F
FRANKYG
Guest
how do we answer to these objections from the eastern orthodoxies?
youtube.com/watch?v=KPdU9b8-mWU&feature=related
thanks guys…
youtube.com/watch?v=KPdU9b8-mWU&feature=related
thanks guys…
- Status
E
Edwardjohn
Guest
According to Scripture there are “six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him” and the seventh one is “he who sows discord among brothers.”
D
dnu
Guest
They do have some valid objections:
The filioque is not scriptural or mentioned early on, it just kind of came about by later theologians
The Early Church Fathers, though recognizing the “first among equals” status of the Bishop of Rome, NEVER identify him as the Infallible Supreme Pontiff of all Christians.
The Immaculate Conception seems to have came about only because Augustine thought up the idea of original sin out of thin air. Take away Augustines epiphany and the Immaculate Conception is unecessary.
etc. etc.
The filioque is not scriptural or mentioned early on, it just kind of came about by later theologians
The Early Church Fathers, though recognizing the “first among equals” status of the Bishop of Rome, NEVER identify him as the Infallible Supreme Pontiff of all Christians.
The Immaculate Conception seems to have came about only because Augustine thought up the idea of original sin out of thin air. Take away Augustines epiphany and the Immaculate Conception is unecessary.
etc. etc.
F
FRANKYG
Guest
if this video is correct, then that means we are heretics and not the True Church… WHICH i do not agree with… I am not to well informed into the history of the church, but i sure do want to learn how to defend our Catholic Faith:thumbsup:
H
Hesychios
Guest
I suggest you start reading.
Christian Tradition: Emergence of the Catholic Tradition
The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation
Early Christian Doctrines
Early Christian Creeds
The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius
**The Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine
**The World of the Early Christians
The Churches The Apostles Left Behind
Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition
East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church
There is a mix of authors and publishers here, but in my opinion all good scholarship. If you wish to debate with Orthodox on church history and theology, you will need a good grounding in these things.
Check the libraries before you start shelling out cash.
S
steve_b
Guest
Short answer
The confusion on the EO part of the Catholic Church position on the Filioque, is over the term “proceeds”
The EO have no problem with “the HS proceeds from the Father through the Son”. They don’t like "Father and the Son".
they don’t bother to understand how Catholics define “proceeds”.
Please read the following
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
You’re in RCIA?
This is not an option to believe or not believe as a Catholic. It’s a dogma, and must be believed. If you go through with RCIA, I suggest going to the CA library and learning the dogma and how it is explained.
S
steve_b
Guest
Why not read the ECF’s direct online for free, without the filter of various authors who might insert a bias?
M
Mickey
Guest
One of Michael’s recommendations is penned by Pope Benedict XVI.
Do you consider his writings as “inserting a bias”. LOL!
S
steve_b
Guest
Of course not.One of Michael’s recommendations is penned by Pope Benedict XVI.
Do you consider his writings as “inserting a bias”. LOL!
I can see you’re more interested in taking a cheap shot than reading what was actually written.
My comment was, (I’ll put emphasis on the part you skipped over)
who might those various authors be on that list that might insert a bias?
10 books were given. 8 of those 10 books (80%) were written by non Catholic authors writing about the Church. Is there a chance those 8 non Catholic authors on that list might insert bias? :yup:
H
Hesychios
Guest
In answer to your question, I believe all sources have a bias whether realized by the author or not. That means ten authors with bias, not eight.
As far as I am aware, only one was Orthodox (and he was not Orthodox at the time he wrote it).The op wants to learn, and I tried to suggest higher quality scholarship from various sources, which (I think) will be useful not only in learning about the Faith but learning what others know about the Faith.
Could I have suggested the ECF’s online? Yes, of course. I have done that many times in the past. One can see a post like that very recently loaded here, where I acknowledge the CCEL link and also suggest a number of other sources.
But if I may borrow an analogy from (as I recall) Frank Sheed, it’s like looking at an eye. One could take an eyeball and put it on a plate and study it, but one will never understand the eye until one puts it in the context of a face.
Sometime the authors can provide historical, theological, political, philosophical and moral context beyond simply what is written by the Fathers. It is helpful to know what else was happening in the background when a particular thing is written.
But that means it is important to find good reputable scholarship, not any old hack just because he happens to be on my team, or on yours. I only listed a few I could think of, and I spent more time on it than I originally had intended.
If you have specific objections to my particular suggestions, by all means post on it. Your opinion is welcome.
H
Hesychios
Guest
In answer to your question, I believe all sources have a bias whether realized by the author or not. That means ten authors with bias, not eight.
It so happens that three of the authors were Catholic and as far as I am aware, only one was ever Orthodox (he was not Orthodox at the time he wrote it).The op wants to learn, and I tried to suggest higher quality scholarship from various sources, which (I think) will be useful not only in learning about the Faith but learning what others will know about the Faith.
Could I have suggested the ECF’s online? Yes, of course. I have done that many times in the past. One can see a post like that very recently loaded here, where I acknowledge the CCEL link and also suggest a number of other sources.
But if I may borrow an analogy from (as I recall) Frank Sheed, it’s like looking at an eye. One could take an eyeball and put it on a plate and study it, but one will never understand the eye until one puts it in the context of a face.
Sometime the authors can provide historical, theological, political, philosophical and moral context beyond simply what is written by the Fathers. It is helpful to know what else was happening in the background when a particular thing is written.
But that means it is important to find good reputable scholarship, not any old hack just because he happens to be on my team, or on yours. I only listed a few I could think of, and I spent more time on it than I originally had intended.
If you have specific objections to my particular suggestions, by all means post on it. Your opinion is welcome.
I
Ignatius33
Guest
I. The Pope’s Jurisdiction Extends Over All Members of the Church, i.e., He is the “Supreme Pontiff of all Christians.”
- 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). In his letter, Clement remarked that he “saw the apostles themselves and lived with them.” He restored deposed presbyters in the Church at Corinth (Greece), stating in no uncertain terms: “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; but we shall be innocent of this sin” (Letter to the Corinthians [ca. 96 AD]). The tone of the letter is very telling; Clement does not offer advice – he commands. And 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.
- 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 (Pope Zephyrinus [r. 199-217 AD], I believe) ultimately rejected the “new prophesy” and cast the Montanists out of the Church – as demonstrated by Tertullian’s venomous attacks on the Church of Rome when he became a Montanist in the early 200’s.
- 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 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 apparently didn’t question Victor’s power to issue such a sweeping excommunication. Again, as with Clement’s use of authority a century earlier, we have a bishop of Rome claiming jurisdiction over Christians far away, here in Asia.
- St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote that the Pope possesses the “chair of Peter” (Letter [252 AD]). There is “one Church founded by Christ our Lord on Peter, by the source and reason of unity” (Epistle 70). He affirms that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter and inheritor of Peter’s primacy: “[Pope] Cornelius was made bishop . . . when the place of Fabian [r. 236-260 AD], that is, when the place of Peter and the [high] degree of the priestly throne was vacant” (Epistle 55). The Roman see is the “mother and root of the Catholic Church” (Epistle 48).
Cyprian also asked Pope Stephen to intervene in the affair of Marcian, bishop of Arles, who was a Novatian. He urged the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and to see to it that a Catholic bishop be appointed (Epistle 68). In the case of his own rebels Basilides and Martial, Cyprian asked Pope Cornelius (r. 251-253 AD) not to accept their appeal (Epistle 67). Soon after the death of Pope Fabian during the Decian persecution (250 AD), the clergy of Rome heard that Cyprian had abandoned his flock. At once, they wrote to Cyprian and admonished him, stating “We , who are the chiefs, have the duty of keeping the flock in the place of the shepherds” (Epistle 8). As the Roman see was vacant at the time, these priests functioned like the College of Cardinals.
continued…*
I
Ignatius33
Guest
- When Denis of Alexandria was suspected of false doctrine, some members of his diocese went to Rome and denounced him to Pope Denis (r. 259-269 AD). The Pope wrote to the bishop of Alexandria to hear his side of the case; ultimately, Denis “cleared himself” and all was well. This sequence is important. Here, the patriarch of Alexandria – the second see in all of Christendom at the time – was accused before the Pope, who adjudicated the case. If the Pope has jurisdiction over the second most important bishop (at the time), it follows that the Pope possesses jurisdiction over all Christians.
- In the fourth century, St. Athanasius, the de-posed bishop of Alexandria, appealed to Pope St. Julius (r. 337-352 AD), 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]).
- 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).
- 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.” The Council then wrote to Julius: “It seemed best and most proper that the priests of the Lord * should refer from every province to the head, that is to the see of the Apostle Peter.” Hence, the canons of Sardica recognize the jurisdiction of the Pope over all other bishops.
- St. Hilary of Poitiers 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]).
- St. Optatus: “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas – of all the Apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do other Apostles proceed individually on their own; and anyone who would set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. It was Peter, then, who first occupied that chair, the foremost of his endowed gifts. He was succeeded by Linus, Linus was succeeded by Clement, Clement by Anencletus, Anencletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Eleutherus, Eleutherus by Xystus, Xystus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Xystus, Xystus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Marcellinus, Marcellinus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, our present incumbent . . . I but ask you to recall the origins of your chair, you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists [ca. 367 AD]).
I
Ignatius33
Guest
- St. Basil the Great wrote to Pope Damasus at a time when Arianism was raging in the East: “Our only hope is in a visitation from Your Clemency. Send us men who share our faith. They will settle quarrels, they will bring union to the Churches of God; at least they will make known to you the authors of the troubles, so that you will know whom to admit to your communion” (Letter 70 [371 AD]).
- A Roman synod under Pope Damasus in 378 AD wrote to the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian II as follows: “Certain bishops, unworthy pastors, have carried their insolence and contempt to the point of refusing obedience to the Bishop of Rome . . . If the accused is himself a Metropolitan, he will be ordered to go at once to Rome, or in any case to appear before the judges whom the Bishop of Rome shall appoint.”
- 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]).
- St. Ambrose and other bishops of Italy, writing to Theodosius, reminded him that “Athanasius and Peter, Bishops of Alexandria, and many Easterns, appealed to the judgment of the Church of Rome, of Italy and of all the West” (Epistle 13 no. 4 [ca. 381 AD]).
- 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” (Epistle 1 [385 AD]).
- Pope Zosimus: “Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter . . . For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat . . . Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time . . . and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.” (To the Council of Carthage [418 AD]).
- St. Jerome remembered the care of Rome for all Churches when “many years ago, when I assisted Damasus, Bishop of the city of Rome, in writing letters, and had to answer consultations from synods in East and West” (Epistle 123 [before 419 AD]).
- St. Augustine demonstrated the authority of Caecilian of Carthage by the fact that he was “united by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supreme authority of the Apostolic throne has always been held” (Epistle 43 [397 AD]).
- Pope Boniface: "The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicaea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship” (Epistle 14: To the bishops of Thessaly [ca. A.D. 420]).
I
Ignatius33
Guest
- Pope Leo the Great: “The order of truth remains; blessed Peter, keeping the strength of the rock, does not abandon the helm of the Church. Whatever we do rightly is his work, whose power lives in his see . . . In the person of my lowliness he is seen, he is honored, in whom remains the care of all pastors and of the sheep of their charge. His power does not fail, even in an unworthy heir” (Sermon 3 [before 461 AD]).
- Theodoret, bishop Cyr, was condemned at the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449 AD 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 [before 466 AD]). In response, Pope Leo declared the deposition invalid and Theodoret was restored to his See.
- In the sixth century, it is true, Pope 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). Further, he explicitly stated that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See, writing “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).
- In the ninth century, Ignatius of Constantinople appealed to Rome. Photius also appealed to Rome, assuring the Pope that it was within his authority to decide the matter. Ultimately, the Pope sided with Ignatius. Only then did Photius turn against the Pope.
- St. Thomas Aquinas: “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]).
I
Ignatius33
Guest
II. Through Divine Providence, the Pope will Never Commit the Church to Error in any Matter of Religion, i.e., When He Teaches on a Matter of Faith or Morals Ex Cathedra, He is “Infallible.”
Papal infallibility is the logical conclusion of two separate revealed truths: (1) the Church is infallible and (2) the Pope is the earthly head of the Church with universal jurisdiction over Her, i.e., the place where “the buck stops.” Infallibility is implicit, rather than explicit, in many patristic passages (though it is made explicit in some too, as will be seen).
- St. Irenaeus calls Rome “the greatest, most ancient Church, known to all” and wrote: “[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]).
- St. Cyprian of Carthage explicitly stated that “false faith can have no access” to Rome and that “sacerdotal unity has its source [in] the chair of Peter” (Epistle 49 [252 AD]).
- 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 [ca. 367 AD]).
- At a synod of Antioch held in 379 AD, presided over by Meletius, 153 Eastern bishops specially noted their agreement with the faith of Rome: “Here ends this letter or exposition of the Roman synod held under Pope Damasus, and sent to the East, to which all the Eastern Church, having held a synod at Antioch, agrees in the same faith; and all thus agreeing to confirm the faith explained above, each one by his own signature.”
- When Pope Damasus (r. 366-384 AD) condemned the heresy that made the Holy Spirit less than God the Father and the Son (in 380 AD, preceding the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD), Sozomen the Church historian described what happened as follows: “When this question was discussed and grew from day to day from love of debate, the Bishop of the city Rome, having heard the matter, wrote to the Churches of the East that they must confess the consubstantial Trinity equal in honor and glory, as do the Western bishops. When he did this all were quiet, as the controversy was ended by the judgment of the Roman Church; and this question at last seemed to be ended” (Ecclesiastical History).
- Pope 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]).
- Emperor Theodosius I (379-395 AD) published a peremptory edict: “We command that all the people governed by our gracious rule live in that religion which the Divine apostle Peter handed down to the Romans, as the faith taught by him shows to this day, which, as is well known, the Pontiff Damasus professes, and Peter of Alexandria, a man of apostolic virtue” (380 AD).
- The Synod of Milan, under St Ambrose’s guidance, wrote: “But if they will not believe the teaching of the bishops, let them believe the oracles of Christ, let them believe the warning of angels who say: ‘Nothing is impossible to God’; let them believe the Apostles’ Creed, which the Roman Church always keeps and preserves incorrupt” (Epistle 42 [ca. 389 AD]).
- After the Synod of Carthage (416 AD) condemned Pelagianism, it submitted its decrees to Pope Innocent (r. 401-417 AD), who responded as follows: “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]).
continued…
I
Ignatius33
Guest
- When Milevis received this letter, St. Augustine uttered his famous line: “[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]). This is the origin of the saying: “Roma locuta est, causa finita est,” i.e., Rome has spoken, the case is finished.
- Pope Zosimus (r. 417-418), also writing about Pelagianism (a matter of faith), said: “The tradition of the Fathers gives so much authority to the Apostolic See that no one dare contradict its judgment . . . So great is our authority that no one may go back on our verdict” (Epistle 12 [ca. 418 AD]).
- Emperor Valentinan III (423-455 AD): “We must defend the faith handed down by our fathers with all care; and we must keep the proper reverence due to the blessed apostle Peter incorrupt in our time also. Therefore the most blessed Bishop of the Roman city, to whom ancient right has given the authority of the priesthood over all, shall have his place, and power to judge the faith and about bishops” (Pope Leo’s Epistles, 55).
- 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 persuade 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.
- Pope Sixtus III: “The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?” (To John of Antioch [433 AD]).
- 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]).
I
Ignatius33
Guest
- Pope 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]).
- 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).
- Theodoret of Cyr: “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]).
- Pope Gregory the Great: “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]).
- St. Thomas Aquinas: “But if any will have it that the one Head and one Shepherd is Christ, that being the one Spouse of the one Church, his view is inadequate to the facts. For clearly Christ Himself gives effect to the Sacraments of the Church – He it is who baptizes, He forgives sins, He is the true Priest who has offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by His power His Body is daily consecrated at our altars – nevertheless, because He was not to be present in bodily shape with all His faithful, He chose ministers and would dispense His gifts to His faithful people through their hands. And by reason of the same future absence it was needful for Him to issue His commission to some one to take care of the universal Church in His stead. Hence He said to Peter before His Ascension, ‘Feed my sheep’ (Jn. 21:1) and before His Passion, ‘Thou in thy turn confirm thy brethren’ (Lk. 22:32); and to him alone He made the promise, ‘To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 16:19) . . . Nor can it be said that although He gave this dignity to Peter, it does not pass from Peter to others . For Christ instituted His Church to last to the end of the world, according to the text: ‘He shall sit upon the throne of David and in his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in justice and judgment and henceforth, now, and forever’ (Is. 9:7). Therefore, in constituting His ministers for the time, He intended their power to pass to posterity for the benefit of His Church to the end of the world, as He Himself says: ‘Lo, I am with you to the end of the world’ (Matt. 28:20) . . . Hereby is cast out the presumptuous error of some, who endeavor to withdraw themselves from obedience and subjection to Peter, not recognizing his successor, the Roman Pontiff, for the pastor of the Universal Church” (Summa Contra Gentiles Book IV, ch. 76).
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
- Status