Question on Church Fathers and the Pope

[Mr_Kooper_513]

Since I feel strongly attracted to Catholicism I’m reading through the church fathers to make sure the Fathers line up with the Church’s teaching from what I can tell. I feel like that I am at the point where Catholicism or Orthodoxy seem right. One of the biggest things I am looking for in the Fathers is the role of the Bishop of Rome.

I ran across the following quote from the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp. To me it seems to indicate more of an Orthodox understanding of the role of the bishops. Can somebody please help me to understand this? Ignatius speaks frequently of ecclisiology, but never mentions anyone above the local bishop (at least from what I’ve seen). What gives? (For what it’s worth I read “Upon this Rock” by Stephen Ray already and am not entirely convinced).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness."

Thanks for your help!

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The following 2 books are very reputable concerning what the Father’s believed.

amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Three-Volume-Set/dp/0814610250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347158425&sr=8-1&keywords=jurgens

amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Early-Church-Words/dp/0898708478/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347158460&sr=1-1&keywords=the+four+witnesses

Basically what you are going to realize is that there was a development of understanding the Bishop of Rome. The argument, as simple as it can get, is that the Apostles set up successors who would later be bishops of the future believers. There is no disputing this fact. However, just like Judas’ absence required the presence of an Apostle to fill his particular office of “winess”, so also Peter has a particular office which must take his place, and since Peter was the “rock” of the Church upon whom Christ is building, this unique characteristic perpetuates as well to the successor. You have a succession of Apostles from each of the 12, but the other 11 offices are distinct to that of Peter’s. Peter’s office, which itself contains the function of “rock”, is different and continues to have this supremacy over the successors of the other 11 (well, 12 including Paul).

You are not going to find unanimous, uniform, and linear statements like this from the Fathers. Part of the difficulty is believing the gradual development implies that there were sure “seeds” of this in the beginning.

I am where you are, debating Orthadox with Catholic.

 

[paul_c]

The following 2 books are very reputable concerning what the Father’s believed.

amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Three-Volume-Set/dp/0814610250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347158425&sr=8-1&keywords=jurgens

amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Early-Church-Words/dp/0898708478/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347158460&sr=1-1&keywords=the+four+witnesses

Basically what you are going to realize is that there was a development of understanding the Bishop of Rome. The argument, as simple as it can get, is that the Apostles set up successors who would later be bishops of the future believers. There is no disputing this fact. However, just like Judas’ absence required the presence of an Apostle to fill his particular office of “winess”, so also Peter has a particular office which must take his place, and since Peter was the “rock” of the Church upon whom Christ is building, this unique characteristic perpetuates as well to the successor. You have a succession of Apostles from each of the 12, but the other 11 offices are distinct to that of Peter’s. Peter’s office, which itself contains the function of “rock”, is different and continues to have this supremacy over the successors of the other 11 (well, 12 including Paul).

You are not going to find unanimous, uniform, and linear statements like this from the Fathers. Part of the difficulty is believing the gradual development implies that there were sure “seeds” of this in the beginning.

I am where you are, debating Orthodox with Catholic.

This was well said. Once other factor of course is that for the first 300 years, the church was heavily persecuted and hence operated Underground. Many if not most of the early popes were martyred. Here is what we know of each pope, conveniently listed by order: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm the names are in fact links to the articles about each pope. As you will see, not much is known about most of the first 10 or so.

But both of you seem to be looking for a sure seed of Papal authority from early on. I would maintain that the best fo these is Pope Clements letter to the Corinthians from the first century where the 4th pope is called to settle a crises in the Eastern church of Corinth. You can read the letter here wwvv.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm or read about the situation in the link to St. Clement from the papal list above.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

To be honest I never had an issue with accepting the Papacy since there seems to be this common theme throughout the Bible were God appoints one man to be the Patriarch for the rest of His chosen people. We see it happening through the entire OT and for some reason when we get to the NT the idea of God appointing one man to be Patriarch seems to be a stubmling block?

 

[MarcoPolo]

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness."

I’m confused on how this would preclude the possibility that there exists a bishop with hierarchical primacy. Obviously, this statement is not claiming that God was still incarnate functioning in the role of a temporal office. It’s a rather poetic statement, don’t you think? Also, have you delved into the strength of Petrine primacy in Scripture itself?

Here are some bonus articles on the ECFs and the primacy of the Roman bishop. (my apologies if any of these are dead links)

catscans.com/catholicsite/papacy2.htm
chnetwork.org/ecf.html
bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=635
bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm Chrysostom
angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5916

Peter = Rock (Protestant perspectives)
catholicity.elcore.net/SimonIsTheRock.html

Roman primacy ECFs
bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm
staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

If we believe that there are such things as seeds that are planted and grow over time, then anything and everything can be believed in the Church if you just give it a few centuries. It means that things that the Apostles themselves never taught and the Fathers themselves never imagined can exist in the future because something vague was mentioned at some point in time and then we justify it today as something that was a “seed” back then that “grew” into something we understand better today.

That is dangerous.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

If we believe that there are such things as seeds that are planted and grow over time, then anything and everything can be believed in the Church if you just give it a few centuries. It means that things that the Apostles themselves never taught and the Fathers themselves never imagined can exist in the future because something vague was mentioned at some point in time and then we justify it today as something that was a “seed” back then that “grew” into something we understand better today.

That is dangerous.

This is well stated. In fact, in a court of law, such vague statements would never pass as evidence for the explicit claims of the more recent developments of the Roman Catholic Church.

There are scholars out there who specialize in Ancient History who still consider purgatory, marian mediatrix, indulgences, papal infallibility, etc,etc as human inventions precisely because of a lack of, not just explicit statement referencing these doctrines, but an overall ignorance of them when speaking of the general categories in which they should come out.

In other words, if modern day Roman Catholics, who claim to be simply succeeding their father bishops, wrote the new testament, it would be filled with statements honoring “our Lady”, praying to the saints in heaven, a concern for the conditions of the Pope, etc,etc…

I think it comes down to whether you are going to accept the modern papal claims or not, out of faith without evidence. God doesn’t need to give evidence. But for the life of me, I just cannot feel right at the moment totally embracing the truths of the dogmas in Catholicism.

 

[po18guy]

If we believe that there are such things as seeds that are planted and grow over time, then anything and everything can be believed in the Church if you just give it a few centuries. It means that things that the Apostles themselves never taught and the Fathers themselves never imagined can exist in the future because something vague was mentioned at some point in time and then we justify it today as something that was a “seed” back then that “grew” into something we understand better today.

That is dangerous.

Not so fast! Where is the evidence of anything like this occurring in almost 2,000 years? Jesus planted the seed with Peter. If Judas had to be replaced, how much more the thrice-affirmed shepherd from John 21? John clearly indicates that Jesus could not teach all truth, as the Twelve could not bear it. Full revelation came later, but the seed of Peter’s office is extremely well established in Mt 16 and grew from there, as did all revelation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not so fast! Where is the evidence of anything like this occurring in almost 2,000 years? Jesus planted the seed with Peter. If Judas had to be replaced, how much more the thrice-affirmed shepherd from John 21? John clearly indicates that Jesus could not teach all truth, as the Twelve could not bear it. Full revelation came later, but the seed of Peter’s office is extremely well established in Mt 16 and grew from there, as did all revelation.

It is false to assume that the Pope assumed the office of Peter the way Mattias assumed the office of Judas. The office of Judas needed to be filled because of prophesy. Jesus promised the 12 Apostles will be sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel at the end of ages. Judas has forfeited his place on that throne. So who will be sitting on St. Peter’s throne, St. Peter or Pope Benedict XVI? Or Paul VI? Or Honorius?

Also, if Judas office was filled by Mattias and the Pope has filled the office of Peter today, who has the office of Andrew? Of James? Of John? Of Thomas? James, the Brother of John was martyred and this was recorded in Acts, where is the recording of the Apostles filling in his office?

There is no evidence that anybody filled the offices of the Apostles after they died. Mattias was a one time thing because Judas became unworthy to sit on the throne promised by Christ.

 

[lyrikal]

If we believe that there are such things as seeds that are planted and grow over time, then anything and everything can be believed in the Church if you just give it a few centuries. It means that things that the Apostles themselves never taught and the Fathers themselves never imagined can exist in the future because something vague was mentioned at some point in time and then we justify it today as something that was a “seed” back then that “grew” into something we understand better today.

That is dangerous.

Hello ConstantineTG,

I have posed this question for people who don’t believe in the development of doctrine and I have yet to receive a sufficient answer (or any answer at all). Perhaps, you can shed light on this for me.

For the first 600 years of Christianity, no one spoke about the two wills of Christ. This is a doctrine that came about in the 7th century AD in the 3rd Council of Constantinople (681 AD). This doctrine wasn’t explicitly taught by anyone prior to the 7th century. It’s a doctrine that stems from another doctrine (Christ having two natures). Wouldn’t it be accurate to say that the doctrine of Christ having two wills is a development from a previous doctrine? Therefore, wouldn’t it be fair to say that the understanding of certain doctrines could be understood more clearly in later centuries even though prior to it being a doctrine, it was nothing but a “seed”?

I’d like your (name removed by moderator)ut on this (or anyone else’s who would like to take a jab at it).

Thank you!

 

[po18guy]

It is false to assume that the Pope assumed the office of Peter the way Mattias assumed the office of Judas. The office of Judas needed to be filled because of prophesy. Jesus promised the 12 Apostles will be sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel at the end of ages. Judas has forfeited his place on that throne. So who will be sitting on St. Peter’s throne, St. Peter or Pope Benedict XVI? Or Paul VI? Or Honorius?

Also, if Judas office was filled by Mattias and the Pope has filled the office of Peter today, who has the office of Andrew? Of James? Of John? Of Thomas? James, the Brother of John was martyred and this was recorded in Acts, where is the recording of the Apostles filling in his office?

There is no evidence that anybody filled the offices of the Apostles after they died. Mattias was a one time thing because Judas became unworthy to sit on the throne promised by Christ.

I think that you just made the case for the primacy. All Bishops were replaced as they were martyred, but only one’s record of succession is conspicuously recorded. The Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses. Why? Did they replace Moses? Of course not! It was a divinely established position - an office.

Is the Patriarch the only Bishop in each Orthodox Church? If not, why is he called the father (Patriarch) of the others? Sounds suspiciously like the Pope to me - but on a regional scale, rather than universal. Yet, I have much to learn about Orthodoxy. But, so do all of the anti-Catholic Christians who give the Orthodox a pass on all shared apostolic Traditions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that you just made the case for the primacy. All Bishops were replaced as they were martyred, but only one’s record of succession is conspicuously recorded. The Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses. Why? Did they replace Moses? Of course not! It was a divinely established position - an office.

Is the Patriarch the only Bishop in each Orthodox Church? If not, why is he called the father (Patriarch) of the others? Sounds suspiciously like the Pope to me - but on a regional scale, rather than universal. Yet, I have much to learn about Orthodoxy. But, so do all of the anti-Catholic Christians who give the Orthodox a pass on all shared apostolic Traditions.

No, you are mistaken of what a Patriarch is. They are not “Orthodox Popes”, far from it. In fact, there are Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and they function pretty much the same way. I do see the concilliarity of our very own Ukrainian Catholic Church which mirrors Orthodox ecclesiology. Our Patriarch isn’t the boss of the Metropolitans and the Metropolitans aren’t the boss of the Eparchs. Far from it. Decisions are always made as a synod, the Patriarch doesn’t sit on his throne barking out orders unilaterally. While it is true that the structure of having Metropolitans and Patriarchs are a departure from First Century ecclesiology, the Orthodox do not pretend that as if it is some divinely inspired institution. They admit exactly when the development took place and why.

Also, let us be clear, I am not against Primacy. However most Catholics confuse Primacy with Supremacy. I am also not against Supremacy. I believe that it is acceptable to have a supreme bishop in the Church and make him above every other bishop. What I am against is to make this claim as if it is a divine institution. It is not. There is no basis for that. If all bishops agree to have one bishop be above them all, then fine. But to pretend such authority exists that even St. Peter himself is not aware of, it is out of line.

 

[bzkoss236]

No, you are mistaken of what a Patriarch is. They are not “Orthodox Popes”, far from it. In fact, there are Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and they function pretty much the same way. I do see the concilliarity of our very own Ukrainian Catholic Church which mirrors Orthodox ecclesiology. Our Patriarch isn’t the boss of the Metropolitans and the Metropolitans aren’t the boss of the Eparchs. Far from it. Decisions are always made as a synod, the Patriarch doesn’t sit on his throne barking out orders unilaterally. While it is true that the structure of having Metropolitans and Patriarchs are a departure from First Century ecclesiology, the Orthodox do not pretend that as if it is some divinely inspired institution. They admit exactly when the development took place and why.

Also, let us be clear, I am not against Primacy. However most Catholics confuse Primacy with Supremacy. I am also not against Supremacy. I believe that it is acceptable to have a supreme bishop in the Church and make him above every other bishop. What I am against is to make this claim as if it is a divine institution. It is not. There is no basis for that. If all bishops agree to have one bishop be above them all, then fine. But to pretend such authority exists that even St. Peter himself is not aware of, it is out of line.

Then, out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of what is going on when Jesus gives the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter (something he does not do with the other apostles) in Matthew 16?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I notice that many people who embrace the Papacy feel as though people who reject the Papacy automatically deny that Peter had primacy, or that he alone was given the Keys to the kingdom, or that he is the Rock of the Church, etc,etc…

I do not have any problem with Peter having supremacy, or that he is the rock of the church, or that he has the keys to the kindgom of heaven.

The issue here is where is succession? Catholics like to use whole Matthias taking Judas’ office in the ministry, but we see in that situation that there was only 1 person that needed to fill this spot. Why didn’t the apostles give more people to this ministry? Only 12?

It seems as though there was only 12 offices, since when there was 11, they added only 1…do you see?

So there does not seem to be evidence that there was 50 offices to be filled, or 100, or 10,000, or 100,000 offices to be filled.

 

[paul_c]

I notice that many people who embrace the Papacy feel as though people who reject the Papacy automatically deny that Peter had primacy, or that he alone was given the Keys to the kingdom, or that he is the Rock of the Church, etc,etc…

I do not have any problem with Peter having supremacy, or that he is the rock of the church, or that he has the keys to the kindgom of heaven.

The issue here is where is succession? Catholics like to use whole Matthias taking Judas’ office in the ministry, but we see in that situation that there was only 1 person that needed to fill this spot. Why didn’t the apostles give more people to this ministry? Only 12?

It seems as though there was only 12 offices, since when there was 11, they added only 1…do you see?

So there does not seem to be evidence that there was 50 offices to be filled, or 100, or 10,000, or 100,000 offices to be filled.

Let’s be clear. Jesus set up a hierarchical church with St. Peter as its head. Why would you not expect that hierarchical structure to continue?

 

[paul_c]

It is false to assume that the Pope assumed the office of Peter the way Mattias assumed the office of Judas. The office of Judas needed to be filled because of prophesy. Jesus promised the 12 Apostles will be sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel at the end of ages. Judas has forfeited his place on that throne. So who will be sitting on St. Peter’s throne, St. Peter or Pope Benedict XVI? Or Paul VI? Or Honorius?

Constantine, have you noticed that Apostles were succeeded by bishops? This is because they have different functions. The Apostles were witnesses to Christ and as you have pointed out they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. The bishops succeeded the Apostles to continue to administer the sacraments and teach the apostolic truths about salvation. You know this because the Orthodox teaches the same thing.

Also, if Judas office was filled by Mattias and the Pope has filled the office of Peter today, who has the office of Andrew? Of James? Of John? Of Thomas? James, the Brother of John was martyred and this was recorded in Acts, where is the recording of the Apostles filling in his office?

There is no evidence that anybody filled the offices of the Apostles after they died. Mattias was a one time thing because Judas became unworthy to sit on the throne promised by Christ.

Yes. you are right that there was no need to fill the office of Apostle. But there was a need to replace the Apostles with Bishops so that Church teachings could be passed down and that the sacraments could be administered. All of these bishops ultimately were ordained by one of the Apostles or by a bishop that can trace their lineage back to an apostle- thus apostolic succession. You believe the same thing as and Orthodox Christian, do you not. And you recognize that someone always succeeds the patriarch of each Orthodox church, with the same rights and responsibilities, correct. So why isn’t it easy to understand how bishops of Rome succeed each other with the same rights and responsibilities as their predecessors? And of course, the original bishop of Rome is St. Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys to his kingdom (Matthew 16) and the charge to tend his flock. (John 21).

 

[bzkoss236]

I notice that many people who embrace the Papacy feel as though people who reject the Papacy automatically deny that Peter had primacy, or that he alone was given the Keys to the kingdom, or that he is the Rock of the Church, etc,etc…

I do not have any problem with Peter having supremacy, or that he is the rock of the church, or that he has the keys to the kindgom of heaven.

The issue here is where is succession? Catholics like to use whole Matthias taking Judas’ office in the ministry, but we see in that situation that there was only 1 person that needed to fill this spot. Why didn’t the apostles give more people to this ministry? Only 12?

It seems as though there was only 12 offices, since when there was 11, they added only 1…do you see?

So there does not seem to be evidence that there was 50 offices to be filled, or 100, or 10,000, or 100,000 offices to be filled.

Let’s be clear. Jesus set up a hierarchical church with St. Peter as its head. Why would you not expect that hierarchical structure to continue?

Exactly, why wouldn’t there still be a head of all the bishops? If Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom, what do you supposed happened to those Keys when he died? Looking back at the tradition of earthly kingdoms in the Old Testament (which is shown in the book of Isaiah) that when one loses the keys to the kingdom (through death or by taking them off the throne) that they keys are passed on to another successor. This is continually done until the king returns. It would make sense that if Jesus did this with Peter, that they Keys to God’s Kingdom would continue to be passed on until Jesus returns. And with those Keys comes a specific authority above the other bishops, to act as head.

Also, most of the Protestants that I know, deny the hierarchy saying that church is meant to be like a family, where the children eventually leave and spread out (and apparently do not keep in contact with their parents… to continue the analogy). They make the claim that the Keys weren’t given to Peter, but to every believer. This all, of course, does not fit with the Biblical account, but they won’t listen to reason, and I don’t want to start a fight between friends.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But there should be a perpetual succession of only 12 bishops that take the place of exactly 12 ( or 13) that continue throughout history no? There was not originally 100000 apostles…

 

[lyrikal]

But there should be a perpetual succession of only 12 bishops that take the place of exactly 12 ( or 13) that continue throughout history no? There was not originally 100000 apostles…

philvaz.com/apologetics/a87.htm

This is a good read.

 

[po18guy]

No, you are mistaken of what a Patriarch is. They are not “Orthodox Popes”, far from it. In fact, there are Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and they function pretty much the same way. I do see the concilliarity of our very own Ukrainian Catholic Church which mirrors Orthodox ecclesiology. Our Patriarch isn’t the boss of the Metropolitans and the Metropolitans aren’t the boss of the Eparchs. Far from it. Decisions are always made as a synod, the Patriarch doesn’t sit on his throne barking out orders unilaterally. While it is true that the structure of having Metropolitans and Patriarchs are a departure from First Century ecclesiology, the Orthodox do not pretend that as if it is some divinely inspired institution. They admit exactly when the development took place and why.

Also, let us be clear, I am not against Primacy. However most Catholics confuse Primacy with Supremacy. I am also not against Supremacy. I believe that it is acceptable to have a supreme bishop in the Church and make him above every other bishop. What I am against is to make this claim as if it is a divine institution. It is not. There is no basis for that. If all bishops agree to have one bishop be above them all, then fine. But to pretend such authority exists that even St. Peter himself is not aware of, it is out of line.

Thank you for the information. It helps, as the various Orthodox Churches are a mystery to the average Catholic, I would say. However, I do wish that you would soften your criticism of the fellow Apostolic Church just a bit. If the position of Peter is not obvious from scripture, then I just can’t help you in that regard. If Christ did not institute that position, and make Peter the shepherd of his brothers (no matter where he was located or travelled), then we have an entirely different view of Peter and of scripture. If the Papacy was not natural, not created by Christ, then where did it come from? Which Pope seized power? How did he pass that power on to another? I think you completely misunderstand the Papacy.

Are the Patriarchs being hypocrites when they warmly greet a visiting Pope? They seem to share a deep mutual love and respect, as opposed to the revulsion or animus that we occasionally see in these forums.

Have you ever seen a Pope “bark out” orders? When has a Pope ever demanded respect or obedience? It is offered to Him out of love, respect and obedience by the universal Church. Popes don’t seize power by a coup d’etat, they are elected. They have to agree to serve. Whereas you may see a dictator, we see a shepherd. In reflection of Christ, He does not demand respect, he receives it.

If the Orthodox have a different organizational structure than in the scriptures, why all the concern about a Catholic Chruch that you also believe has a different structure?