White's Papacy argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter fineca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fineca

Guest
James White’s historical case against the Papacy. It says the Church’s teaching contradicts the idea of a development in dogma (in pre-Vatican II conciliar and papal teaching) and that it’s a historical fact that the early fathers didn’t interpret Mt 16 as the Church says the Church has always understood it. I read this “always” language all over in Trent, about Original sin and Confession, Rom. 5:12 and John 20:23, yet I don’t think we find any pre-Augustine consensus or even examples in the interpretation of those passages in the way the Church interprets them. I’d like to know how we are to understand the magisterial and church fathers’ teachings and respond to this challenge. Here’s White’s case put briefly, watch only if you think you can reasonably respond, otherwise you’re wasting your time and endangering your faith for no reason.

youtube.com/watch?v=J49TPOB65kI
 
I have that 1998 Pacwa debate, have listened to it dozens of times. I have all of White’s debates on the Papacy going back to 1990, have listened to those dozens of times. Just so you know, White’s arguments are nothing new. I discovered this many years ago when examining his anti-Papacy claims.

All of his historical arguments against the Papacy (and most of his biblical ones) were presented much stronger and in more detail in the past by noted Anglican Protestant scholars, and replied to in great detail by English Catholic scholars. The quotes from “Launoy” and “Maldonatus” (for example) were taken from Salmon (1888). The material on St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Pope Honorius and the rest all show up in the Anglican controversialists of years ago, and were replied to vigorously from the Catholic side.

Roman Catholic Claims by Charles Gore (1888, not available as PDF but I recently acquired this old book)
Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims (pdf) a reply to a later edition (1905) by Dom John Chapman

Another reply to Gore is by Luke Rivington called Authority: A Plain Reason for Joining the Church of Rome (1888, which I just acquired thru AbeBooks.com), or his letter to Gore titled “Dust” (1888). Both Chapman and Rivington are converts from Anglicanism who have practically memorized the early Fathers in Greek and Latin.

Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome (pdf) by Littledale
Catholic Controversy, a reply to Littledale (pdf)

The Infallibility of the Church, A Refutation (pdf) by George Salmon
The Church and Infallibility, a reply to the “Abridged” Salmon by B.C. Butler (typing this one in as HTML)

The Pope and the Council (pdf) by “Janus”
Anti-Janus: A Reply to "The Pope and the Council" (pdf)

other books:

St. Peter, His Name and His Office (pdf) by Thomas Allies
Studies on the Early Papacy by Dom John Chapman (HTML edited by me)
The Primitive Church and the See of Peter (pdf) by Luke Rivington (trying to get this into HTML format also)

Most of these are available thru Google Books online, but I trimmed off the excess in the PDFs. Good stuff. Forget White and go to the best arguments which were had 100 to 150 years ago in England. White’s debates and books (Answers to Catholic Claims, The RC Controversy) and even Steve Ray’s popular book (Upon This Rock) are pale comparisons to the scholarship in the Anglican-Catholic fights of long ago. 👍 But both White and Ray are good introductions to this material. 😛

BTW, I don’t think Fr. Pacwa did that poorly in the debate, but he doesn’t spend the time to reply to all of White’s historical objections. Books are much better for this purpose.

Phil P
 
Another point to make is the Catechism itself recognizes several interpretations of Matthew 16:

The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ’s Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ’s divine sonship is the Church’s foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter’s faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756).

Does the Catechism contradict Vatican Council I? I don’t think so. Neither do the Fathers, and they also recognized the primacy of Rome early on.

Phil P
 
fin << and that it’s a historical fact that the early fathers didn’t interpret Mt 16 as the Church says the Church has always understood it >>

BTW, you won’t have every Father giving every aspect of Vatican I teaching in the early centuries. What you will find, and is all we can expect to find, is that various aspects of the teaching on the Papacy can be found in all the Fathers. These are:

(1) Peter is the Rock based on Matt 16:18
(2) Peter has a special “binding and loosing” and “keys of the kingdom” authority based on Matt 16:19
(3) Peter had a primacy and headship among the apostles (e.g. Luke 22:31f; John 21:15ff; beginning of Acts, etc)
(4) Peter’s successors, the Popes, inherit Peter’s primacy, authority, and headship based on Matt 16:19; Isa 22:22 (e.g. St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, etc)
(5) Rome is the “seat” of Peter’s Apostolic authority, is the center of Christendom, and was called simply the “Apostolic See” since that’s where St. Peter (and St. Paul) finished their ministry (e.g. Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, etc)
(6) When Rome has spoken, the case is closed (or the cause is finished, St. Augustine, and the rest, etc)

Now do we need quotes from the Fathers for (1) thru (6) ? They are available even if Fr. Pacwa didn’t provide them all. 😛

Phil P
 
Phil, you’re the best! Good stuff, will have to look into those in the future. And catch up with u on debate listening times, respect man!
 
PhilVaz said:
Does the Catechism contradict Vatican Council I? I don’t think so. Neither do the Fathers, and they also recognized the primacy of Rome early on.

Phil P
Click to expand...
But Phil,
Early on?
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

from there I found this…

For "no one can be in doubt, indeed* it was known in every age** that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and “exercises judgment in his successors” the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood *

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
-First Vatican Council

According to Vat 1 wouldn’t you agree early on isn’t enough? there is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church and it was KNOWN from the start.
 
fineca said:
James White’s historical case against the Papacy. It says the Church’s teaching contradicts the idea of a development in dogma (in pre-Vatican II conciliar and papal teaching) and that it’s a historical fact that the early fathers didn’t interpret Mt 16 as the Church says the Church has always understood it…]
Click to expand...
All you need to do is get the “Bible Answer Man Debate” tape set with James White vs. James Akin to see how wrong White is
 
Hey what made you bring up this old small thread? I forgot I uploaded all those PDF’s so thanks. 👍 😛

Yeah “early on,” or “known in every age,” or “it has always been understood by the catholic church,” etc. Similar language applies to all Catholic doctrine. These aren’t very specific claims, but more general claims. For example, the same applies to the Trinity:

It was known early on, or known in every age, or has always been understood that the Trinity of One God in Three Divine Persons is true, even though the precise technical language for “person” and “nature” or “of one substance” or even the term “Trinity” itself wasn’t defined or wasn’t known or wasn’t used by the apostles or the very earliest Fathers of the Church. (i.e. St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, etc).

<< For “no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter”… >>

<< According to Vat 1 wouldn’t you agree early on isn’t enough? there is no room for development. >>

I would understand “known in every age” as a more general claim, such as known in the age of the Fathers (100 AD to 700 AD), known in the age of the medieval doctors (700 AD to 1300 AD), known in the age of the pre-Reformation and counter-Reformation (1300 AD to 1700 AD), known in the “modern era” (1700 AD to today). I don’t see the problem with “known in every age” unless you can tell me specifically what the Vatican Council had in mind.

The language of development of doctrine is also found in Vatican I itself when it cites St. Vincent of Lerins on the principle –

From Vatican Council I at the end of chapter 4 on Faith and Reason:

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [footnote 36] .

Footnote 36 says: Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium (Notebook), 28 (PL 50, 668).

William Webster was answered on this by me back in 2000, and by Dave Armstrong on Satis Cognitum (Leo XIII) and Vatican Council I in more detail.

The same applies to the Trinity, the development of the NT canon, and the Papacy. I do not see the problem. Same Catholic bishops, saints, and Fathers, same development of Catholic doctrine, same Catholic Church.

As for Early On, what I am referring to are statements from the various encyclopedias and books on the Papacy:

From the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) –

“History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes…The tone of authority [in his Epistle to the Corinthians] which inspires the latter appears so clearly that [Protestant scholar J.B.] Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as ‘the first step towards papal domination’ …Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men’s minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head…The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles.” (volume 12, article “Pope” page 263, 264)

Yeah I think early on is enough. Also I fully agree the Papacy is not as explicit until you get to around the 4th and 5th century AD. At that point the documention for the Papacy is more full.

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
Hey what made you bring up this old small thread? I forgot I uploaded all those PDF’s so thanks. 👍 😛
Click to expand...
It showed at the bottom of a related thread, it is a favorite topic of this fundamentalist, thanks for responding.
PhilVaz said:
Yeah “early on,” or “known in every age,” or “it has always been understood by the catholic church,” etc. Similar language applies to all Catholic doctrine. These aren’t very specific claims, but more general claims. For example, the same applies to the Trinity:
Click to expand...
But don’t you find that an issue of such great importance as this demands a specific attachment to Rome-Peter? I mean afterall isn’t it the basis in which Leo first staked theologically the claim to the “chair of Peter?”
PhilVaz said:
It was known early on, or known in every age, or has always been understood that the Trinity of One God in Three Divine Persons is true, even though the precise technical language for “person” and “nature” or “of one substance” or even the term “Trinity” itself wasn’t defined or wasn’t known or wasn’t used by the apostles or the very earliest Fathers of the Church. (i.e. St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, etc).
Click to expand...
That isn’t really a fair comparison is it Phil? I mean the trinity is certainly implied in scripture, the seat at “Rome” is not.
PhilVaz said:
I would understand “known in every age” as a more general claim, such as known in the age of the Fathers (100 AD to 700 )
Click to expand...
Phil, don’t you feel it would be more fair to break it down to the ante-nicene fathers…
I mean I’ve always found EVERY to mean ALL, but it seems that isn’t the case frequently within your church…I mean no offence by that but its like the verse “all have sinned”
PhilVaz said:
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding
Click to expand...
Thanks…
PhilVaz said:
Yeah I think early on is enough. Also I fully agree the Papacy is not as explicit until you get to around the 4th and 5th century AD. At that point the documention for the Papacy is more full.

Phil P
Click to expand...
I appreciate this last comment, wouldn’t you agree that most of the times people pull out; Ireneaus, Clement, Hermas, and Ignatius and try to force an early papacy that it is a disservice to those writers?
 
Its amazing how people can accept the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity devloped over centuries until it was precisely understood, yet the same people* cannot *accept the fact that the doctrine of the Papacy devloped over centuries until it was precisely understood.

Talk about a “double standard”… :confused:
 
PhilVaz said:
fin << and that it’s a historical fact that the early fathers didn’t interpret Mt 16 as the Church says the Church has always understood it >>

BTW, you won’t have every Father giving every aspect of Vatican I teaching in the early centuries. What you will find, and is all we can expect to find, is that various aspects of the teaching on the Papacy can be found in all the Fathers. These are:

(1) Peter is the Rock based on Matt 16:18
(2) Peter has a special “binding and loosing” and “keys of the kingdom” authority based on Matt 16:19
(3) Peter had a primacy and headship among the apostles (e.g. Luke 22:31f; John 21:15ff; beginning of Acts, etc)
(4) Peter’s successors, the Popes, inherit Peter’s primacy, authority, and headship based on Matt 16:19; Isa 22:22 (e.g. St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, etc)
(5) Rome is the “seat” of Peter’s Apostolic authority, is the center of Christendom, and was called simply the “Apostolic See” since that’s where St. Peter (and St. Paul) finished their ministry (e.g. Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, etc)
(6) When Rome has spoken, the case is closed (or the cause is finished, St. Augustine, and the rest, etc)

Now do we need quotes from the Fathers for (1) thru (6) ? They are available even if Fr. Pacwa didn’t provide them all. 😛

Phil P
Click to expand...
Nice Job Phil!!!👍
 
fav << I appreciate this last comment, wouldn’t you agree that most of the times people pull out; Ireneaus, Clement, Hermas, and Ignatius and try to force an early papacy that it is a disservice to those writers? >>

I agree the earliest Fathers can be argued in various ways, we just don’t have a lot of information from the pre-Nicene Church. That’s what all those PDF books with debates between Anglicans and Catholics on the Papacy are mainly about.

But the same can be said for the Trinity. Modern Arians (or Unitarians) dispute with Trinitarians using the Fathers (and the Bible). Show me “Three Divine Persons” or “Trinity” or “of one substance, nature, or essence” in Clement, Hermas, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, or the New Testament for that matter.

It is not until Tertullian (c. 200+ AD) and some later writers where you start getting the explicit Trinitarian terms and theology and distinctions of “nature” and “persons” and “of one substance.”

And I think the biblical arguments for the Papacy are good enough, just as I think the biblical arguments for the Trinity are good enough. There might be more quantitatively in the Bible about the “Trinity” than about the “Papacy” because there is probably more in the Bible about God and Jesus than about St. Peter. 😃

There is not much about the Papacy “in Rome” in the New Testament since St. Peter (and St. Paul) probably only ended up there at their deaths. The Papacy is not absolutely tied to any city, otherwise when the Papacy left Rome for Avignon (France) for about 100 years, the Papacy ceased to exist. It is tied to St. Peter in his person as selected by Jesus, and his successor, which happened to be the bishop of Rome. Could have been another city, but St. Peter wound up in Rome (1 Peter 5:13) passing on his authority to Linus according to the ancient lists. Philip Schaff admits:

“It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople…” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 2, page 166)

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is –

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)

St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) has this same list, as does St. Hegesippus (as cited by Eusebius) a few decades earlier.

More from Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910) –

“Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese.” (Schaff, volume 2, page 157)

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states –

“…it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.” (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

Phil P
 
fin << and that it’s a historical fact that the early fathers didn’t interpret Mt 16 as the Church says the Church has always understood it >>

BTW, wanted to add to this thread a bit. I mentioned one of White’s “Catholic” sources is a French scholar “Launoy” who he quotes from Salmon’s anti-Catholic Anglican book. Who is this Launoy? Fr. Rivington tells us in his Authority or A Plain Reason for Joining the Church of Rome (1888), page 35, in response to “Roman Catholic Claims” (by Anglican bishop Charles Gore, who also uses him):

“Now who is this Launoy, this ‘learned French divine,’ whose investigations are given as sufficient to absolve others from going to the Fathers first-hand? Launoy was a writer of most equivocal reputation. Almost all his books were placed on the Index [of Forbidden Books]. He was committed to various errors on predestination and grace, besides his opposition to the Papacy. His Monday conferences became such a hotbed of democratic and anarchical theories that they were closed by royal order. He is accused of altering writers in quoting them with ‘an incredible shamelessness.’ He was an adherent of Richer, who, however, retracted his erroneous teaching concerning the sucession of S. Peter (which ought to have been mentioned in the ‘Roman Question,’ p. 33). What authority, therefore, can a man like Launoy be on such a question as this? He is certainly wrong in this particular instance; for not seventeen of the Fathers, as Launoy says, but upwards of thirty in the first five centuries, tell us that the rock or foundation on which Christ built His Church was Peter.” (Rivington, Authority, page 35)

White’s “Catholic” sources “Launoy” and “Maldonatus” are also dealt with in B.C. Butler’s reply to Salmon, but I haven’t finished typing in those later chapters yet.

Phil P
 
Phil, you are an incredible resource, an inspirational source of Catholic pride and man who can make most of us feel so ill equipped with the deeper aspects of our Catholic heritage that we can never get a moment of rest to sit still content with our current levels of knowledge. Thanks a lot brother. You are setting standards of excellence so high and so appetizing that I will never be able to get back to “a normal life” again and will be forever playing the “catch-up game” in reading and digesting all this Catholic scholarship.

What is ironic is that Catholics have decidedly won all the debates long ago and what we have now are the minor league and middle weight players like White coming in very late and trying to make a name for themselves as well as a living doing the debate circuits for contests that were settled long ago by the real heavy weights.

What Catholics need at this point is a comprehensive summary score card showing a tabulation of all the heresies, fallacies and false arguments that have been soundly crushed by Catholic scholars over the centuries giving the references to the venues, contenders, dates and key points of rebuttal that prevailed. Protestants and non-Catholics just don’t seem to “get it” that Catholics have apparently long ago won ALL the important intellectual debates arising out of the errors of Protestantism. I think at this point its just a public relations matter for Catholics to get all the information integrated, summarized and circulated “out there” so we can let the Protestant’s know that they lost and that they are ill equipped to reach the promised land by trying to ride a lame horse; a horse that should have been shot and put out of its misery a long time ago.

James
 
PhilVaz said:
But the same can be said for the Trinity. Modern Arians (or Unitarians) dispute with Trinitarians using the Fathers (and the Bible). Show me “Three Divine Persons” or “Trinity” or “of one substance, nature, or essence” in Clement, Hermas, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, or the New Testament for that matter.
Click to expand...
Apparently they don’t know the fathers very well, as well it surprises me that many Catholic push the development of the trinity doctrine yet I can tell you there are many many early (nicene fathers) actually argued that the trinity was clear in scripture.
PhilVaz said:
And I think the biblical arguments for the Papacy are good enough, just as I think the biblical arguments for the Trinity are good enough. There might be more quantitatively in the Bible about the “Trinity” than about the “Papacy” because there is probably more in the Bible about God and Jesus than about St. Peter. 😃
Click to expand...
Good enough? See, I would argue this as the faith of billions are in the fold, that being the case one would think it would be fairly clear.
PhilVaz said:
There is not much about the Papacy “in Rome” in the New Testament since St. Peter (and St. Paul) probably only ended up there at their deaths. The Papacy is not absolutely tied to any city, otherwise when the Papacy left Rome for Avignon (France) for about 100 years, the Papacy ceased to exist. It is tied to St. Peter in his person as selected by Jesus, and his successor, which happened to be the bishop of Rome. Could have been another city, but St. Peter wound up in Rome (1 Peter 5:13) passing on his authority to Linus according to the ancient lists. Philip Schaff admits:
Click to expand...
Well then an argument should most certainly be made for Antioch since it is the ONE area we see Peter alone passing on his bishopric based on what Eusebius says, most all ante-nicene writers speaking of Rome showing the torch being passed by Peter AND Paul with a greater emphasis on Paul in the leadership role …Here is what the historian had to say on Antioch…
**
Eusebius;
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.
PhilVaz said:
“It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople…” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 2, page 166)
Click to expand...
Catholics quoting Dr.Schaff…Good grief…
Schaff also wrote this…
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xvi.html

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.
PhilVaz said:
The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is –

St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) has this same list, as does St. Hegesippus (as cited by Eusebius) a few decades earlier.
Click to expand...
Irenaeus is infamous for his lists of bishops, not just the list at Rome, but throughout Christendom. Hegesippus clearly had the view that after the apostles there would be NO guarentees of purity of doctrine; (anti-apostolic succession if you will)
PhilVaz said:
On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states –

“…it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.” (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

Phil P
Click to expand...
Clement does speak with force. There are plenty of letters with just as much force which are not from Bishops of Rome but are not used as examples of their primacy.
Clement never once asserts the primacy of his office. He has ample opportunity, but does not.
**
You brought up John, in doing that a faulty assertion is being made unless you can respond to each of the following proof request.
*
One must prove that disputes were handled by John in other situations before you can say he should have handled this.

One must prove when the letter was written.
Not theory. PROVE

They must prove that John was not on Patmos when it was written, unless you think he was getting his mail at that time.

They must PROVE when John died.

We already know from Holy Scripture though that people wrote letters to people outside their jurisdiction, most consider Corinth to be in the Roman Patriarchate.
**
*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top