The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches

Of the authority of the bishops of Rome during the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries.

We have already seen that the œumenical councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon had given to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place in the Catholic episcopacy, and that St. Leo, Bishop of Rome, had opposed this law, as changing the hierarchal order established at the first Œcumenical Council of Nicea.

We may believe that St. Leo was indeed only moved to this opposition by his respect for the canons. But his successors, probably, had another motive. They feared lest the Bishop of Constantinople should soon supplant them in the primacy. Such fears were the more reasonable that the Council of Chalcedon had only given as the reason of the primacy the dignity of the city of Rome, the capital of the empire. Now Rome was daily growing less influential. The Roman empire in the West had fallen under the blows of the barbarians; Rome was passing successively through the hands of various tribes, who destroyed every thing—even to the signs of her former greatness. Constantinople bad become the only centre of the empire, and increased in splendour in proportion as Rome was humbled. On the other hand, the emperor added daily to the prerogatives of the Bishops of Constantinople, thus increasing their influence, while they quite forgot the Bishops of Rome. It was therefore natural that the Roman Bishops Should be jealous of the prerogatives and honours of their brethren of Constantinople, and that jealousy betrayed itself in the relations necessary to be preserved between them.

The Index was suppressed by Paul VI. I could see why. A strong argument against a powerful party is oft silenced.

The Index, in terms of a specific list to be continuously updated, was suppressed. The Index, in terms of a moral right to read bad books, is still in force.

As to it being a strong arguement, the book is filled with utter nonsense such as this:

Launoy, Doctor of the Sorbonne, known for a great number of works on theology and whose vast erudition no one will dispute, has shown the Catholic tradition upon that question. He has demonstrated by clear and authentic texts, that but a small number of Fathers or Doctors of the Church have applied to St. Peter the title of rock, upon which the Church should be built; while the most of them do not apply this to him at all, but understand these words of Christ In quite a different manner.

Peter means Rock. Calling St. Peter, "St. Peter" is the same as calling him "St. Rock".

Guetee then goes on to list a number of Fathers whom he claims never called St. Peter the rock. For example: "Among the Fathers who have given this interpretation to the famous passage ... St. John Chrysostom homilies 55 and 83 upon St. Matthew". To quickly show how misleading this is, we read St. John:

For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in- capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as "a brazen pillar, and as a wall;"but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 54 on St. Matthew)

To maintain Guetee's thesis, we must suppose the Church of Rome having been in gross error about its own role in the Catholic Church since at least the time of Pope St. Victor in the late second century, and we must accept the views of the partisans of error, such as Tertullian the Montanist (who bitterly inveighs against unfavorable edicts of "the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops"), St. Cyprian the Rebaptizer, and not-a-Saint Firmilian as unfailing expositors of the precise exactitudes of the Faith when it comes to the role of the Bishop of Rome, whom they so readily ridicule. Why they are to be thought correct on this topic, when they were so clearly in error on others can only be surmised from presupposing the Rome in error concerning her own role as the first fact from which we are reasoning.

I have neither the time nor the patience to wade through the lies and misrepresentations of this sort from this apostate Priest. There are plenty of good books out there which detail the Catholic position on the papacy in early Church history and from the Fathers, if this was something you actually wished to learn about, instead of spreading falsehoods that are the equivalemt of illiterate scrawl on the walls of a public bathroom. For example:

Kenneth Whitehead's "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898708028/sr=8-1/qid=1144680330/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8751040-0501441?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Stephen Ray's "Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0898707234/sr=8-2/qid=1144680245/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-8751040-0501441?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess' "Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1882972546/sr=8-1/qid=1144680184/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8751040-0501441?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I believe in the Roman primacy, but I find the monarchical model of the papacy not in keeping with patristic Tradition.

There is no primacy that is not also monarchical. This statement you make is like saying: "I believe in the Episcopal primacy in each diocese, but I find that the monarchical model of the Episcopate not in keeping with patristic Tradition, because it derogates from the role of the simple Priests as being the Pastors proper of the various Christians in the parishes. All priests are equal in power, privileges, and rights to the Bishop, and the Bishop should only act in accord with the diocesean Synod."

An acknowledgment of the Pope's right to hear appeals from the Eastern patriarchates does not necessarily mean that he was recognized as having unilateral authority.

A right of appeal against the Holy Synod necessarily implies a right of authority to act unilaterally against the Holy Synod to correct it if it is found in error. The idea that the Pope can then only speak out if he is appealed too unnecessarily limits his field of action to one of reaction, and not one of pre-emptive protection if something comes to his attention. It also makes Canon Law, which is a mere discipline of the Church to enforce human order, into something equal to divine revelation.

I think the traditional Ultramontane view of the papacy unneccesarily appears to remove the Pope from the college of bishops and make the Pope the ecclesia ad personam.

The Pope plus any one Christian is more weighty than thousands of Bishops in the rest of the world against the Pope and any other one Christian. That is the lesson of many a heresy in the East, such as Eutychianism. You can believe this removes the Pope from being a Bishop if you wish. I don't think many of us share that view. The Church is not governed, thank God, by a majority vote of the Bishops.

Let me ask you this, if the Easterners believed Rome's primacy was divinely inspired would they have ratified the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which grants Constantinople equal privileges with the Pope of Rome?

1) The Canon was adopted by a rump council of 150 Fathers, not the 600 of the full Council.

2) The Roman Primacy, Infallibility, etc. are not "privileges", but powers granted by Christ and guaranteed by the Holy Spirit, so that St. Peter, the "Son of the Holy Spirit" (that is the literal meaning of "bar Jona" - "Son of the Dove [Holy Spirit]"), can always live on and guide his sucessors in shepherding the whole flock of Christ.

3) Canon 28 mostly concerns itself with the consecration of Bishops and the ordering of Patriarchal rank - poofery of the court in other words - and not the dogmatic powers of the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church. This is why Rome was eventually able to accept this Canon once Alexandria and Antioch had been quite definitively eclipsed in the Christian world. Canon 28 does not conflict with the Roman Primacy, although it can easily give rise to misunderstandings of it.

The pyramidal model of the Church was a medieval innovation

The Church as a pyramid is clear both in the heirarchical ordering of the Church from its earliest periods, and in the chain of appeals constantly made up the ladder to Rome in Patristic times (and not to Jerusalem or Carthage or Antioch). Councils held in Alexandria or Carthage or Ephesus sent their decisions to Rome for confirmation. Rome did not send her decisions to those places for anything except immediate obedience and concurrance. At all times, those who presumed to sit in appelate judgement of Roman decrees quickly found themselves on the wrong end of an excommunication, while those who ignored Roman appelate judgements that fell against them found themselves similarly situated.

Its good to end with the bitter lament of Nestorius the Archheretic in the Bazzar of Heraclides: "Cyril presided; Cyril was accuser; Cyril was judge; Cyril was bishop of Rome. Cyril was everything."

Notice his whine about Pope St. Celestine I allowing St. Cyril to hold his place in the affair. This is a fitting lament for a man who appealed against an already certain judgement of the Pope to an Ecumenical Council at which the Pope's legates would preside. "Its all Cyril's fault" he whines, being unable to bring himself the blame he deserved for crossing swords with Rome.

Fr. Florovsky writes in "The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century" of the activity taking place prior to the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus:

Based on the information coming to St. Cyril from his agents in Constantinople, including copies of Nestorius’ sermons, St. Cyril takes decisive action by writing to Pope Celestine, enclosing a dossier on the case, and accompanying a Latin translation of his material. From his own sources and from the letter that Nestorius had sent him, Pope Celestine is also informed on the situation. Pope Celestine commissioned St. Cyril to investigate the orthodoxy of Nestorius and in August of 430, after reviewing St. Cyril’s evidence and the evidence provided to him by the Roman archdeacon Leo (later to become Pope Leo the Great), who relied on St. John Cassian’s work on the subject — De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium Libri VII, Pope Celestine I convoked a Roman Council and Nestorius was condemned for his "innovations." Pope Celestine gave Nestorius ten days to retract and he entrusted St. Cyril with the responsibility of executing the sentence.
In November St. Cyril convoked a Council at Alexandria, which condemned Nestorius. St. Cyril drew up his famous Twelve Anathemas or Twelve Chapters, which were to be a test of Nestorius’ doctrine. Nestorius was to agree with the twelve positions and give his signature. St. Cyril sends Nestorius his third letter, to which he appends the Twelve Anathemas. ...
What is known is that Nestorius turns to emperor Theodosius II (408-450) to request his convocation of an ecumenical council. It was to be in that forum of an ecumenical council where Nestorius would answer the charges brought against him. The events of that council, the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431), are given later in this book, especially under the chapter on St. Cyril. The outcome, in any case, is the condemnation of Nestorius. The emperor was finally forced to condemn Nestorius and depose him.

I think the problem with the Ultramontane reading of the primacy texts is they myopic nature. I think you need to balance where St. John Chrysostom speaks of St. Peter as the rock with other passages where he refers to St. Peter's faith as the rock. Your controversialist whom you quote regarding Homily 54 on St. Matthew's gospel omits another key passage in the same treatise. "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;"that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. "And the gates of hell" shall not prevail against it." It frequently seems the Ultramontane apologists cherry pick for the patristic texts that seem to support their thesis about papal power, while ignoring those that don't support their position. Seeing as you brought up Pope St. Victor I. Here is what Guettee says: "Let us take the evidence of History. The question having been agitated, "there were synods and convocations of the Bishops on this question," says Eusebius, Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiii. "and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the Churches in all places. . . . There is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is another epistle" [of the 'Roman Synod] "extant on the same question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also of the Churches of Gaul, over whom Irenæus presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities there. And a particular epistle front Bacchyllus, Bishop of the Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote." It is evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed the letter in the name of the synod which represented that Church. The partisans of the Papal authority affirm that it was Victor who commanded the councils to assemble. This assertion is altogether false. Among the Roman theologians who make this false assertion, we will particularly name Darruel in his work entitled Du Pape et de ses Droits. This book sums up all the errors and exaggerations of the Romish theologians. Several Oriental Bishops did not conform to the decision of the others. Polycrates of Ephesus, above all, protested against it. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiv. Then a lively discussion arose between him and Victor, Bishop of Rome, who seemed to think that the Bishop of Ephesus would be alone in his opinion, and advised him, in consequence, to ask the opinion of the other Bishops of his province. Polycrates complied, and those Bishops declared themselves in favor of his opinion; he wrote thus to Victor, who threatened to separate them from his communion. This did not move Polycrates; he replied vigorously, saying to him particularly. "They who are greater than I have said 'we ought to obey God rather than men.' Upon this Victor, the Bishop of the Church of Rome, forthwith endeavoured πειρᾰται ; Euseb.loc.cit. to cut off the Churches of all Asia, together with the neighboring Churches, as heterodox, from the common unity. And he published abroad by letters, and proclaimed that all the brethren there were wholly excommunicated." Thus Eusebius. It is difficult to believe that the partisans of the Roman pretensions can find in these words of Eusebius and in the conduct of Victor any proof in favor of their system. Without much effort, they might find in them a proof to the contrary. The expression of Eusebius, that "Victor endeavoured," etc., must first be noticed. It is clear that those who endeavour have not in themselves the power to do that which they have in view, otherwise the act would follow the will. Victor, however, did all he could in order that this excommunication should be recognized—he even pronounced it; but that act remained but an attempt, and had to be ratified by the other Churches in order to be valid. Victor did not have, then, as Bishop of Rome, the power to excommunicate other Churches, since the effect did not follow the sentence which he believed himself entitled to give in the name of the Western Churches, because of the importance of his See. The Bishops, who would have submitted to his sentence, if they had recognized in him the Head of the Church, invested with universal authority, not only did not obey him, but strongly censured his conduct. "But this," adds Eusebius, "was not the opinion of all the Bishops. They immediately exhorted him," [Victor] "on the contrary, to contemplate that course that was calculated to promote peace, unity, and love to one another." Thus, instead of believing that unity consisted in union with Victor, the bishops exhorted him to observe better the true notions of unity. Many went even further. "There are also extant," continues Eusebius, "the expressions they used, who pressed upon Victor with much severity. Among these also was Irenæus, who, in the name of those brethren in Gaul, over whom he presided, wrote an epistle in which he maintains the duty of celebrating the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord only on the day of the Lord. He becomingly also admonishes Victor not to cut off whole churches of God who observed the tradition of an ancient custom." Irenæus endeavored to show to Victor that differences in practice, of which, he gives divers examples, are not inconsistent with Unity of Faith. "And when," adds Eusebius, "the blessed Polycarp went to Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little deference among themselves likewise respecting other matters, they immediately were reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had always observed it" [a certain custom] "with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the Apostles with whom he associated; and neither did Polyearp persuade Anicetus to observe, who said that he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him. Which thing being so, they communed with each other; and in the church Anicetus yielded to Polyearp the office of consecrating." And thus, though following different usages, all remained in the communion of the Church. "And not only to Victor, but likewise to the most of the other rulers of the churches, he sent letters of exhortation on the agitated question." Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiv. Thus Victor could not, of his own authority, cut off from the Church, in fact, those whom he had declared excommunicate; the other Bishops resisted him vigorously, and St. Irenæus, the great divine of the age, made war in his letters upon those which Victor had written to provoke the schism. This discussion, invoked by the partisans of Papal pretensions in their favor, falls back upon them with all its weight, and with a force that can not in good faith be contested. Anicetus did not invoke his authority against Polycarp, nor did Victor against Irenæus and the other Bishops. Polycarp and Irenæus reasoned and wrote as equals of the Bishop of Rome in Episcopal authority, and recognized but one rule—ancient tradition. How were the Churches reünited in a common practice? Eusebius thus relates that happy result, which certainly was not due to the Bishop of Rome: Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxv. "The Bishops, indeed, of Palestine, Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the Bishop of the Church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came together with them, having advanced many things respecting the tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the Apostles, regarding the Passover, at the close of the epistle use these words: 'Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the Church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria which we also do; for letters have been sent by us to them and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time.'" Nevertheless, many Churches preserved the tradition of the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus, and were not on that account regarded as schismatics, although Victor had separated himself from their communion. The partisans of the Papal system attach much importance to the influence exercised by the Bishop of Rome in the question of Easter and some other matters: they transform that influence into authority. This is an untenable paralogism. It is not to be wondered at that the Bishop of Rome should have enjoyed from the first a high influence in religious questions; for he filled the first See of the West, and as Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, he was the natural link between East and West. It was then understood that the Catholic Church was not exclusively in any country; that the East possessed no more universal authority than the West. This is why certain heretics, born and condemned in the East, sought protection in the West, and above all at Rome, its representative. Thus it is, that even some saints—as Polycarp of Smyrna—went themselves to Rome to confer with the Bishop of that city upon religious questions. But it is not possible conscientiously to study these facts from reliable documents without eliciting this truth: that the influence of the Bishop of Rome did not arise in an universal authority—that it did not even have its source in an authority recognized by all the Western Churches, but was simply derived from the importance of his See. Rome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters—for political business or private interests—and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged. Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse. St. Iræneus, In Hæres. Lib. III. cap. iii. This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always." But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries." We must quote the text of St. Irenæus, that it may be compared with our translation, "Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelesiarum enumerare successiones; maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per coecitatem et malam sententiam præterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quæ est ab Apostolis, Traditio." The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with—which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximæ, antiquissimæ, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient—every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries—(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, "In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father. In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world. How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessaryto adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true—thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city—but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation. It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead. But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show that he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other Bishops."

I think the problem with the Ultramontane reading of the primacy texts is they myopic nature.

I think you need to balance where St. John Chrysostom speaks of St. Peter as the rock with other passages where he refers to St. Peter's faith as the rock.

Your controversialist whom you quote regarding Homily 54 on St. Matthew's gospel omits another key passage in the same treatise. "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;"that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. "And the gates of hell" shall not prevail against it."

It frequently seems the Ultramontane apologists cherry pick for the patristic texts that seem to support their thesis about papal power, while ignoring those that don't support their position.

Seeing as you brought up Pope St. Victor I.

Here is what Guettee says:

"Let us take the evidence of History. The question having been agitated, "there were synods and convocations of the Bishops on this question," says Eusebius, Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiii. "and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the Churches in all places. . . . There is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is another epistle" [of the 'Roman Synod] "extant on the same question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided; also of the Churches of Gaul, over whom Irenæus presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities there. And a particular epistle front Bacchyllus, Bishop of the Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote."

It is evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of the Bishops of Palestine.

Here is a point irrefragably established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed the letter in the name of the synod which represented that Church. The partisans of the Papal authority affirm that it was Victor who commanded the councils to assemble. This assertion is altogether false. Among the Roman theologians who make this false assertion, we will particularly name Darruel in his work entitled Du Pape et de ses Droits. This book sums up all the errors and exaggerations of the Romish theologians.

Several Oriental Bishops did not conform to the decision of the others. Polycrates of Ephesus, above all, protested against it. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiv. Then a lively discussion arose between him and Victor, Bishop of Rome, who seemed to think that the Bishop of Ephesus would be alone in his opinion, and advised him, in consequence, to ask the opinion of the other Bishops of his province. Polycrates complied, and those Bishops declared themselves in favor of his opinion; he wrote thus to Victor, who threatened to separate them from his communion.

This did not move Polycrates; he replied vigorously, saying to him particularly. "They who are greater than I have said 'we ought to obey God rather than men.' Upon this Victor, the Bishop of the Church of Rome, forthwith endeavoured πειρᾰται ; Euseb.loc.cit. to cut off the Churches of all Asia, together with the neighboring Churches, as heterodox, from the common unity. And he published abroad by letters, and proclaimed that all the brethren there were wholly excommunicated." Thus Eusebius.

It is difficult to believe that the partisans of the Roman pretensions can find in these words of Eusebius and in the conduct of Victor any proof in favor of their system. Without much effort, they might find in them a proof to the contrary. The expression of Eusebius, that "Victor endeavoured," etc., must first be noticed. It is clear that those who endeavour have not in themselves the power to do that which they have in view, otherwise the act would follow the will. Victor, however, did all he could in order that this excommunication should be recognized—he even pronounced it; but that act remained but an attempt, and had to be ratified by the other Churches in order to be valid. Victor did not have, then, as Bishop of Rome, the power to excommunicate other Churches, since the effect did not follow the sentence which he believed himself entitled to give in the name of the Western Churches, because of the importance of his See.

The Bishops, who would have submitted to his sentence, if they had recognized in him the Head of the Church, invested with universal authority, not only did not obey him, but strongly censured his conduct.

"But this," adds Eusebius, "was not the opinion of all the Bishops. They immediately exhorted him," [Victor] "on the contrary, to contemplate that course that was calculated to promote peace, unity, and love to one another."

Thus, instead of believing that unity consisted in union with Victor, the bishops exhorted him to observe better the true notions of unity. Many went even further. "There are also extant," continues Eusebius, "the expressions they used, who pressed upon Victor with much severity. Among these also was Irenæus, who, in the name of those brethren in Gaul, over whom he presided, wrote an epistle in which he maintains the duty of celebrating the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord only on the day of the Lord. He becomingly also admonishes Victor not to cut off whole churches of God who observed the tradition of an ancient custom." Irenæus endeavored to show to Victor that differences in practice, of which, he gives divers examples, are not inconsistent with Unity of Faith. "And when," adds Eusebius, "the blessed Polycarp went to Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little deference among themselves likewise respecting other matters, they immediately were reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had always observed it" [a certain custom] "with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the Apostles with whom he associated; and neither did Polyearp persuade Anicetus to observe, who said that he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him. Which thing being so, they communed with each other; and in the church Anicetus yielded to Polyearp the office of consecrating." And thus, though following different usages, all remained in the communion of the Church. "And not only to Victor, but likewise to the most of the other rulers of the churches, he sent letters of exhortation on the agitated question." Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxiv.

Thus Victor could not, of his own authority, cut off from the Church, in fact, those whom he had declared excommunicate; the other Bishops resisted him vigorously, and St. Irenæus, the great divine of the age, made war in his letters upon those which Victor had written to provoke the schism.

This discussion, invoked by the partisans of Papal pretensions in their favor, falls back upon them with all its weight, and with a force that can not in good faith be contested.

Anicetus did not invoke his authority against Polycarp, nor did Victor against Irenæus and the other Bishops. Polycarp and Irenæus reasoned and wrote as equals of the Bishop of Rome in Episcopal authority, and recognized but one rule—ancient tradition.

How were the Churches reünited in a common practice? Eusebius thus relates that happy result, which certainly was not due to the Bishop of Rome: Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Book V. chap. xxv.

"The Bishops, indeed, of Palestine, Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the Bishop of the Church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came together with them, having advanced many things respecting the tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the Apostles, regarding the Passover, at the close of the epistle use these words: 'Endeavor to send copies of the epistle through all the Church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria which we also do; for letters have been sent by us to them and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time.'"

Nevertheless, many Churches preserved the tradition of the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus, and were not on that account regarded as schismatics, although Victor had separated himself from their communion.

The partisans of the Papal system attach much importance to the influence exercised by the Bishop of Rome in the question of Easter and some other matters: they transform that influence into authority. This is an untenable paralogism. It is not to be wondered at that the Bishop of Rome should have enjoyed from the first a high influence in religious questions; for he filled the first See of the West, and as Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, he was the natural link between East and West. It was then understood that the Catholic Church was not exclusively in any country; that the East possessed no more universal authority than the West. This is why certain heretics, born and condemned in the East, sought protection in the West, and above all at Rome, its representative. Thus it is, that even some saints—as Polycarp of Smyrna—went themselves to Rome to confer with the Bishop of that city upon religious questions.

But it is not possible conscientiously to study these facts from reliable documents without eliciting this truth: that the influence of the Bishop of Rome did not arise in an universal authority—that it did not even have its source in an authority recognized by all the Western Churches, but was simply derived from the importance of his See.

Rome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters—for political business or private interests—and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.

Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse. St. Iræneus, In Hæres. Lib. III. cap. iii. This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always." But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries." We must quote the text of St. Irenæus, that it may be compared with our translation, "Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelesiarum enumerare successiones; maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per coecitatem et malam sententiam præterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quæ est ab Apostolis, Traditio."

The [Ultramontane] theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with—which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximæ, antiquissimæ, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient—every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries—(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, "In all that the faithful believe," not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father.

In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world.

How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessaryto adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true—thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city—but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation.

It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead. But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show that he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other Bishops." The only direct reference in existence about St. Peter personally transferring his authority to the Bishops of Rome comes from the Clementine Homilies, which has been proven forgeries. The Pope is only St. Peter's successor as bishop of Rome in the same way that the Patriarch of Antioch is St. Peter's successor as Bishop of Antioch.

Why do you insist on ignoring that minor text in Chrysostom's writings?

Why do you insist on claiming I am ignoring St. John's complete writings? I told you exactly what I was doing, which was establishing the lack of credibility of Guetee. He said no one called St. Peter a rock, and I showed St. John doing just that.

So are you saying St. John is being self-contradictory where I quote him as saying the rock is the confession?

Again, I said nothing of the sort, nor suggested it. If you are hearing that, it would be the echo of your own voice.

When reading any author it is imperative to read their writings in their larger cultural, historical and in the context of their other writings, unless of course they change their minds?

The perpetual cry of those who don't like a simple direct quote to proove a point.

You were cherry-picking because you ignored the section a few lines earlier where St. John Chrysostom refers to St. Peter's confession as the rock. I guess St. John doesn't know what he is talking about there, so his writing ought to be disregarded right?

I wasn't disregarding it, ignoring it, or cherry-picking. Guetee said no one called him rock, so I quoted St. John doing precisely that. I really couldn't care less about anything else St. John said in the context of establishing Guetee's lack of good faith, which was what I was writing about.

Why is it you ultramontanes avoid the patristic passages referring to St. Peter's confession being the rock like the plague?

I am not an ultramontanist, so I wouldn't know, and I am not aware of anyone "avoiding like the plague" what you are talking about.

The papal monarchy is a novelty of the Middle Ages that didn't exist prior to that.

You are making a great assertion here. Why not proove it? It would appear to me that the Pope was a secular Monarch at least from the time of the withdrawal of Roman forces from Rome circa AD 750. He was claiming an ecclesiastical monarchy far earlier than that, as witnessed by Tertullian's bitter reproach in his Montanist phase about the penetential decree of the "Supreme Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops" as Tertullian quotes him styling himself.

It is very easy and straightforward to find, for example, the Arabic version of the Canons of Nicea saying: "he who holds the seat of Rome is the head and Prince of all Patriarchs". Likewise, the 520 Eastern Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon wrote to St. Leo procliaming of themselves that: "Over these you ruled as a head over the members". St. Athanasius in his History of the Arian Heresy calls Rome "The Apostolic throne". St. Gregory Nazianz in his Poems says: "The faith of Rome was of old, and still is now, right, binding the whole west, as is just in her who presides over all." Theodoret says of Rome that "that most holy throne has the sovereignty over all the Churches throughout the universe on many grounds."

The pope can become a heretic, and several have. Vigilius, Pope Honorius, John XXII, St. Marcellus I who offered sacrifices to the pagan gods, etc.

The Pope being a heretic is irrelevant to him being protected from binding Christians to believing heresy, which is what infallibility is about. Again, I couldn't care less if 4 Popes out of 265 have been personal heretics. None of them bound Christians to believe their nonesense, and persecuted them for not doing so, unlike, for example, many of the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

If a pope cannot fall into heresy, why would Pope Pius IV find it necessary to promulgate the decree Cum Ex Apostolatus?

A Pope falling into heresy is quite a different thing than a Pope teaching heresy to the Church.

At least in a conciliarist system, if the primate falls into heresy, not everyone falls with him.

Everyone did not fall into heresy with John XXII or Honorius. On the other hand, the results of Conciliarist attempts at governance have been first, the Robber Synod of Ephesus, and the falling away into heresy of much of the East, and second, the addition of a 3rd Papal Claimant to the mess of the Great Schism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.