Questions on the Papacy for Non-Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshua_b
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joshua_b

Guest
Non-Catholics who dispute the papacy claim that the Primacy of Peter is a principle that is not found in Scripture or in the history and historical evidence of the Apastolic Church. If any one holds this position, this thread is for you. I have 2 questions, and am not trying to bait anyone into argument; I am curious as to the actual intellectual view and logical congruency of this belief.
  1. If the papacy is a man-made invention, and does not find it’s origins with Peter, then when was the first pope declared, whom declared him, and who was he? Surely historical records could p(name removed by moderator)oint the first emergence of this unfounded concept never before seen in Christianity.
  2. Irenaeus recorded the succession of the bishops of Rome clear back to Peter in 190 A.D. in his writings. What is the earliest historical reference of controversy or dispute over this list ?
Thank you for your replies.
 
joshua_b said:
Non-Catholics who dispute the papacy claim that the Primacy of Peter is a principle that is not found in Scripture or in the history and historical evidence of the Apastolic Church. If any one holds this position, this thread is for you. I have 2 questions, and am not trying to bait anyone into argument; I am curious as to the actual intellectual view and logical congruency of this belief.
  1. If the papacy is a man-made invention, and does not find it’s origins with Peter, then when was the first pope declared, whom declared him, and who was he? Surely historical records could p(name removed by moderator)oint the first emergence of this unfounded concept never before seen in Christianity.
  2. Irenaeus recorded the succession of the bishops of Rome clear back to Peter in 190 A.D. in his writings. What is the earliest historical reference of controversy or dispute over this list ?
Thank you for your replies.
Click to expand...
Hi joshua,
Are you asking about the existence of the popes, or the primacy of the pope? Even the Orthodox don’t accept his primacy, and view it as an invention. You get that dispute solved with the Orthodox, and I’ll sign up for RCIA the next day. Why? Because I will view it as an undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church Militant.

Jon
 
Very few people deny that the bishop of Rome can trace his episcopal ordination to St. Peter in apostolic sucession (as can the bishop of Antioch and probably the bishop of Alexandria). What protestants and orthodox christians believe is…
  1. St. Peter did not hold any authority that the other 11 apostles did not hold themselves.
  2. Even if he did, that would not automatically transfer that authority to the Roman bishop being that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria could legitimately make that claim as well.
Anglicans believe that the Roman bishop holds a primacy of honor because of antiquity of the Roman church, its founding by the apostles of Peter and Paul, its perserverance of faith during the Imperial persecutions, and because of the prestige of the Imperial city after the edict of Milan. However, none of these things grant that the Roman bishop has the right to rule over every church in the world and its certainly does not follow that he cannot teach error or that he is infallible.
 
Thank you both for your responses. This question was directed more to those who hold that there was no structure in the Apostolic Church such as we see with Catholicism. Both the Orthodox and Anglican faith traditions are very receptive to the authority sctructure within the Catholic Church, and I am well aware of their rejections of Petrine supremacy. I was aiming more at those who reject the notion that the Apostolic Church had such delineated authority and such a clearly defined hierarchy and structured clergy.
 
Here are two possible answers:
  1. Though the Bishops of Rome had previously claimed some sort of primacy, it was Emperor Theodosius II (401 - 450 AD) who officially and legally proclaimed the Bishop of Rome as the Rector of the entire Church.
  2. Pope Leo I (Pope 440 - 461) was the first to legally proclaim the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, a claim that was immediately rejected by all other Bishops. Church historian Ernest Trice Thompson writes, “None of the early church fathers interpreted Jesus’ words to Peter to mean that to Peter and to his successors, the bishops of Rome, full authority in the church had been granted; this, however, was the claim of Leo. It was a claim that bishops in the older parts of the empire would never accept.”
 
hmgs1 said:
Here are two possible answers:
  1. Though the Bishops of Rome had previously claimed some sort of primacy, it was Emperor Theodosius II (401 - 450 AD) who officially and legally proclaimed the Bishop of Rome as the Rector of the entire Church.
  2. Pope Leo I (Pope 440 - 461) was the first to legally proclaim the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, a claim that was immediately rejected by all other Bishops. Church historian Ernest Trice Thompson writes, “None of the early church fathers interpreted Jesus’ words to Peter to mean that to Peter and to his successors, the bishops of Rome, full authority in the church had been granted; this, however, was the claim of Leo. It was a claim that bishops in the older parts of the empire would never accept.”
Click to expand...
Thank you. This is a good start. Provided this is true (and I have no reason to doubt the information is accurate), what was the “fallout” of this action? If this was universally rejected by the rest of the Church, are there any factions that “split” from the Church (for lack of a better term). More importantly, how was it possible that one single individual could make a claim without support of any of his peers, and get that claim to “stick”? I’m curious as to how this single unacceptable proposition could have grown to the point where it was accepted.
 
Well, I guess the answer is it wasn’t resolved.

The Bishop of Jerusalem also claimed primacy at one time or another, but things came to a head in 1051 when Leo IX (Rome) tried to interfere with churches who recognized Michael I Cerularius (Constantinople). The two bishops exchanged letters excommunicating each other and the Church split between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

And obviously in 1517 the Reformation split the Church again over this and other issues. Ironically, this was not an original issue, but rather one that Luther investigated after the Pope’s refusal of support over the selling of indulgences.

In October 2007 the RCC and the EOC agreed to the primacy of the Pope as the first among bishops (primus inter pares) but the EOC rejected any increase in his authority.
 
hmgs1 said:
  1. Pope Leo I (Pope 440 - 461) was the first to legally proclaim the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, a claim that was immediately rejected by all other Bishops. Church historian Ernest Trice Thompson writes, “None of the early church fathers interpreted Jesus’ words to Peter to mean that to Peter and to his successors, the bishops of Rome, full authority in the church had been granted; this, however, was the claim of Leo. It was a claim that bishops in the older parts of the empire would never accept.”
Click to expand...
To joshua_b…when asking non-Catholics who was really the first Pope, you will get a multitude of answered with different reasoning, as I learned in another forum. The Pope Leo one is common to some Protestant historians. Ernest Thompson (Presbyterian) gives his opinion above. Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote this:

*But the first pope, in the proper sense of the word, is Leo I., who justly bears the title of “the Great” in the history of the Latin hierarchy. In him the idea of the Papacy, as it were, became flesh and blood. He conceived it in great energy and clearness, and carried it out with the Roman spirit of dominion, so far as the circumstances of the time at all allowed. He marks the same relative epoch in the development of the papacy, as Cyprian in the history of the episcopate. He had even a higher idea of the prerogatives of the see of Rome than Gregory the Great, who, though he reigned a hundred and fifty years later, represents rather the patriarchal idea than the papal.*You can see the number of qualifiers he applies to back his assertion of “pope, in the proper sense of the word.” Schaff, earlier in that same essay, does not grant this argument to the universal reaching arms of Popes Victor, Callistus, and Stephen (2nd & 3rd century). He does so because some bishops argued with them on their decisions. Schaff is forced to admit, however, “though on all three questions the Roman view at last carried the day.”

Schaff and Thompson are forced to make a number of qualifying statements when arguing who was a certain type of Pope. Schaff admits to the development of the papacy.

Consider also:
The doctrine of the primacy of the Roman Bishops, like other Church teachings and instructions, has gone through a development. Thus the establishment of the Primacy recorded in the Gospels has been gradually more clearly recognized and its implications developed. Clear recognition of the consciousness of the Primacy of the Roman Bishops, and of the recognition of the Primacy by the other churches appear at the end of the 1st century. - Catholic theologian, priest, and professor Dr. Ludwig OttSo essentially, Thompson and Schaff will identify a particular point in the development and argue THIS is where it started. Of course, that would be like saying the Trinity was an idea invented at Nicea in 325 A.D. because there was finally a “legal proclamation.”
 
hmgs1 said:
Well, I guess the answer is it wasn’t resolved.

The Bishop of Jerusalem also claimed primacy at one time or another, but things came to a head in 1051 when Leo IX (Rome) tried to interfere with churches who recognized Michael I Cerularius (Constantinople). The two bishops exchanged letters excommunicating each other and the Church split between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

And obviously in 1517 the Reformation split the Church again over this and other issues. Ironically, this was not an original issue, but rather one that Luther investigated after the Pope’s refusal of support over the selling of indulgences.

In October 2007 the RCC and the EOC agreed to the primacy of the Pope as the first among bishops (primus inter pares) but the EOC rejected any increase in his authority.
Click to expand...
Eastern Patriarchs acknowledged the primacy of Rome and Peter before the split.

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):

(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

John Cassian, Monk (c. 430):

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638):

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy. (Sophronius,[quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council]
, Mansi, x., 893)
 
While I agree with you on this, I think you are off on a tangent.The original poster asked when was the first Pope DECLARED so that is what my answer suggested. That neither confirms nor denies that Simon Peter or someone else was the first Pope in actuality.

The second was a question about the first known conflict over this issue, and my answer was essentially the same, when Leo declared his supremacy.

I think all scholars, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, count this transition as a long term process.
 
hmgs1 said:
While I agree with you on this, I think you are off on a tangent.The original poster asked when was the first Pope DECLARED so that is what my answer suggested. That neither confirms nor denies that Simon Peter or someone else was the first Pope in actuality.

The second was a question about the first known conflict over this issue, and my answer was essentially the same, when Leo declared his supremacy.

I think all scholars, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, count this transition as a long term process.
Click to expand...
I believe that Jesus declared Peter as the first pope.

We have clear evidence of Peter’s successors exercising power even in the first century when Pope Clement wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth:

*If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger;

Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. *newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
 
JonNC said:
Hi joshua,
Are you asking about the existence of the popes, or the primacy of the pope? Even the Orthodox don’t accept his primacy, and view it as an invention. You get that dispute solved with the Orthodox, and I’ll sign up for RCIA the next day. Why? Because I will view it as an undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit within the Church Militant.

Jon
Click to expand...
This reasoning makes no sense. That’s like saying you won’t become a Christian because Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. all deny the Incarnation. 🤷
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
I believe that Jesus declared Peter as the first pope.

We have clear evidence of Peter’s successors exercising power even in the first century when Pope Clement wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth:
Click to expand...
Why does writing a letter demonstrate an exorcism of power?? Paul wrote many letters. James wrote a letter, Jude wrote a letter, and so did John. They were not an exercise of power, they were an exhortation to follow what they were taught.
 
Clement’s letter…we have covered that one before…
A couple of things:
  1. Writing letters to other churches, whether it be Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius, or Clement was very common. There is nothing in the tone of Clement’s letter that is substantially different than other letters.
  2. Clement is mentioned in the NT as someone associated with Paul. Paul wrote to Corinth and if Clement was a disciple or student of Paul…it is a natural extension of that.
  3. The date of the letter is uncertain. I know someone is going to assert that Clement was written when John was still alive. Possibly. Possibly not. People other than the Pope intervened in other churches.
 
NDfan said:
Why does writing a letter demonstrate an exorcism of power?? Paul wrote many letters. James wrote a letter, Jude wrote a letter, and so did John. They were not an exercise of power, they were an exhortation to follow what they were taught.
Click to expand...
It’s not just that he wrote a letter, it’s that he responded to their request for guidance, he told that they should be obedient to the Holy Spirit, which is this case, meant him.

They didn’t scoff, they celebrated. They followed his advice and we have other evidence that his letter was read periodically for many years and that it was a source of joy for the Corinthians.

Where do you suppose Clement got this idea?

*If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; *

He thought he had a higher authority, clearly:

*if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. *

Here are two important quotes from Dionysius of Corinth which shed light on this topic:

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).
 
BrianH said:
Clement’s letter…we have covered that one before…
A couple of things:
  1. Writing letters to other churches, whether it be Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius, or Clement was very common. There is nothing in the tone of Clement’s letter that is substantially different than other letters.
  2. Clement is mentioned in the NT as someone associated with Paul. Paul wrote to Corinth and if Clement was a disciple or student of Paul…it is a natural extension of that.
  3. The date of the letter is uncertain. I know someone is going to assert that Clement was written when John was still alive. Possibly. Possibly not. People other than the Pope intervened in other churches.
Click to expand...
Sounds like “glossed over” would be a better description!😃
  1. Absolutely false. Ignatius and Polycarp did not exhort obedience nor did they claim to be speaking for God.
  2. Paul and Peter both ended up in Rome. I don’t see why this is relevant.
  3. There is nearly unanimous consent that it was written between 75 and 110 AD. What difference would it make if it were 75 AD or 110 AD?
 
hmgs1 said:
While I agree with you on this, I think you are off on a tangent.The original poster asked when was the first Pope DECLARED so that is what my answer suggested. That neither confirms nor denies that Simon Peter or someone else was the first Pope in actuality.

The second was a question about the first known conflict over this issue, and my answer was essentially the same, when Leo declared his supremacy.

I think all scholars, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, count this transition as a long term process.
Click to expand...
And this is esssentially the sort of answer I was looking for. Thanks to everyone so far.

So, given that the popular consensus among people who argue against the Papacy seems to be that it went off track with Pope Leo, what is the evidence/historical writings/whatever, to support the notion that it was not well received? Who was dead opposed to this idea, and what did they have to say about it? Also (and I may have at least hinted at this before) did this declaration by Leo cause any schismatic groups to break from the church ?
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Sounds like “glossed over” would be a better description!😃
  1. Absolutely false. Ignatius and Polycarp did not exhort obedience nor did they claim to be speaking for God.
  2. Paul and Peter both ended up in Rome. I don’t see why this is relevant.
  3. There is nearly unanimous consent that it was written between 75 and 110 AD. What difference would it make if it were 75 AD or 110 AD?
Click to expand...
First of all, I need to know what passages your two quotes are from. I am not going to search the whole letter for context.
Speaking for God in what sense? Your terminology is not clear to me.
It is relevant about Paul because of the reason Clement would be writing Corinth.
 
BrianH said:
First of all, I need to know what passages your two quotes are from. I am not going to search the whole letter for context.
Speaking for God in what sense? Your terminology is not clear to me.
It is relevant about Paul because of the reason Clement would be writing Corinth.
Click to expand...
Here’s the quote from Clement that I was referencing:

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him [GOD] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger;

Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
 
What chapter please? Common courtesy if you are going to quote something. Clement is longer than Hebrews, if I quote Hebrews and not the chapter and verse…please:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top