Questions on the Papacy for Non-Catholics

[NDfan]

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).

But this still is no different than the letters written by any of the writers of the NT. Also keep in mind that during this time Christianity was still very very young. Many churches were being overrun by heretics such as the gnostics and the montanists. Then there was still the issue of dealing with Jews who were persecuting Christians and or trying to convert them back to Judaism. Given that 2 of the most prominent preachers aside from Christ (Peter and Paul) died in Rome, it would make sense that some troubled churches would point to the leadership there for direction and support. But that doesn’t secure any primacy for the Bishop there.

 

[hmgs1]

Joshua B,

Wow, don’t want much do ya . I think the declaration of primacy is based on the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (450 AD) which resulted, validated, among other things, the exile of Leo’s chief rival, Pope St Dioscurus of Alexandra who continued to repudiate the Bishop of Rome. However, it also granted (quote) “equal privileges (isa presbeia) to Constantinople as of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome as renewed by canon 36 of the Quinisext Council. The papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome.”

The immediate result was several temporary schisms such as the Three Chapters controversy.

Otherwise the Greek Orthodox Diocese on their Website writes "However, by the time of Pope Leo I (440‑61), the bishops of Rome “have developed a self‑image which represents them as the heirs and successors and, in a sense, the continuing embodiment of Peter”, but “this view is tolerated in the Christian East when it is in the interest of the East to do so, otherwise it tends to be rejected in practice.”

Does this help?

 

[joshua_b]

Joshua B,

Wow, don’t want much do ya . I think the declaration of primacy is based on the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (450 AD) which resulted, validated, among other things, the exile of Leo’s chief rival, Pope St Dioscurus of Alexandra who continued to repudiate the Bishop of Rome. However, it also granted (quote) “equal privileges (isa presbeia) to Constantinople as of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome as renewed by canon 36 of the Quinisext Council. The papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome.”

The immediate result was several temporary schisms such as the Three Chapters controversy.

Otherwise the Greek Orthodox Diocese on their Website writes "However, by the time of Pope Leo I (440‑61), the bishops of Rome “have developed a self‑image which represents them as the heirs and successors and, in a sense, the continuing embodiment of Peter”, but “this view is tolerated in the Christian East when it is in the interest of the East to do so, otherwise it tends to be rejected in practice.”

Does this help?

Actually it does just a bit. Again, this is the type of answer I was looking for.

So, without delving into this too deep, is it safe to say that the attitude of those Christian bishops who didn’t agree with this was ultimately to tolerate it and basically ignore it ? From what you have here, it sounds as if it resulted in a lot of politics and chest puffing and a little bit of “I’m taking my toys and going home”, but ultimately, there were no major and lasting divisions in the established Christian community because of this, am I right ?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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

Towards the end.

Probably the second or third chapter from the end.

You’ll find it. The chapters are only about two or three paragraphs long.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

But this still is no different than the letters written by any of the writers of the NT. Also keep in mind that during this time Christianity was still very very young. Many churches were being overrun by heretics such as the gnostics and the montanists. Then there was still the issue of dealing with Jews who were persecuting Christians and or trying to convert them back to Judaism. Given that 2 of the most prominent preachers aside from Christ (Peter and Paul) died in Rome, it would make sense that some troubled churches would point to the leadership there for direction and support. But that doesn’t secure any primacy for the Bishop there.

Fine.

I agree that the new testament writers were writing with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe this about Clement?

You are correct that this passage alone doesn’t solve the riddle, but it is just one piece among hundreds.

Can you find any legitimate early Christian writer who explicitly denies the authority of Rome or the Pope?

Don’t you think this would have been very controversial if not universally accepted by all the churches?

The evidence all points towards a unified source of leadership and doctrine which came to be located at Rome during themid to late first century.

 

[joshua_b]

Fine.

Can you find any legitimate early Christian writer who explicitly denies the authority of Rome or the Pope?

Don’t you think this would have been very controversial if not universally accepted by all the churches?
QUOTE]

This is what I am ultimately after. If this is an “invention”, and was not accepted belief, then where is the fallout and collateral damage that one would expect to find ? No lasting formal breaks from the unified Church ? No recorded condemnations of this proposal of Petrine supremacy ? Surely there has to be SOMETHING. HMGS1 did give me that “something”, but the impression I got from that was that it just wasn’t the super-huge problem I would expect it to have been.

I am not presenting any counter-arguments in this thread, as I want the contributors to feel free to offer anything they may feel is relevant, and this is not a topic I have enough knowledge about to offer any counter-arguments anyway.

 

[Harpazo]

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

Glory to Jesus Christ,

The Orthodox accept a primacy for the Roman Patriarch, but not like the way it has been for the past 800 years or so. The purpose of the Ravenna Meeting was to help bring the Pope’s role within the undivided Church back to the way it was pre-schism, if I understand it correctly. I heard from somewhere that they are planning another meeting in 2009 or 2010.

I am one that believes the Pope of Rome does need to return to the role that he had pre-schism as a confirmer of the Faith and not one who has the ability to lord over his brother bishops. Just my $0.02.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Rightlydivide]

And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.
I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’

Polycrates to Victor

Council of Carthage in 258 AD

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

 

[joshua_b]

Polycrates to Victor

Council of Carthage in 258 AD

Could you please give the sources for these ? Also, did the men who these quotes are attributed to actually break from the unified Church? Thanks.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Eusebius is the first one.
I do not know the second one.
It is from the book Confronting Catholicism.

 

[joshua_b]

Eusebius is the first one.
I do not know the second one.
It is from the book Confronting Catholicism.

Fair enough, and thank you again, but I am actually looking for the original source material. Is it in any of the footnotes of the book where the author references the works these originally came from ? I’m not arguing them valid or invalid, so much as I’m just too lazy to search and verify their actual origin.

And again, did these men ultimately lead any sort of detraction from the unified Chruch that is verified through historical records ?

 

[JonNC]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

The Orthodox accept a primacy for the Roman Patriarch, but not like the way it has been for the past 800 years or so. The purpose of the Ravenna Meeting was to help bring the Pope’s role within the undivided Church back to the way it was pre-schism, if I understand it correctly. I heard from somewhere that they are planning another meeting in 2009 or 2010.

I am one that believes the Pope of Rome does need to return to the role that he had pre-schism as a confirmer of the Faith and not one who has the ability to lord over his brother bishops. Just my $0.02.

In Christ,
Andrew

I look forward to seeing what happens.
Jon

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

The Orthodox accept a primacy for the Roman Patriarch, but not like the way it has been for the past 800 years or so. The purpose of the Ravenna Meeting was to help bring the Pope’s role within the undivided Church back to the way it was pre-schism, if I understand it correctly. I heard from somewhere that they are planning another meeting in 2009 or 2010.

I am one that believes the Pope of Rome does need to return to the role that he had pre-schism as a confirmer of the Faith and not one who has the ability to lord over his brother bishops. Just my $0.02.

In Christ,
Andrew

Do you believe that it would be a legitimate role of the Pope to settle disputes among bishops

 

[Genesis315]

Harpazo:

I am one that believes the Pope of Rome does need to return to the role that he had pre-schism as a confirmer of the Faith and not one who has the ability to lord over his brother bishops.

This parable Our Lord told to St. Peter gives the blueprint for this service:

Luke 12:42

And the Lord said: Who (thinkest thou) is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord setteth over his family, to give them their measure of wheat in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant, whom when his lord shall come, he shall find so doing. 44 Verily I say to you, he will set him over all that he possesseth. 45 But if that servant shall say in his heart: My lord is long a coming; and shall begin to strike the menservants and maidservants, and to eat and to drink and be drunk: 46 The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers.

However as Pope John Paul II noted in Ut Unum Sint:

With the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches.

Just because an authority can be abused doesn’t preclude its existence. It is no difference than a single bishop abusing his authority over his Church or a priest abusing his authority over his flock or a father abusing his authority over his household.*

 

[Harpazo]

Do you believe that it would be a legitimate role of the Pope to settle disputes among bishops

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe the Pope of Rome should be able to settle disputes amongst the Bishops of his jurisdiction, which is Rome and the West. This is the way it was before the schism and the way that it should be. After all, the canons of the great councils prescribe this.

I understand that certain political and other situations arose that caused the Pope of Rome to take on more power, but the power needs to return to the other Patriarchs and Bishops as in the early Church. I hope that answers your question.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe the Pope of Rome should be able to settle disputes amongst the Bishops of his jurisdiction, which is Rome and the West. This is the way it was before the schism and the way that it should be. After all, the canons of the great councils prescribe this.

I understand that certain political and other situations arose that caused the Pope of Rome to take on more power, but the power needs to return to the other Patriarchs and Bishops as in the early Church. I hope that answers your question.

In Christ,
Andrew

Yes it does.

However, I believe that the Church needs a single source to settle disputes of faith and morals.

I believe that this person should be a successor of Peter, but I don’t think he needs to be the Bishop of Rome, if such a compromise could be reached.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

Greetings JonNC; Many of the Early Eastern Cathoilc church Fathers have recorded to acknowledge and follow the Catholic Pope and obey his final decision on faith and morals.

For example St. Ambrose an Eastern (Orthodox) (among many others), disputed with Pope Damasus. St. Ambrose from his Eastern church; Priests and religious had fallen into apostacy. These Eastern apostates wanted back into the Catholic church. St. Ambrose told them “NO”, they appealed to the Pope Damasus. The Pope instructed St. Ambrose to recieve their confession and penance and allow them back into the Church. St. Ambrose agreed, but demanded that his (Eastern, Orthodox) priests be rebaptised. Pope Damasus stated “NO” one cannot repeat the sacrament of baptism. So. St. Ambrose obeyed the Pope Damasus. IF you check the early church Saints, many of them were Eastern what you might label as “Orthodox” today, followed and recognized the Catholic Popes authority.

Many Eastern Catholic rites are in full communion with the Pope of Rome; what many appear to misinterpret is the term “Orthodox”. Orthodox is a later term from the 11th century, where the “authority” from some Eastern rites, where their Patriarch’s argue some aspects of the Popes authority. This has nothing to do with recognizing the Primacy of the Pope, nor as being the successor of Peter, of whom Jesus built his church.

I hear this alot on these boards, where Protestants use the term “Orthodox” as if some of these rites from the Eastern Catholic church were mortal enemies with the Roman rite of the Catholic church, whenever they cant handle a dispute from the Protestant perspective.

For as far as the Primacy of Peter through history, the Protestant reformers were not around yet to offer any dispute, only the recorded history, and facts of the living Catholic church from antiquity is all one has to look in order to prove the existance of the successors of Peter and the apostles. This has nothing to do with today’s Eastern “Orthodox” rites(few of them) that refuse to recognize our latest Popes, when their early Patriarchs and Saints did recognize the authority of the Pope and not as an invention by man, but as instituted by Jesus Christ himself, you should know this if you studied the early church fathers. So as far as an Orthodox not recognizing the Pope from antiquity is not a true statement. There is much to be considered in such a wide open statement.

Peace be with you

 

[hmgs1]

Joshua B,

Not exactly and I guess it depends on how you define lasting damage.

Eventually and obviously this led to the great East-West schism of 1054, but almost immediately after the Council, certain Bishoprics rejected totally both Leo and the canon of Chalcedon, never to return. One of these groups was the Oriental Catholic (or Orthodox) Church which still exists today under the leadership of (no kidding this is his title) Pope Shanouda III, the 117th Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy Apostolic See of Saint Mark the Evangelist of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

Shanouda III is not in communion with Rome, shepards a flock of some 18 million and evidently is very ecumenical. He is credited with bringing tremendous growth to his church, building from only four North American parishes to more than 200 today.

 

[Harpazo]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Greetings JonNC; Many of the Early Eastern Cathoilc church Fathers have recorded to acknowledge and follow the Catholic Pope and obey his final decision on faith and morals.

Could you possibly elaborate on this please?

For example St. Ambrose an Eastern (Orthodox) (among many others), disputed with Pope Damasus. St. Ambrose from his Eastern church; Priests and religious had fallen into apostacy. These Eastern apostates wanted back into the Catholic church. St. Ambrose told them “NO”, they appealed to the Pope Damasus. The Pope instructed St. Ambrose to recieve their confession and penance and allow them back into the Church. St. Ambrose agreed, but demanded that his (Eastern, Orthodox) priests be rebaptised. Pope Damasus stated “NO” one cannot repeat the sacrament of baptism. So. St. Ambrose obeyed the Pope Damasus. IF you check the early church Saints, many of them were Eastern what you might label as “Orthodox” today, followed and recognized the Catholic Popes authority.

Are you sure you’re talking about St. Ambrose of Milan? He was a Latin Church father. The Eastern Saints did not “follow the Pope” per se, but both groups professed the same faith.

Many Eastern Catholic rites are in full communion with the Pope of Rome; what many appear to misinterpret is the term “Orthodox”. Orthodox is a later term from the 11th century, where the “authority” from some Eastern rites, where their Patriarch’s argue some aspects of the Popes authority. This has nothing to do with recognizing the Primacy of the Pope, nor as being the successor of Peter, of whom Jesus built his church.

The term Orthodox was, to the best of my knowledge, always in place in the East from the earliest days of the Church, as well as the term Catholic. One example from before the 11th century is St. John Damascene’s “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” from the early 8th century. There are many other examples prior to that time, but that it was came off the top of my head.

I hear this alot on these boards, where Protestants use the term “Orthodox” as if some of these rites from the Eastern Catholic church were mortal enemies with the Roman rite of the Catholic church, whenever they cant handle a dispute from the Protestant perspective.

For as far as the Primacy of Peter through history, the Protestant reformers were not around yet to offer any dispute, only the recorded history, and facts of the living Catholic church from antiquity is all one has to look in order to prove the existance of the successors of Peter and the apostles. This has nothing to do with today’s Eastern “Orthodox” rites(few of them) that refuse to recognize our latest Popes, when their early Patriarchs and Saints did recognize the authority of the Pope and not as an invention by man, but as instituted by Jesus Christ himself, you should know this if you studied the early church fathers. So as far as an Orthodox not recognizing the Pope from antiquity is not a true statement. There is much to be considered in such a wide open statement.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the Orthodox don’t recognize the Pope, but they do NOT recognize Papal Infallibility and the idea of Supreme Jurisdiction which is a recent innovation within the last couple hundred years or so.

Peace be with you

And with your spirit!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Could you possibly elaborate on this please?

Sure it begins in the book of Acts where Peter is first mentioned in all of scriptures and recognized as leader throughtout beginning from the book of Acts.

Secondly we have St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch quotes “Where the Bishop is there is the (Catholic) Universal church”.

I dont have to mention St. Ireneaus who lists all the Popes from Peter to his present day Pope Eleuterius from the late first century. But then again he was from Lyons.

The letter correspondents from Eastern Saints who were affected by the “Arian” and Apostate heretics that infected the “Orthodox” Eastern Church from whence these heresies derived from. St. Basil the great offering a plea to the Pope about the infected Eastern “Orthodox” Church of “Arianism” addresses the Pope.

My favorite St. John of Chrysostom, who appealed to Pope Innocent I, against his own Bishops who condemned him and worked in deposing him. The Pope took his part and declared the decree of deposition against St. John of Chrysostom null and void.

Gratian and Theodosius issued an edict recognizing Peter as bringing the Gospel to the Romans and preserved it there mentioning the Present Pope Damasus as the one who follows.

What I like to address here from St. Basil when the Eastern Church was bullet riddled with heresies and heretics. He stood against them and held to the Catholic belief’s while many others left the Catholic doctrines from the apostolic church. From his eyes he craved the unity of both East and West including his apostated comrads, but died too early to see his work come to pass. Until Schism arose between “some” Orthodox rites with the Roman Pontiff a thousand years later.

Peace be with you;

Hey, I do have St. Ambrose confused with another, sorry, I have to double check my resources before confirming the name.

The OP asks for Non Catholics? Which Orthodox rite do you adhere too, as to get a perspective from your commentary?

Peace be with you.