While I agree with the article (which is why I posted it), I did not write it - so it’s not “my position” that the article stakes out.
I’m reading a couple books that examine this issue. What I am convinced of is that what emerged as the RCC did not exist until the 4th century. I am convinced that nowhere dos the Scripture tell us to have a central Earthly authority over His people who are scattered around the globe. A study of the churches as described in the new Testament shows each of them (with one bad exception) led by a group of elders (not a priest in the lot), and not subject to an elder from another church - connected but not subjected.
The basic structure and practice of the RCC simply flies in the face of what I see revealed in Scripture.
Manfred, I’m less interesting in what you think of Rome in general than what you think of a specific historical charge that is made in the article. Maybe the Catholic Church is wrong on a million things. Okay. But is it wrong on this—that’s the question.
The charge is made in that article that the Bishop of Rome exercized no “papal” authority in the years before Constantine “paganized” things. If that were true, we would not see that kind of authority reflected in the Christian writers of the 1st, 2nd, and third centuries, right?
And yes, I am baiting a hook here. :)
Manfred the Wonder Dawg and others
What the Council of Jerusalem shows in the Acts of the Apostles (15: 7-11) is the Early Church using a Council to resolve a doctrinal dispute, as the New Testament (NT) had not yet been written (ie. First NT writing is ST. Paul’s 1 Thess, in AD 49) and the last books that eventually would be part of the NT Canon were not written until ca 90 AD (e.g., Gospel of John)-—The NT canon itself is a development, guided by the Holy Spirit, that would not be finally resolved until the late 4th century at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, in 393 and 397 AD, respectively.
So, Christ did indeed found a Church (c.f. Mt 16:18-19), which states:
Matthew 16:18-19: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . .. whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Christ is indeed the founder of the Church and is the good shepherd (c.f. John 10:110, but he gives the Church other shepherds to guide his Church (c.f. Eph 4:11-12). Sacred Scripture is full of passages that recognize St. Peter as first among the Apostles. Christ prays for Peter so that his “faith may not fail” (cf. Lk 23:32) so he can strengthen his brethren and Christ commands St. Peter to be a shepherd like he is as he tells Peter to “Feed his lambs…feed his sheep” (cf. John 21:15-17). Further, St. Peters name is first on every list of the apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14) and St. Mattew’s Gospel clearly calls St. Peter “first” (cf. Mt 10:2).
So, Christ did find a Church, and the Church is described as the Bride of Christ (c.f. Eph 5:26-27), “people of God (c.f.1 Pet 2:9-10), and as a body “Church has many members, but of one body, so it is with Christ” (c.f. 1 Cor 12:12-14). So, the Church is both visible and invisible, just as Christ had a Divine and human nature. A body that is not visible is not a Body. The Church, with Christ as the Head of the Church, has four marks, it is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”. The Church here in the world continues to be guided by the Apostles, just as the 1st century Church was guided by the Apostles, by the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops in communion with him, with of course the power of the Holy Spirit.
So at the end of the Apostolic age, while Jerusalem may have been the center of the Church in the first few years (c.f. Acts 15:), by the end of the 1st century, the Church of Rome had now become the center of the Church and would have a Primacy among the Bishops. These is demonstrated by St. Clement of Rome’s, 3rd successor to St. Peter, letter to the Eastern Church in Corinth (AD 95). Pope Benedict, in a catechetical address on 3/7/2007, cites the Patristic Sources in the early Church on the importance of this letter. Pope Benedict writes that the most important testimony concerning his life comes from St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons until 202. He attests that Clement “had seen the blessed Apostles”, “had been conversant with them”, and “might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes” (Adversus Haer. 3, 3, 3 ca 175 AD).
Since he was the Bishop of Rome, letters he wrote took on importance, but only 1 is acknowledged as being his (e.g., the One sent to Corinith). Pope Benedict (3/7/07) notes that Eusebius of Caesarea, the great “archivist” of Christian beginnings, presents it in these terms: “There is extant an Epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter Church. We know that this Epistle also has been publicly used in a great many Churches both in former times and in our own” (Hist. Eccl. 3, 16).
Pope Benedict states further: Clement’s intervention - we are still in the first century - was prompted by the serious problems besetting the Church in Corinth: the elders of the community, in fact, had been deposed by some young contestants. The sorrowful event was recalled once again by St Irenaeus who wrote: “In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful Letter to the Corinthians exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles” (Adv. Haer. 3, 3, 3).
Thus, we could say that this Letter was a first exercise of the Roman primacy after St Peter’s death.
Other 2nd century Church Fathers who attest to the Primacy of the Church of Rome, due to St. Peter being first among the apostles, include St. Ignatius of Antioch who based on both St. Peter and Paul being in Rome states that it (Church of Rome) “Presides in Charity”.
St. Ireneaus of Lyons writing (ca 175 AD) against Gnostics ( such as Marcion, who was excommunicated in Rome in 144 AD and forced church to begin addressing the Canon of Scripture) tells the orthodox Christians that these Gnostics do not have “Apostolic Tradition”. He uses the Church of Rome to prove his point, since it would be tedious to do all the successions. He writes:
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the succession of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this, I say), by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, also by pointing out that the faith preached to men, which comes down to our times by means of the succession of Bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority-—that is the faithful everywhere inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”
No Church Father ever rejected the Primacy of the Church of Rome, not did they reject that St. Peter was the first among the Apostles, which was what the Primacy of the Church of Rome was linked to. I would also like to point out both Canon 6 and 7 (source Catholic site: newadvent.org) of the Council of Nicea (325 AD), the council that rejected the Christological heresy of Arianism.
Canon 6:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Canon 7:
Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Note that both the Church’s at Alexandria and Antioch are being given primacies that are already at Rome. Further, the Church of Jerusalem is given “the next place of honor”. Thus, the interpretation as to how canons 6 and 7 relate to the Primacy among the Churches clearly states that the Church of Jerusalem has a place of honor, after Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Now, how do we interpret the relationship among Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Well, it is clear that the Patristic evidence, when linked to the place of St. Peter among the Apostles, sees the Church of Rome as having the Primacy among the Churches. Of course, the nature of that primacy still needs to be developed and understood in the instance of a re-united Catholic and Orthodox Church.
If you go to Canon 7 from the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), you will see that it gives the Church of Constantinople, after Rome. However, please note that nothing was said about Constantinople’s primacy in relation to both Antioch and Alexandria. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, Canon 28 the Primacy as 1) Rome, 2) Constantinople, 3 and 4 Antioch and Alexandria, and 5) Jerusalem. Now, Pope Leo and the Catholic Church did not accept Canon 28 as Alexandria and Antioch both existed before Constantinople, and thus it had not right to ahead of those two Bishops. Still, while Rome rejected Canon 28, I think the quote from Bishop Paschasinus clearly states how the the Councils viewed the Church of Rome:
Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and representative, read: “Canon Six of the 318 holy fathers, The Roman Church has always had the primacy.” (source newadvent.org)
So, in summary, the Church of Rome did in fact have a Primacy which is supported by the orthodox Apostolic Tradition, both Sacred Scripture and Tradition as expressed by the Church Fathers and the great Early Councils that defended and defined core Christological Doctrines.
Have a nice day