The authority of the Pope.

[Jon_Mallory]

I wish to continue the debate between the Orthodox and Catholics regarding papal authority and its development or corruption (depending on your point of view). Instead of focusing on the Greek in a few passages of Scripture which most (including myself) have no knowledge of, I wish to switch scope of the topic to the Fathers. First, I will present some quotes of the Fathers that purport to establish papal supremacy from our very own Catholic Answers apologists. I will not list all the quotes but I will try to get a fair selection, both strong and weak.

I.“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Here, Augustine seems to teach that the charge was given to Peter to take care of the flock and not the other apostles. Is there a fallacy of unstated evidence here that would change the conclusion? Also, how on earth do you get papal supremacy from the latter half of the quote? Yes, Rome has some Authority but Augustine might only be referencing Rome’s Authority within her jurisdiction.

II. Optatus of Milevus

“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 ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

I know nothing about this guy so I will refrain from comment.

Council of Constantinople I

“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).

Again, like in the second part of the Augustine quote, how do you get papal supremacy from this? This is shoddy support and lazy I might add. I find it appalling that Catholic Answers would spit a quote out without providing context. It doesn’t take someone with more than a high school education to strike this one down.

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Another terrible quote to offer in support of papal authority.

Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of 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!’” (ibid., session 2).

This one is funny because it supports the Orthodox position rather than the Catholic one. Leo is being praised as representing the faith of the Fathers because the Council determined first that his teachings were in fact Orthodox, not because he is the Pope of Rome. As for Pope Leo being “the head of all the Churches”, what does that mean? Could that not mean that he is head in the sense that he is the most Orthodox? He has a primacy of honor because of his reputation, not because of his office.

Pope Gregory I

“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius 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, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).

Ok. But what about his quote, “let no one call himself universal bishop”?

My conclusion is that on the surface, these quotes support papal supremacy only if you read the concept into them. They are presented without commentary so as to purposefully and deceitfully steer readers into supporting positions that during those times, would have been anachronisms.

 

[Rohzek]

Question about this thread: The previous thread you mentioned, which was expanded to include Latin exegeses from the first 1200 years of Christianity concerning specific passages in both Matthew and Luke, mostly concerns exegesis and not so much about historical events. It’s related to this topic. However, should exegesis be generally excluded from this thread for the sake of coherency? That is to say, this thread here is mostly focused on historical events, while the thread you mentioned is mostly about historical exegesis, correct? I’m just wondering/worried about the parameters for this discussion because a topic like this can become unbearably broad very quickly.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Question about this thread: The previous thread you mentioned, which was expanded to include Latin exegeses from the first 1200 years of Christianity concerning specific passages in both Matthew and Luke, mostly concerns exegesis and not so much about historical events. It’s related to this topic. However, should exegesis be generally excluded from this thread for the sake of coherency? That is to say, this thread here is mostly focused on historical events, while the thread you mentioned is mostly about historical exegesis, correct? I’m just wondering/worried about the parameters for this discussion because a topic like this can become unbearably broad very quickly.

Would you rather there be no exegesis of the text? It seems that when you delve into the historical events surrounding these quotes, you do exegesis intentionally or not. You provide the necessary context by which to interpret these sayings–the context Catholic Answers conveniently leaves out. . I would love for the focus to be dismantling the claim that these quotes support papal supremacy. I’m no patristic scholar but these quotes make proving papal supremacy well…too easy. That is why I rely on other more well informed people to fill in the gaps of my knowledge so I am not duped by quotes such as these.

 

[Rohzek]

Would you rather there be no exegesis of the text? It seems that when you delve into the historical events surrounding these quotes, you do exegesis intentionally or not. You provide the necessary context by which to interpret these sayings–the context Catholic Answers conveniently leaves out. . I would love for the focus to be dismantling the claim that these quotes support papal supremacy. I’m no patristic scholar but these quotes make proving papal supremacy well…too easy. That is why I rely on other more well informed people to fill in the gaps of my knowledge so I am not duped by quotes such as these.

Yes, exegesis is sometimes unavoidable when addressing historical events. I just want to avoid doing a direct repeat of the previous thread, especially since might still be ongoing.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Yes, exegesis is sometimes unavoidable when addressing historical events. I just want to avoid doing a direct repeat of the previous thread, especially since might still be ongoing.

The last thread dealt primarily with the Greek and then devolved into debating the interpretation of Early Church western exegetes. No offense, but I had never heard of those exegetes before. Most Catholics probably don’t consider their interpretations a part of magisterial authority. Most people are familiar with the big names–Augustine, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, etc. I think my last thread is almost dead because of the lack of name-recognition. This thread has the potential to be long but its parameters are narrowed down to the list of Fathers mentioned in the Catholic Answers Tract (Chick tracts for Orthodox so I am told). The list is long but hopefully only a few of the most relevant will be debated.

 

[Rohzek]

I’ll just comment on a few you mentioned. As for my omissions, they are because the quotes presented didn’t seem important enough for me to address or you took the words right out of my mouth.

I.“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).

Manichaeus had claimed to be an apostle of Christ. Augustine was merely referring to his own Christian origins and then later proceeds to talk about the twelve apostles in the Gospels, which Manichaeus of course is not named. I also wonder what he meant by the see of Peter, which does not necessarily mean the seat of Rome.

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Here, Augustine seems to teach that the charge was given to Peter to take care of the flock and not the other apostles. Is there a fallacy of unstated evidence here that would change the conclusion? Also, how on earth do you get papal supremacy from the latter half of the quote? Yes, Rome has some Authority but Augustine might only be referencing Rome’s Authority within her jurisdiction.

Augustine here is talking about a rescript, which was a specific type of legal document. In short, it works like this: a subordinate sends a plea to a higher authority requesting a decision of some sort based on precedent or on the issue alone. The higher authority then replies. These types of replies were never issued on the initiative of the papacy, at least during this historical period. Additionally, during this period they were never seen as binding.

II. Optatus of Milevus

“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 ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

I know nothing about this guy so I will refrain from comment.

Optatus here is addressing a specific action taken by the Donatists. If you read the fuller context found here (in chapters 2-4), you will see what I am about to say. The Donatists claim that they are the true church. Additionally, at the time they had recently set up their own bishopric in Rome. Optatus here is basically mocking them for claiming to be the true church that has not faltered because their supposed bishop of Rome is not even a Roman citizen. Optatus is basically arguing: it is obvious that you Donatists are the schismatics because you’re the ones having to set up new bishoprics. Also keep in mind that during this time, having more than one Christian bishop in a city was considered scandalous. It’s not like today where we think nothing of having an Methodist bishop and a Catholic bishop both residing in the same city.

Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of 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!’” (ibid., session 2).

This one is funny because it supports the Orthodox position rather than the Catholic one. Leo is being praised as representing the faith of the Fathers because the Council determined first that his teachings were in fact Orthodox, not because he is the Pope of Rome. As for Pope Leo being “the head of all the Churches”, what does that mean? Could that not mean that he is head in the sense that he is the most Orthodox? He has a primacy of honor because of his reputation, not because of his office.

Also I would like to add that the rest of the Church ignored his protestations at the elevation of Constantinople above Alexandria and Antioch.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I’ll just comment on a few you mentioned. As for my omissions, they are because the quotes presented didn’t seem important enough for me to address or you took the words right out of my mouth.

Manichaeus had claimed to be an apostle of Christ. Augustine was merely referring to his own Christian origins and then later proceeds to talk about the twelve apostles in the Gospels, which Manichaeus of course is not named. I also wonder what he meant by the see of Peter, which does not necessarily mean the seat of Rome.

Augustine here is talking about a rescript, which was a specific type of legal document. In short, it works like this: a subordinate sends a plea to a higher authority requesting a decision of some sort based on precedent or on the issue alone. The higher authority then replies. These types of replies were never issued on the initiative of the papacy, at least during this historical period. Additionally, during this period they were never seen as binding.

Optatus here is addressing a specific action taken by the Donatists. If you read the fuller context found here (in chapters 2-4), you will see what I am about to say. The Donatists claim that they are the true church. Additionally, at the time they had recently set up their own bishopric in Rome. Optatus here is basically mocking them for claiming to be the true church that has not faltered because their supposed bishop of Rome is not even a Roman citizen. Optatus is basically arguing: it is obvious that you Donatists are the schismatics because you’re the ones having to set up new bishoprics. Also keep in mind that during this time, having more than one Christian bishop in a city was considered scandalous. It’s not like today where we think nothing of having an Methodist bishop and a Catholic bishop both residing in the same city.

Also I would like to add that the rest of the Church ignored his protestations at the elevation of Constantinople above Alexandria and Antioch.

Excellent. Hopefully, some fish will bite. I’m afraid they don’t like me that much. I’ve never been one to cater to itching ears and when I do, it is so I can get people to reveal their errors in thinking.I will read the Optatus link.

 

[Rohzek]

The last thread dealt primarily with the Greek and then devolved into debating the interpretation of Early Church western exegetes. No offense, but I had never heard of those exegetes before. Most Catholics probably don’t consider their interpretations a part of magisterial authority. Most people are familiar with the big names–Augustine, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, etc. I think my last thread is almost dead because of the lack of name-recognition. This thread has the potential to be long but its parameters are narrowed down to the list of Fathers mentioned in the Catholic Answers Tract (Chick tracts for Orthodox so I am told). The list is long but hopefully only a few of the most relevant will be debated.

Those Western exegetes were profoundly important in the Latin Church’s history and are saints. No offense to most Catholics, but with the exception of like five names, they tend not to have a clue about the religious or intellectual output of the Latin West prior to Thomas Aquinas, which is a real shame if I might add. If a Catholic merely wants to get off the hook by saying, “Well it doesn’t come from the Magisterium ie the pope” then I could just as easily do the reverse and dismiss any evidence by a pope out of hand. But I don’t do that because I take the issue seriously. My purpose was to show that current interpretations have no basis in the older historical record, not whether it conforms with current Magisterial teachings. I would hope that one would take the historical record as seriously as they take the Magisterium.

The problem is not that I pull from obscure and popular Latin writers to showcase my positions as the most historically accurate, but rather that so many Catholics simply do not know their own history very well. A large number of those people I quoted were very prominent theologians and clergymen of their time, and remained so well into the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. These weren’t nobodies. They were at the forefront at presenting arguments for orthodox beliefs about the Eucharist and against heresies such as Adoptionism, etc… Their current obscurity is a recent phenomenon.

At any rate, I digress. I hope the other thread doesn’t die.

 

[dmar198]

I wish to continue the debate between the Orthodox and Catholics regarding papal authority and its development or corruption (depending on your point of view).

Great! I look forward to it.

Instead of focusing on the Greek in a few passages of Scripture which most (including myself) have no knowledge of, I wish to switch scope of the topic to the Fathers. First, I will present some quotes of the Fathers that purport to establish papal supremacy from our very own Catholic Answers apologists. I will not list all the quotes but I will try to get a fair selection, both strong and weak.

I.“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Thank you for bringing these up, they need to be discussed.

Here, Augustine seems to teach that the charge was given to Peter to take care of the flock and not the other apostles.

I think there’s a problem with your summary. I agree that he says Peter was given a charge, but I don’t think he says or implies that the other apostles weren’t. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that all bishops have a charge to take care of the flock because they are part of the universal magisterium. If someone said that Peter alone was supposed to take care of the flock, and meant that no one else was, I think that would be a non-Catholic interpretation.

Also, how on earth do you get papal supremacy from the latter half of the quote? Yes, Rome has some Authority but Augustine might only be referencing Rome’s Authority within her jurisdiction.

First, by Latter half I’m not sure which quote you are talking about. If you mean the quote about the Pelagians, I think there are two problems with the view that Augustine is referring to local authority.

One is: St. Augustine is referring to a case of heresy, and local authority cannot resolve that. For example, if Pelagianism had been accepted by the See of Jerusalem and rejected by Rome, one could not leave it up to local policy. In a question of heresy, the whole Church must be united. St. Augustine knew that: in Letter 54 he distinguishes between the things that can be decided by local authority and the things that the whole Church must be united about, and he clearly indicates that issues of faith and morals fall on the side where the whole Church must be united. (See, for example, Paragraph 2 of that document.) Because of that, when St. Augustine says that Rome’s decision solves this issue, that indicates that the pope’s decision carries authority in the whole Church.

Also, Pelagianism was not a local heresy. After it started up in England, it spread to Africa and Rome, and Pelagius himself journeyed to the east to spread his teachings there. In his book Against Julian Book 1 Chapter 5 Paragraph 19, St. Augustine mentions that a council of 14 eastern bishops rejected his doctrines. So it was not a merely local heresy. The whole Church was wrestling with it. In light of that, St. Augustine’s assertion that Rome’s decision settles the matter indicates that it was not a case of local authority only.

II. Optatus of Milevus

“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 ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

I know nothing about this guy so I will refrain from comment.

Optatus was an Italian bishop who died in about 391 A.D. I only know of one book by him which has survived, the book is called Against the Donatists and it is seven books long. On my website, I have him listed as a support for the following doctrines: Peter the Rock, Peter in Rome, Peter’s Successors, The Authority of the Pope, Ecumenical Outreach.

Council of Constantinople I

“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).

Again, like in the second part of the Augustine quote, how do you get papal supremacy from this? This is shoddy support and lazy I might add. I find it appalling that Catholic Answers would spit a quote out without providing context. It doesn’t take someone with more than a high school education to strike this one down.

I think it’s a defensible quotation. One argument for why it works could run like this: Premise 1, primacy of honor implies primacy in all other ecclesiastical matters. Premise 2, the Second Ecumenical Council ascribes primacy of honor to Rome. Conclusion, the Second Ecumenical Council implies Rome’s primacy in all ecclesiastical matters.

Of course, Premise 1 would need to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. But once that is proven, the conclusion follows.

 

[dmar198]

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Another terrible quote to offer in support of papal authority.

I think it’s defensible. If a bishop has a duty in Alexandria than he has a right to do stuff in Alexandria. I have authority to do whatever I have a duty to do. This passage says that Rome has duties in the cities abroad, therefore Rome has authority to do stuff in the cities abroad. One can derive from this that Rome’s authority covers the cities abroad in at least some ways.

Council of Chalcedon

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of 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!’” (ibid., session 2).

This one is funny because it supports the Orthodox position rather than the Catholic one. Leo is being praised as representing the faith of the Fathers because the Council determined first that his teachings were in fact Orthodox, not because he is the Pope of Rome.

First, which quotes indicate that they determined that his teachings were orthodox? The ones in the Catholic Answers article or other ones, or both? Because I don’t think these ones imply what you say. Sometimes I have seen non-Catholic people argue that the Council of Chalcedon doesn’t support papal infallibility because if it did, they would have accepted Leo’s tome blindly and they wouldn’t have felt the need to read it first. But that argument seems very silly to me. Why write a letter unless you want people to read it?

As for Pope Leo being “the head of all the Churches”, what does that mean? Could that not mean that he is head in the sense that he is the most Orthodox? He has a primacy of honor because of his reputation, not because of his office.

First, I’ve never heard of someone being called “head” because they were orthodox. I think of “head” as being a position. I’d like to know more about how you look at it. Second, I think the context indicates that it is using the word “head” in an official sense. For example, Leo had seemed to claim an official function over the council in Session 1, when his delegates delivered his order that the council not give Patriarch Dioscorus a seat in the assembly. In Session 3, his delegates deposed Patriarch Dioscorus in the name of Rome and the council did not protest that this was a usurpation of authority, rather there is evidence that they were happy with this action: in their letter to Leo they congratulated him while also saying he “[has] been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior.” When they called him head, it was with his recent exercise of authority over the council and other bishops in mind, and in light of their own congratulations to him for doing so. In light of all that, to me this title indicates more than a mere happenstance that he happened to be right on a matter of doctrine in this instance. To me, they seem to be ascribing to him the same headship that his actions suggest: headship over all other patriarchs and over the ecumenical council. I also think it is noteworthy that the council called him “Archbishop of all the churches” in Session 4. source

Pope Gregory I

“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius 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, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).

Ok. But what about his quote, “let no one call himself universal bishop”?

I go into this in some detail in this post. See there for more details, but the short version is that Pope Gregory only rejected the title “universal bishop” in one sense of the term: the sense that excludes other bishops from being true bishops but makes them mere legates. But he did not condemn the view that the pope has authority over the whole Church. He was explicitly in favor of that in other writings.

I hope this helps, God bless!

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Those Western exegetes were profoundly important in the Latin Church’s history and are saints. No offense to most Catholics, but with the exception of like five names, they tend not to have a clue about the religious or intellectual output of the Latin West prior to Thomas Aquinas, which is a real shame if I might add. If a Catholic merely wants to get off the hook by saying, “Well it doesn’t come from the Magisterium ie the pope” then I could just as easily do the reverse and dismiss any evidence by a pope out of hand. But I don’t do that because I take the issue seriously. My purpose was to show that current interpretations have no basis in the older historical record, not whether it conforms with current Magisterial teachings. I would hope that one would take the historical record as seriously as they take the Magisterium.

The problem is not that I pull from obscure and popular Latin writers to showcase my positions as the most historically accurate, but rather that so many Catholics simply do not know their own history very well. A large number of those people I quoted were very prominent theologians and clergymen of their time, and remained so well into the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period. These weren’t nobodies. They were at the forefront at presenting arguments for orthodox beliefs about the Eucharist and against heresies such as Adoptionism, etc… Their current obscurity is a recent phenomenon.

At any rate, I digress. I hope the other thread doesn’t die.

And even if they know of the name Thomas Aquinas or Augustine, it is not likely they have done serious reading of them. I think it is a symptom of an aggressive clericalism in which priests tell the laity that they will take care of them and they don’t have to worry about the complicated stuff. Also, I think RCIA could afford to be more rigorous. But this is why we have threads like these…

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I think it’s defensible. If a bishop has a duty in Alexandria than he has a right to do stuff in Alexandria. I have authority to do whatever I have a duty to do. This passage says that Rome has duties in the cities abroad, therefore Rome has authority to do stuff in the cities abroad. One can derive from this that Rome’s authority covers the cities abroad in at least some ways. First, which quotes indicate that they determined that his teachings were orthodox? The ones in the Catholic Answers article or other ones, or both? Because I don’t think these ones imply what you say. Sometimes I have seen non-Catholic people argue that the Council of Chalcedon doesn’t support papal infallibility because if it did, they would have accepted Leo’s tome blindly and they wouldn’t have felt the need to read it first. But that argument seems very silly to me. Why write a letter unless you want people to read it? First, I’ve never heard of someone being called “head” because they were orthodox. I think of “head” as being a position. I’d like to know more about how you look at it. Second, I think the context indicates that it is using the word “head” in an official sense. For example, Leo had seemed to claim an official function over the council in Session 1, when his delegates delivered his order that the council not give Patriarch Dioscorus a seat in the assembly. In Session 3, his delegates deposed Patriarch Dioscorus in the name of Rome and the council did not protest that this was a usurpation of authority, rather there is evidence that they were happy with this action: in their letter to Leo they congratulated him while also saying he “[has] been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior.” When they called him head, it was with his recent exercise of authority over the council and other bishops in mind, and in light of their own congratulations to him for doing so. In light of all that, to me this title indicates more than a mere happenstance that he happened to be right on a matter of doctrine in this instance. To me, they seem to be ascribing to him the same headship that his actions suggest: headship over all other patriarchs and over the ecumenical council. I also think it is noteworthy that the council called him “Archbishop of all the churches” in Session 4. source I go into this in some detail in this post. See there for more details, but the short version is that Pope Gregory only rejected the title “universal bishop” in one sense of the term: the sense that excludes other bishops from being true bishops but makes them mere legates. But he did not condemn the view that the pope has authority over the whole Church. He was explicitly in favor of that in other writings.

I hope this helps, God bless!

Thank you. You have obviously done your research.

 

[Peter_J]

I wish to continue the debate between the Orthodox and Catholics regarding papal authority and its development or corruption (depending on your point of view).

I suggest
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/
or
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm

I don’t know the application process, but I guess you could just send them your resume.

 

[Peter_J]

First, I will present some quotes of the Fathers that purport to establish papal supremacy from our very own Catholic Answers apologists.

Not trying to be a backseat driver, of course, but was this supposed to say “First, I will present some quotes of our very own Catholic Answers apologists that purport to establish papal supremacy from the Fathers”?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Not trying to be a backseat driver, of course, but was this supposed to say “First, I will present some quotes of our very own Catholic Answers apologists that purport to establish papal supremacy from the Fathers”?

Ok, ok I get it. I wrote too fast and neglected proper grammar.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I suggest
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/
or
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm

I don’t know the application process, but I guess you could just send them your resume.

I am humbled.

 

[Peter_J]

I am humbled.

Aren’t you supposed to say that once you’re accepted?

(Okay, I get it, I’m not very funny. But I keep trying. )

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Aren’t you supposed to say that once you’re accepted?

(Okay, I get it, I’m not very funny. But I keep trying. )

I is accepted very much so?

 

[Peter_J]

I is accepted very much so?

Well ,that’s good too, but I’m guessing being on the Join International Commission would be a very humbling experience.

 

[Erich]

I’m new to this thread (and don’t recall having participated in the previous one) but I thought I’d share the following.

From this link (emphasis mine)

The *Liber Pontificalis *(a sort of history book on early popes) has Sixtus I [Pope from 105-115 A.D.] instituting three disciplines into the life of the Church, one of which should be familiar with us today:

• That only the ordained (bishops, priests, deacons) were allowed to touch the sacred vessels (i.e. the paten and chalice containing the Eucharist)
• That bishops, when they were summoned to Rome, could only continue ruling their dioceses after presenting a letter from the pope saying so (indicating that the Church recognized early on that the pope had power to depose bishops if necessary)
• That the priest and the people recite/chant the *Sanctus *(aka, the Holy, Holy) at Mass, taken from Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8

From this link (emphasis mine)

A humble man, but unwilling to be pushed around, Stephen I [Pope from 254-257 A.D.] is known for holding fast to the Church’s standing tradition that already-baptized converts coming to the Church from heretical communities didn’t need to be baptized again in order to be reconciled. Similar to how non-Catholic Christian converts to Catholicism don’t need re-baptizing, Stephen I affirmed belief in “once baptized, always baptized.”

This didn’t sit well with St. Cyprian, who as head of the African bishops had gotten a little too big for his britches and thought he knew better (at least at first). Initially, the African bishops, along with the hierarchy in Asia, stood by their practice of rebaptism in defiance of the pope and risked excommunication. Thankfully, it appears that St. Cyprian and his brethren reconsidered at some point, possibly with help from St. Dionysius (then Bishop of Alexandria), **choosing to act in obedience to the Holy Father and keep the Church united. **