about-the-papacy.html​

+++

Thoughts?

 

[PluniaZ]

Great quotes. At the same time, I have yet to see any quotes challenging the authority of Rome until at least 451, when the Council of Chalcedon attempted to convey equal authority on Constantinople, an attempt that was rejected by Rome, and for which the patriarch of Constantinople even apologized to the Pope.

Likewise, no one ever interpreted Matthew 16:18 as not granting special authority to Peter and his successors until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, whereas the passage was consistently cited in support of Rome’s authority in the First Millennium.

 

[Rohzek]

Great quotes. At the same time, I have yet to see any quotes challenging the authority of Rome until at least 451, when the Council of Chalcedon attempted to convey equal authority on Constantinople, an attempt that was rejected by Rome, and for which the patriarch of Constantinople even apologized to the Pope.

Likewise, no one ever interpreted Matthew 16:18 as not granting special authority to Peter and his successors until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, whereas the passage was consistently cited in support of Rome’s authority in the First Millennium.

Leaving aside the OP’s quotations for the moment, Matthew 16:18 in fact was hardly ever interpreted as designating a papal derogative for the first millennium.

See the following arguments I made against this a while back:

Was Peter the Rock? Latin Exegesis Until the 12th Century AD

**
Upon this Rock: An Addendum**

Briefly returning to the OP’s claims and evidence, the Ravenna document produced nearly 10 years ago addresses many of Catholic claims, Irenaeus in particular.

Ravenna Document

 

[prodromos]

In A.D, 404, St. John Chrysostom wrote to Pope Innocent,

I beseech your Charity to rouse yourself and have compassion, and do everything so as to put a stop to the mischief at this point (First Epistle to Pope Innocent 1).

Note that Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, a powerful diocese, recognized the need to appeal to the bishop of Rome to resolve a controversy.

No time to look at the others, but I expect the results would be similar. What the above fails to reveal is that St John Chrysostom didn’t just appeal to the bishop of Rome, but he also appealed in the same terms to the bishops of Milan and Aquilea. This is typical of Catholic quote mining apologetics. Anything that can be interpreted as supporting their claims is cherry picked and presented out of its context. Anything that harms their claims is ignored or buried. At its root it is dishonest and flawed apologetics.

 

[Reuben_J]

Leaving aside the OP’s quotations for the moment, Matthew 16:18 in fact was hardly ever interpreted as designating a papal derogative for the first millennium.

Just curious, was the interpretation in their personal capacity or the official position of the Church? Is there any Popes who actually spoke likewise?

 

[Rohzek]

Just curious, was the interpretation in their personal capacity or the official position of the Church? Is there any Popes who actually spoke likewise?

There are on occasion some pontiffs who make some sort of authoritative claim using Matthew 16:18 or John 21:15-17, but these tend to be rare as far as I am aware of. Pope Leo I is a pretty good example of making this claim. His sermon is specifically cited in Lumen Gentium from Vatican II as the basis for the Catholic understanding of papal primacy. It’s worth mentioning that Leo, despite the respect accorded to him for his orthodoxy, had his tome rejected ultimately in favor of another one at Chalcedon, as well as being overridden on the passing of canons that he personally objected to. Pope Gelasius tried to make similar claims too while simultaneously issuing orders, but was completely ignored. But the bigger issue I’m pointing out, however, is that when concerning the specific verse of Matthew 16:18, the vast majority of Latin Fathers and writers simply did not interpret it as the foundation of papal perogatives, but rather as the pertaining to the apostles (and thus bishops) as a whole and sometimes the entire laity too (although that is a rare interpretation).

In terms of personal capacity or official position, I don’t think we can really draw the distinction so starkly during this early period of Church History. It’s a different world where those sorts of things weren’t kept separately as much as they are today. But if we had to categorize them, considering they wrote them with the intent of wide publication, then it is best to consider it from an official position/opinion. Whether or not they were correct in their assertions and beliefs is another matter entirely.

There could be popes who spoke of Matthew 16:18 in the same terms as say Augustine, Hrabanus Maurus, Bruno of Segni, etc. (contrary to Leo and Gelasius), but I am not aware of it. Let it be noted, that when I wrote those arguments I linked, I specifically concerned myself mostly with biblical exegeses. I only rarely consulted sermons, so I could be missing quite a lot here. The reason I chose to focus on biblical exegeses though was because it is an excellent primary source that is succinct, and difficult to take out of context. Therefore, it makes great forum debate material.

 

[prodromos]

Just curious, was the interpretation in their personal capacity or the official position of the Church? Is there any Popes who actually spoke likewise?

Of course if you want to go down that path, we can ask the same question of all the quotes put forward as pro-papal universal jurisdiction. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

 

[Reuben_J]

There are on occasion some pontiffs who make some sort of authoritative claim using Matthew 16:18 or John 21:15-17, but these tend to be rare as far as I am aware of. Pope Leo I is a pretty good example of making this claim. His sermon is specifically cited in Lumen Gentium from Vatican II as the basis for the Catholic understanding of papal primacy. It’s worth mentioning that Leo, despite the respect accorded to him for his orthodoxy, had his tome rejected ultimately in favor of another one at Chalcedon, as well as being overridden on the passing of canons that he personally objected to. Pope Gelasius tried to make similar claims too while simultaneously issuing orders, but was completely ignored.

Thanks. I suppose one cannot find an official interpretation of a Biblical verse being spelt out in every one of them but surely, could there be a reference to it in explaining their action?

Btw, what were Pope Leo I and Pope Gelasius saying?

But the bigger issue I’m pointing out, however, is that when concerning the specific verse of Matthew 16:18, the vast majority of Latin Fathers and writers simply did not interpret it as the foundation of papal perogatives, but rather as the pertaining to the apostles (and thus bishops) as a whole and sometimes the entire laity too (although that is a rare interpretation).

I am not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps an elaboration?

Do you have a source in saying that the vast majority of Latin fathers did not interpret Mt 16:18 as it is commonly interpreted now? This is interesting because it means a change in understanding of the Papal jurisdiction.

In terms of personal capacity or official position, I don’t think we can really draw the distinction so starkly during this early period of Church History. It’s a different world where those sorts of things weren’t kept separately as much as they are today.

I am not very conversant in Church’s history but I thought she would always have a hierarchy that spoke officially of her position on issues affecting her, which is why we had Councils or Pope’s documents.

I am surprised that there was no distinction between what the Popes/Bishops and lay theologians said respectively.

But if we had to categorize them, considering they wrote them with the intent of wide publication, then it is best to consider it from an official position/opinion. Whether or not they were correct in their assertions and beliefs is another matter entirely.

Yes, I would rather see it this way because it makes things clearer. Probably as a Catholic I am biased to say that but pragmatically the Church has to adopt a stance to have a voice and trust the Holy Spirit to guide her to speak the truth.

 

[Reuben_J]

Of course if you want to go down that path, we can ask the same question of all the quotes put forward as pro-papal universal jurisdiction. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

I am interested to know the official Church’s stance rather than individual writings of theologians. That is the reason I am asking.

 

[PluniaZ]

Leaving aside the OP’s quotations for the moment, Matthew 16:18 in fact was hardly ever interpreted as designating a papal derogative for the first millennium.

See the following arguments I made against this a while back:

Was Peter the Rock? Latin Exegesis Until the 12th Century AD

**
Upon this Rock: An Addendum**

Briefly returning to the OP’s claims and evidence, the Ravenna document produced nearly 10 years ago addresses many of Catholic claims, Irenaeus in particular.

Ravenna Document

None of those quotes in the first two links even mention the question of Rome’s authority. It appears the topic those authors were addressing was much broader, relating to the authority of the church and bishops as a whole. And of course, the authors correctly affirmed that the the church and bishops as a whole have authority from Jesus Christ.

What I don’t see is anyone in the First Millennium arguing what Eastern Orthodox argue today - that the Pope does not have universal authority over the whole church. Can you show anyone in the First Millennium who discusses this point, and answers in the negative?

The third link falls into the same fallacy - lots of quotes from the First Millennium where the primacy of Rome is acknowledged, followed by a Second Millennium interpretation that this primacy is somehow limited. Interestingly, the author ignores the fact that 200 Eastern Bishops signed the following Formula of Hormisdas to end the Acacian Schism in AD 519:

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. **For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. **From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ”the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ”the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.

 

[Rohzek]

Thanks. I suppose one cannot find an official interpretation of a Biblical verse being spelt out in every one of them but surely, could there be a reference to it in explaining their action?

As I understand it, they simply found another document’s phrasing better to their liking. The commended Leo, however. As for the other actions, well that starts a historical whole dispute and is a rabbit hole that probably best left for its own thread. It has to do with Canon 28. If you want to read more, here is the transcript of the council: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.i.html?highlight=council,of,chalcedon#highlight

Btw, what were Pope Leo I and Pope Gelasius saying?

Pope Leo protested against Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which was overridden by the council. Again, that’s a debate that can completely consume this thread, so I defer to the link provided above.

Pope Gelasius wrote a letter (Epistle 12) titled Ad Anastasium to a number of Greek bishops asserting his authority over them. He gave them a variety of orders, but no one listened to him. A good historical interpretation of this event can be found in Chapter 3 of George Demacopoulos’ The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps an elaboration?

Do you have a source in saying that the vast majority of Latin fathers did not interpret Mt 16:18 as it is commonly interpreted now? This is interesting because it means a change in understanding of the Papal jurisdiction.

What I mean is that in the genre of exegesis, I can find no support for the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which they argue that the giving of the keys creates a unique and singular papal office. And in every circumstance outside the genre of exegesis that I come across, the historical context of the document does not lend itself in favor of that interpretation.

I should issue one caveat insofar that Paschasius Radbertus, whom I cite in one of those articles I linked, does in fact argue in favor of some form of papal primacy. However, he notably does not use Matthew 16:18 and the keys to justify this claim.

As for a source, no. I admit, I am merely speaking from my own personal reading. So take that as you will.

I am not very conversant in Church’s history but I thought she would always have a hierarchy that spoke officially of her position on issues affecting her, which is why we had Councils or Pope’s documents.

It may come as a surprise, but papal authority only became a big issue under Pope Nicholas I during the ninth century. The argument was never settled, and Nicholas while innovative (as I would say) was willing to compromise with the Pentarchy at the time. This was not the case by the 12th century. Therefore, there was no need to call a council for something that was not a big issue.

I am surprised that there was no distinction between what the Popes/Bishops and lay theologians said respectively.

There was, but things were more fluid during this time. The writings of monks were often accorded just as much spiritual authority as bishops and popes.

 

[Rohzek]

None of those quotes in the first two links even mention the question of Rome’s authority. It appears the topic those authors were addressing was much broader, relating to the authority of the church and bishops as a whole. And of course, the authors correctly affirmed that the the church and bishops as a whole have authority from Jesus Christ.

What I don’t see is anyone in the First Millennium arguing what Eastern Orthodox argue today - that the Pope does not have universal authority over the whole church. Can you show anyone in the First Millennium who discusses this point, and answers in the negative?

You made the argument that Matthew 16:18 supports a distinct and powerful office known as the papacy. This interpretation is found in the documents of both Vatican I and Vatican II. This idea is based upon the supposition that only the See of Peter in Rome has the keys and that the powers of binding and loosing are separate from the keys. This interpretation fundamentally conflicts with the writings of the Latin Fathers until at least around the 12th century. They understood the keys to be synonymous with the powers of binding and loosing, not separate as modern Catholic theology dictates. Additionally, they understood that these powers/keys were given to all of the apostles directly by Christ. They did not understand them to all share this power through Peter as Vatican II claims. This is the short version of what I argued in exacting detail in those much longer articles I linked. I urge you to revisit them, since my point seems to have been lost on you.

As for your question about people arguing against Papal Authority in the first millennium, there is nothing to answer. As I’ve stated before in my linked arguments, the current Catholic position for Papal Authority was a development from the High Middle Ages. Therefore, it is impossible to find arguments about the subject of Papal Supremacy/Authority as a Catholic would understand it today in a time when such conceptions of the papacy simply did not exist. In short, most First Millennium popes were Orthodox and none were Catholic.

It would be like me asking you to find arguments from the First Millennium of the Church Fathers refuting gay marriage. You’ll find plenty of material asserting that marriage is one man and one woman. But you won’t find any arguments that say, “Marriage is not between one man and one man” because no one at the time ever conceived of gay marriage.

The third link falls into the same fallacy - lots of quotes from the First Millennium where the primacy of Rome is acknowledged, followed by a Second Millennium interpretation that this primacy is somehow limited. Interestingly, the author ignores the fact that 200 Eastern Bishops signed the following Formula of Hormisdas to end the Acacian Schism in AD 519:

Your point doesn’t stand because that statement was made to a particular situation, known as the Acacian Schism. It was not made as a statement concerning the general governance of the entire church for all time.

 

[PluniaZ]

You made the argument that Matthew 16:18 supports a distinct and powerful office known as the papacy. This interpretation is found in the documents of both Vatican I and Vatican II. This idea is based upon the supposition that only the See of Peter in Rome has the keys and that the powers of binding and loosing are separate from the keys. This interpretation fundamentally conflicts with the writings of the Latin Fathers until at least around the 12th century. They understood the keys to be synonymous with the powers of binding and loosing, not separate as modern Catholic theology dictates. Additionally, they understood that these powers/keys were given to all of the apostles directly by Christ. They did not understand them to all share this power through Peter as Vatican II claims. This is the short version of what I argued in exacting detail in those much longer articles I linked. I urge you to revisit them, since my point seems to have been lost on you.

As for your question about people arguing against Papal Authority in the first millennium, there is nothing to answer. As I’ve stated before in my linked arguments, the current Catholic position for Papal Authority was a development from the High Middle Ages. Therefore, it is impossible to find arguments about the subject of Papal Supremacy/Authority as a Catholic would understand it today in a time when such conceptions of the papacy simply did not exist. In short, most First Millennium popes were Orthodox and none were Catholic.

It would be like me asking you to find arguments from the First Millennium of the Church Fathers refuting gay marriage. You’ll find plenty of material asserting that marriage is one man and one woman. But you won’t find any arguments that say, “Marriage is not between one man and one man” because no one at the time ever conceived of gay marriage.

Your point doesn’t stand because that statement was made to a particular situation, known as the Acacian Schism. It was not made as a statement concerning the general governance of the entire church for all time.

I gave you a direct quote from the 6th Century in the Formula of Hormisdas that applies Matthew 16:18 to the Church of Rome. Clearly it didn’t take until the 12th Century for someone to apply Matthew 16:18 to the question of the Pope’s authority.

The language of the Formula of Hormisdas certainly doesn’t read like it only applies to a narrow set of circumstances in a specific place and time. It says, "in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. And, "the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. And again, “those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See,”

So where is anyone in the First Millennium saying, “No, Matthew 16:18 does not apply to the Bishop of Rome. Rome is not the head of all churches. The whole, true and perfect security of the Christian religion does not reside in the Church of Rome.” ???

 

[Rohzek]

I gave you a direct quote from the 6th Century in the Formula of Hormisdas that applies Matthew 16:18 to the Church of Rome. Clearly it didn’t take until the 12th Century for someone to apply Matthew 16:18 to the question of the Pope’s authority.

The language of the Formula of Hormisdas certainly doesn’t read like it only applies to a narrow set of circumstances in a specific place and time. It says, "in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. And, "the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. And again, “those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See,”

So where is anyone in the First Millennium saying, “No, Matthew 16:18 does not apply to the Bishop of Rome. Rome is not the head of all churches. The whole, true and perfect security of the Christian religion does not reside in the Church of Rome.” ???

You’re forgetting the exact context of this matter. This was written to resolve the Acacian Schism, which was caused when the patriarchate of Constantinople for over 30 years flirted with miaphysitism. This schism was ended with this document, acknowledging that Rome had been in the right during the entirety of the dispute, hence the word “always.” Furthermore, the same patriarch, John II, who signed this document proclaimed that Rome and Constantinople were one and the same. In addition, Patriarch John II went ahead in disregarding Rome’s demands in this document to officially condemn Acacius, contenting himself to acknowledge the correctness of Chalcedon and ending the schism. In short, this document was not understood in any way to imply Papal Supremacy as you claim. If such were the case, Constantinople would have acceded to all of Rome’s demands, which it clearly did not do.

As for your question, it is impossible to answer because the idea of Papal Supremacy did not exist yet.

In terms of the particular usage of Matthew 16:18 in that letter, it accords perfectly with ancient tradition which included the metaphorical understanding of the Rock as Peter. However, the deeper spiritual understanding had always been that the Rock was Christ and that this Rock was present in every bishopric. Both Western and Eastern traditions in the First Millennium accord with this view.

 

[gazelam]

I came across the following in an article by Patrick Madrid, and I want to ask if these early quotes from the Church suggest an understanding of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope.

Your thoughts will be much appreciated. Thanks!

+++

The earliest account we have of a bishop of Rome exercising authority in another diocese comes from St. Clements Epistle to the Corinthians. It was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, around the year A.D. 80. In it he responds to the Corinthians plea for his intervention. The entire letter is written in a fatherly, kind way but it, is also clear that Clement was quite aware he had a special authority. Two key phrases stand our as testimony of this:

But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [Christ] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in sin and no small danger ; and

For you will give us joy and gladness if, obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you root out the lawless anger of your jealousy (59, 63).

Clearly, this early bishop of Rome wrote as one who expected his words to be obeyed.
​

This link states that John died in 98 AD. If that was indeed the case, wouldn’t Clement, a bishop, have been usurping the authority of an Apostle John?

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=228

Also, who are the “us” that Clement refers to? If he were speaking as the sole leader of the Church, wouldn’t he use “me”?​

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Interestingly, the author ignores the fact that 200 Eastern Bishops signed the following Formula of Hormisdas to end the Acacian Schism in AD 519:

More than once in the first millenium the Eastern bishops officially signed on to things they didn’t fully agree with for the sake of church unity. If you read “East and West, the Making of a Rift in the Church” by eminent Anglican church historian Henry Chadwick (which I don’t have with me now so I can’t give you a page reference), he recounts a prominent story that when one of the Eastern bishops signed the Formula (it may have been the Patriarch) he added a verbal proviso “to the extent it doesn’t violate Orthodoxy” or something to that effect.

 

[PluniaZ]

You’re forgetting the exact context of this matter. This was written to resolve the Acacian Schism, which was caused when the patriarchate of Constantinople for over 30 years flirted with miaphysitism.

The Acacian Schism began when Pope Felix III, Bishop of Rome, excommunicated Acacius, bishop of Constantinople for promulgating the Henotikon, which abandoned the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus Christ that was set forth at the Council of Chalcedon. It ended when John II and the other Eastern bishops relented to the Pope, and signed the Formula of Hormisdas, by which they acknowledged and agreed with Pope Felix III’s condemnation of Acacius.

This schism was ended with this document, acknowledging that Rome had been in the right during the entirety of the dispute, hence the word “always.”

That is a laughable interpretation of “always.” The Formula of Hormisdas says, “For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” should not be verified. And** their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied**.” Tell me, who in the First Millennium proposed your interpretation of the use of “always” in this document?

Furthermore, the same patriarch, John II, who signed this document proclaimed that Rome and Constantinople were one and the same.

What he actually wrote is, “I declare that the see of apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one”. The plain meaning of this statement is that the schism between the sees is over, and they are now one in communion again. Or can you cite anyone claiming that from this moment forward, Constantinople and Rome were considered by anyone to be the same see?

In addition, Patriarch John II went ahead in disregarding Rome’s demands in this document to officially condemn Acacius, contenting himself to acknowledge the correctness of Chalcedon and ending the schism.

The document itself condemns Acacius: “We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them.” John II signed it, and thereby condemned Acacius. John II died within a year of signing, and thereafter Byzantine Emperor Justin I wrote to Pope Hormisdas that, “[W]ith all attention we have ordained that the venerable Constantinopolitan Church and many others should support your wishes, not only in all other matters but also in withdrawing from the sacred diptychs the names which you particularly have demanded ought to be removed.” Emperor Justin I then noted that many churches throughout the East were resistant to the demands to remove certain names from their diptychs, and asked Pope Hormisdas to relent in those cases.

In short, this document was not understood in any way to imply Papal Supremacy as you claim. If such were the case, Constantinople would have acceded to all of Rome’s demands, which it clearly did not do.

Emperor Justin I seems to think that the Formula of Hormisdas was “accepted in its entirety”. Can you cite anyone from the time period who claims otherwise?

As for your question, it is impossible to answer because the idea of Papal Supremacy did not exist yet.

Can you show me any writings at all where anyone in the First Millennium puts any sort of limit on the power and authority of Rome?

In terms of the particular usage of Matthew 16:18 in that letter, it accords perfectly with ancient tradition which included the metaphorical understanding of the Rock as Peter. However, the deeper spiritual understanding had always been that the Rock was Christ and that this Rock was present in every bishopric. Both Western and Eastern traditions in the First Millennium accord with this view.

Yes, there are multiple, harmonious understandings of Matthew 16:18. As regards its application to the Bishop of Rome, there is only one view expressed in the First Millennium, which was set forth by the Papal legates at the Council of Ephesus in 431:

“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 Saviour 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 Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.”

Still waiting to hear any objections from anyone in the First Millennium.

 

[Rohzek]

That is a laughable interpretation of “always.” The Formula of Hormisdas says, “For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” should not be verified. And** their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied**.” Tell me, who in the First Millennium proposed your interpretation of the use of “always” in this document?

You’re asking rather loaded questions. Tell me, why did you cross dress last night?

In all seriousness, however, this is because at the time, the papacy did not err. It would later err, as most explicitly indicated in its promulgation of the filioque and Papal Supremacy in the 11th century.

What he actually wrote is, “I declare that the see of apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one”. The plain meaning of this statement is that the schism between the sees is over, and they are now one in communion again. Or can you cite anyone claiming that from this moment forward, Constantinople and Rome were considered by anyone to be the same see?

Actually, my interpretation is bolstered since this is the same time that the Patriarchate of Constantinople began to use the title of Ecumenical Patriarchate to bolster its equality. See Chapter 4 of George Demacopoulos’ The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity for the exact details.

The document itself condemns Acacius: “We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them.” John II signed it, and thereby condemned Acacius. John II died within a year of signing, and thereafter Byzantine Emperor Justin I wrote to Pope Hormisdas that, “[W]ith all attention we have ordained that the venerable Constantinopolitan Church and many others should support your wishes, not only in all other matters but also in withdrawing from the sacred diptychs the names which you particularly have demanded ought to be removed.” Emperor Justin I then noted that many churches throughout the East were resistant to the demands to remove certain names from their diptychs, and asked Pope Hormisdas to relent in those cases.

Condemnation in words only are meaningless if one cannot enforce the removal of Acacius’ name from the diptychs, which only bolsters my argument that aside from consultation on doctrine, no one really cared about the pope in the Christian East. He had no jurisdictional authority in the Christian East.

Justin I seems to think that the Formula of Hormisdas was “accepted in its entirety”. Can you cite anyone from the time period who claims otherwise?

Except that the Church Novellae, rather than Justinian’s own personal Novellae directly undermine those claims. Again, see Chapter 4 of George Demacopoulos’ The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity for the exact details.

As for your ridiculous question, I would if I could, but Papal Supremacy is nothing more than a High Medieval fiction. Why would someone argue against a concept 500 years prior to its existence? I’m sure you are quite familiar with the concept of Time, but let me reassert the scientific fact that Moses could not have condemned invitro fertilization thousands of years ago, because the concept did not exist yet. The same principle applies to papal supremacy.

Can you show me any writings at all where anyone in the First Millennium puts any sort of limit on the power and authority of Rome?

Actually, yes. The Council of Frankfurt held by the Frankish Church rejected II Nicaea in 794 over the objections of the papacy. The papacy had no authority to enforce II Nicaea upon the Frankish Church because it was independent. See the following link Part II: dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000637.html?pageNo=165&sortIndex=020%3A040%3A0002%3A010%3A01%3A00

Yes, there are multiple, harmonious understandings of Matthew 16:18. As regards its application to the Bishop of Rome, there is only one view expressed in the First Millennium, which was set forth by the Papal legates at the Council of Ephesus in 431:

“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 Saviour 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 Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.”

This proves nothing. Multiple sees claimed to be successors to Peter, particularly Antioch and Alexandria. Furthermore, in accordance with Cyprian’s understanding, all bishoprics are the See of Peter. Rome was only significant because both Peter and Paul died there in addition to being the capitol of the empire for centuries.

 

[PluniaZ]

In all seriousness, however, this is because at the time, the papacy did not err. It would later err, as most explicitly indicated in its promulgation of the filioque and Papal Supremacy in the 11th century.

And how many times did Constantinople err?

Semi-Arianism:
Nestoriansim:
Monophysitism:
Monothelitism:
Iconoclasm:

Sounds like a real trustworthy see. You shall know them by their fruit …

Actually, my interpretation is bolstered since this is the same time that the Patriarchate of Constantinople began to use the title of Ecumenical Patriarchate to bolster its equality. See Chapter 4 of George Demacopoulos’ The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity for the exact details.

George Demacopoulos is alive and well today. I’ve been asking for primary sources from the 1st Millennium. Seems like you don’t have any. As for Constantinople employing yet another power grab in the 6th Century by calling itself the “Ecumenical Patriarch” - that is exactly what we should be discussing. What did Constantinople base its claims to authority on, other than the political and military power of the Byzantine Empire?

Condemnation in words only are meaningless if one cannot enforce the removal of Acacius’ name from the diptychs, which only bolsters my argument that aside from consultation on doctrine, no one really cared about the pope in the Christian East. He had no jurisdictional authority in the Christian East.

That’s your 21st Century spin on 1st Milennium events. Quote someone from the 1st Millennium please.

Except that the Church Novellae, rather than Justinian’s own personal Novellae directly undermine those claims. Again, see Chapter 4 of George Demacopoulos’ The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity for the exact details.

Show me some primary sources, not some 21st Century apologist for Constantinople.

As for your ridiculous question, I would if I could, but Papal Supremacy is nothing more than a High Medieval fiction. Why would someone argue against a concept 500 years prior to its existence? I’m sure you are quite familiar with the concept of Time, but let me reassert the scientific fact that Moses could not have condemned invitro fertilization thousands of years ago, because the concept did not exist yet. The same principle applies to papal supremacy.

Papal supremacy is as old as the Church itself. Didn’t you see my quote from the Council of Ephesus? Here’s another one from Chalcedon:

“We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out.”

Actually, yes. The Council of Frankfurt held by the Frankish Church rejected II Nicaea in 794 over the objections of the papacy. The papacy had no authority to enforce II Nicaea upon the Frankish Church because it was independent. See the following link Part II: dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000637.html?pageNo=165&sortIndex=020%3A040%3A0002%3A010%3A01%3A00

The Council of Frankfurt didn’t say anything about the authority of the Pope. Once again, you are applying post-schism Orthodox spin to 1st Millennium events. Again, show me any writings, anywhere, from anyone, in the 1st Millennium that respond to Rome’s 1st Millennium claims to be “the head of all churches,” that the “the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides” in Rome, and that the “communion of the Catholic Church” is those who “are in agreement with the Apostolic See.” 1st Millennium, primary sources only please.

 

[PluniaZ]

Quoting Rohzek

This proves nothing. Multiple sees claimed to be successors to Peter, particularly Antioch and Alexandria. Furthermore, in accordance with Cyprian’s understanding, all bishoprics are the See of Peter. Rome was only significant because both Peter and Paul died there in addition to being the capitol of the empire for centuries.

Yes, Pope Saint Gregory the Great himself acknowledged (in the 1st Millennium) the three Petrine Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch:

"For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself."

Note that Constantinople is not one of them. And Alexandria abandoned Constantinople in the 5th Century. And Antioch abandoned Constantinople in the 7th Century:

"The Patriarch of Antioch, Anastasius II died in 609, and Constantinople began to appoint a series of titular patriarchs, who resided not in Antioch but in Constantinople. In 685, the Maronites elected Bishop John Maron of Batroun as Patriarch of Antioch and all the East.[8] Through him, the Maronites of today claim full apostolic succession through the Patriarchal See of Antioch. While this installation of a patriarch was seen as a usurpation by the Orthodox hierarchy, John received the approval of Pope Sergius I, and became the first Maronite Patriarch of the oldest see in Christianity."

Neither Rome, nor Alexandria nor Antioch put up with Constantinople’s power grabbing schemes, and the Muslims soon put an end to the Byzantine Empire that was the sole basis for Constantinople’s claims to authority. In fact, Christians in Antioch and Alexandria joined the Muslims to fight against Constantinople. It baffles me that anyone today would continue to follow the claims of Constantinople when all the original apostolic sees abandoned Constantinople in the 1st Millennium.