Remembering the Early Church

My interlocutor has usually been reading a book by Garry Wills or Elaine Pagels, who view the events of sacred history as power plays by vested interests. If my weekend controversialist hasn't been reading a heterodox best-seller, he or she has been taking one of those smartly put-together adult Bible classes in Manhattan, which let it be known that the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass, the papacy, and the episcopate are late Roman inventions.

How, over a glass of chardonnay, does one respond? How does one lightly utter the names of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and the Didache? Or mention Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other early witnesses to the fact that the Church in the first centuries was Roman Catholic?

Before there ever was a canon of the New Testament, there was a Church. And its paper trail is Catholic. In his two anti-papal books, Garry Wills is dismissive of these early non-biblical documents, but they are well worth knowing about.

In 95 A.D., a three-man embassy with a letter from the fourth bishop of Rome arrived at Corinth, where there were dissensions in the local church. In that letter, Pope St. Clement speaks with authority, giving instructions with a tone of voice that expects to be obeyed. The interesting point is that the apostle John was still living in Ephesus, which is closer than Rome to Corinth. But it was the bishop of Rome (at the time, a smaller diocese) who dealt with the problem.

Then there are the seven letters of St. Ignatius, who was martyred in Rome in 106. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch (Peter had been the first) and a disciple of the apostle John. Because these letters, written en route to Rome, are so Catholic, their authenticity was long contested by Protestant scholars, but now they are almost universally accepted as genuine.

Ignatius was the first to call the Church "Catholic." He writes to the Ephesians that "the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world are the will of Jesus Christ…. Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop." And his letter to the church at Smyrna attacks those who deny the Real Presence: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins…."

It is noteworthy that in addressing the Church at Rome — a less ancient see than Antioch — Ignatius's tone changes entirely. He is deferential, praiseful: "You have envied no one; but others you have taught."

There is also the Didache, which was a kind of catechism and liturgical manual written some time between 70 and 150. It is a short document that could be used in RCIA today without changing a syllable.

The Didache (which means "teaching") begins with a number of prohibitions (including abortion). Then, after what is probably the text of an early eucharistic prayer, comes the money quote: "Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized…. On the Lord's day gather together, break bread and give thanks after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure…. For this is what was proclaimed by the Lord: 'In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice….'"

The last line is from Malachi, the last of the Old Testament prophets, who talks about how God, displeased with the sacrifices of the people of Judah, will accept the "sacrifice… the clean oblation" offered everywhere among the Gentiles. Early Christians considered this passage an anticipation of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

What these documents reveal is a primitive church that is recognizably hierarchical and centered on the Eucharist. Catholics, of course, do not base their faith on these early literary scraps but on the living authority of the Church. Still, it can be fun to broach these ancient names while nibbling an hors d'oeuvre.

” In addition, Canon 2 of Constantinople, even though there were no Western Bishops there, did not put limits on the jurisdiction and authority of Rome, only Alexandria and Antioch.”

Can you please show where any canon, from any ecumenical council, that gave to Rome an unlimited jurisdiction, like what you describe, over all the Bishops?

“And if Rome, and Alexandria and Antioch were equal, per your reading of Canon 6 at Nicea [not a priority of rank], then if Constantinople felt it could usurp Alexandria and Antioch, why wasn’t Rome usurped given the Political and Civil power were now East.”

You are confusing the Primacy that Rome thinks of, which is Monarchical and religious, as head of the church, with the different “primacy” of the East, which gave weight to Rome only on the basis of it being the former “Royal City,” and not because they conceded that the Bishop in Rome was really the vicar of Christ, “THE” Apostolic See, rather than “an” Apostolic See, head of the church on Earth whose authority was not to be gainsaid. This same honor belonged to Antioch and Alexandria because they were (alleged, though their lists are just as flaky as Rome’s) Apostolic Sees, which even claimed, and was acknowledged, as having the “throne of Peter,” and having the same honor and prestige in religious issues as that of Rome, though different interpretations by different church Fathers only saw Peter as a type, a symbol for all Apostles.

“And Patristic Scholars like Harnack and Lightfoot, with respect to Clement’s Letter pointed out that it showed the important of the Roman Church, even independent if we do not know for sure whether Clement was the “sole Bishop” of Rome [could have had co-Bishops, what are now auxiliary Bishops in current Catholic Church hierarchies, e.g., the Archdiocese of Chicago has one Cardinal Archbishop and I think 4 or 5 Auxiliary Bishops.”

Why do you keep mentioning Clement’s letter? Though I am pleased that you are conceding that there is no evidence for your Pope in it, though you are still fantasizing that there can be found proof here for the “importance of Rome.” A similar argument could be made about any church that was written to by Ignatius, perhaps, and Rome was the only church he failed to write to any leader by name (because there was no individual leader). As for your claim about “auxiliary Bishops,” that is pure speculation, which you have no way of knowing but by your blind faith, which still has not uttered a word about most of what I have written in this thread, though if we go to the scripture, we find only Elders who are equivalent to Bishops, and as Ignatius said, “the head of the Bishop is God.”

“St. Ignatius of Antioch [Eastern Church Bishop, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John] certainly, in his Letter to Rome ties it to Peter and Paul. Irnenaeus certainly does it as well in 180AD, and there was no mention of Royal city as Christendom at that time was outlawed. This entire theme of using the Royal City image was purely an Eastern Theory”

IOW, you acknowledge that there was no special charism of Peter attached to the Bishop of Rome in the earliest times, but rather was praised for having been founded by both Peter and Paul, who both ordained Bishops.

Though, of course, Irenaeus is incorrect. Neither Peter nor Paul actually founded the church in Rome, as it was already existing before either had even arrived, and Peter, likely, did not even go there until his death.

“THis is theological nonsense because it makes theology and Church authority a function of politics. Nonsense.”

How do you say this with a straight face when you just got done, in this very post, describing the church authority as a function of politics? You even warned me to be aware of the “political machinations” going on between Popes, Emeperors, and Easterners, which even forced a Pope to yield. What do you call it when rival Bishops jostle each other for influence and power, and the Emperor is in the middle of it meddling? This is the same thing Pope Gregory the Great warned against, and the scripture as well, which fallen men, of course, are seldom willing to obey.

“Vigilus, as the Westerners told him, was making a dangerous precedent in condemning men who were dead and while they may have had incorrect theological writings, they accepted the Councils of Ephesus were reconciled and died in peace with the Church at the time of Chalcedon 451AD”

IOW, the decision of the Pope was overwhelmed and undone, which he submitted to, in complete agreement with Augustine, Cyrpian, and other church fathers, in the mode of government for resolving controversy. Note: You have ceased from depicting Rome as having jurisdiction to make decisions for the entirety of the church.

I will also add that, if this is the image you want us to have of the “early church being Roman Catholic,” you must de-legitimize and de-Christianize even your own Doctors of the church, who do not support your view of church government, nor your doctrines. Thus your assertion can only be true... if you are refferring only to Christians in Rome as the only Christians on Earth, and, at this, only under certain reigns, in certain times.

You are reading in your Protestant narrative on a early Church that was hierarchical, Conciliar, Liturgical, sacramental. So lets get that out in the front right there. Nobody, had a model that fits whatever run of the mill Protestant body you belong to. The notion that American Protestantism was the model of the early Church, which was Mediterranean and thus Roman and Greek is laughable!

Futhermore, I did not say the Canon 2 of Constantinople defined as the jurisdiction of Rome, it did put parameters on the jurisdiction of Antioch and Alexandria. No such parameters were put on Rome. In addition, if there was a dissension between Bishops in Egypt, the arbitrator of those disputes would be the Bishop of Alexandria, same for Antioch. But if something was to impact the entire Church, for it to be binding, Only Rome and its acceptance of the Council would bind it across Christendom.

And your appeal to Ignatius writing to Rome and not addressing it to a Bishop does not prove anything. It only is addressed to the Church of Rome. In the Western Theological framework, as Pelikan points out in Sprit of Eastern Christianity, the Bishop of Rome got his authority because he was the Bishop of the Church of Rome [given its connection to both Peter and Paul], in the East, the Church of Constantinopile got its authority because there was a Bishop.

And the Church was Roman, that was the culture that Christianity developed and grew up in and in the context of the Roman empire, that would mean Latin roads, rules of Law and defining doctrines and Greek philosophy and language. As the seat of power moved East and the Latin half in the West had less contact with the Greek East, there were cultural issues that impacted Christianity.

This notion of No Monarchial Bishop is an argument that means nothing, it is a Protestant argument grasping at air. Has no bearing. The Church at Rome had authority because of its connection to Peter and Paul [Irenaeus stated as much], Ignatius letter to Rome points to that. The fact that we have no clear empirical evidence of a sole Bishop in Leadership in ROme till St. Pius [140 to 154AD] does not mean there was no lead Bishop before. You are argueing from silence. We do know, based on St. Ignatius Letter to Eastern Churches that there was sole Bishops in all the Eastern Churches he addressed [Polycarp directly, Bishop of Smyrna and the other 5 Eastern Churches]. Given the constant 2nd century testimony that Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, and St. Ignatius a disciple of Polycarp, it is not to far a stretch [empirically verified] that in the Eastern Church, the monarchial Bishop had its connection to Apostolic Tradition via St. John and was operational before the end of the 1st century.

Rome on the other hand had Peter and Paul, and also, given its strong Republican understanding of leadership may have had Several Bishops who ran the Church of Rome [although 1 was probably the Chief Bishop] and thus the sole Bishop concept where 1 Bishop wrote in the name of the Church of Rome could have not developed until the time of Pius in 140AD when the need to have a clear voice against heretical movements required the need for 1 Bishop in Rome to speak on behalf and for the Church of Rome.

Your claims of No monarchial Bishop in Rome before 140AD is pure conjecture, usually made by Protestant Polemics to make some not relevant point. If a Pope dies, the Church of Rome’s status at the First See does not change. It is still the first and most important Apostolic See.

There are many Protestant patristic scholars of recent times, Chadwick, Pelikan and even JND Kelley who readily acknowledge the leadership and authority of the Church of Rome by the end of the 1st century, independent of whether or not there was 1 clear cut Chief Bishop of Rome or there were several Bishops in Rome who in a collegial fashion lead the Church of Rome.

So we don’t know, as there is no clear evidence from the late 1st and early 2nd century if there was a Single Bishop leading the Church of Rome. On the other hand, we do know, given the available evidence that the sole Bishop is well established by the time of Saint Pius 1 [140AD], we also know, given St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s Against Heresies 180AD, and he to was a disciple of Polycarp, thus by extension closely associated with the Apostolic Tradition of the Apostle John, that he lists the Bishops of Rome after SS Peter and Paul. That we do know.

In closing, after my 7 years here, we are getting somewhere. The FR Protestant Brigades here use to claim that all of the models of Roman Catholicism did not occur till Constantine and his Edict of Milan in 313 and the Council of Nicea in 325AD. And don’t give me any nonsense that I am making that up, I am not. It was a constant charge here and in the Protestant blogsphere at large.

Now, what we are left to hear from the FR Protestant brigades is well, there does seem to be some primacy with the Church of Rome along with Antioch and Alexandria and later COnstantinopile, Jersulem, etc. At a minimum, the FR Protestant Brigades concede Rome was at a minimum, at the time of 325AD, one of the 3 Chief Apostolic Sees of Authority. So that results in an “O.....” moment. So, the next thing is start to say, well Irenaues does recognize the Church of Rome as preeminent in authority and he gives a list of the Bishops of Rome. Hmmmm, well we can find independent evidence from the Muratorian fragment regarding Pius I as Sole Bishop, supporting Ireneaus of Lyons List, so that gets us to 140AD.

But ohhh Weight, we can’t find any other source to confirm St. Irenaues of Lyon’s list before 140AD. A EUREKA!!!!!! moment. Not! And the Letter of CLement of Rome, assuming there were other Bishops in Rome with him circa 95AD, doesn’t change the fact that St. Clement of Rome wrote on behalf of the Church of Rome [West] to the Church in Corinth [East] and in addition, there is no evidence that he co-wrote it with any of these “hypothetical” other Co-Bishops that “hypothetically” may have been in some leadership capacity at the Church of Rome. And even if there were “hypothetical co-Bishops at the Church of Rome” at the time St. Clement wrote his Letter to the Church of Conrinth, it still indicates that the Church of Rome corrected a potential schism in the Church of Corinth which would be in the Eastern half of the Roman empire.

http://catholicconvert.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/the-one-true-church-the-catholic-church/

The Nicene Creed, profess – that the Church is;

One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic

The Church is One

“Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” – 1 Corinthians 10:17

Do we share one loaf? As Catholics we do, but do protestants? No. There is no definitive protestant understanding of the ‘one loaf’ and thus they can not all partake of’one loaf’.

We can know that there is meant to be only one church because in scripture the Church is referred to as being the bride of Christ…if the Church is not one, then Christ would be a bigamist were we all to be his ‘brides’ and that is a nonsense.

If we are one, then we profess one belief, one faith, one set of teachings. This is clearly not the case when we look outside the Catholic Church and 33,000 + denominations each have their own ‘man-made’ teachings and beliefs.

We are to be a Church united under the one visible head of the Church on earth, the Pope. Just as the early church was united under the one visible head of the church, Peter, the first Pope, who alone was given the authority to lead the church.

The Catholic Church alone has this mark of unity, while all protestant denominations trust in their own judgement, which is by it’s nature, erroneous. Catholics recognize the authority of the Pope, the bishops of the Church and their successors.

The Church is Holy

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” – Ephesians 5:25-27

The Church is holy because it was founded by Christ who himself is holy.

The Church is not made holy by its members who make up the Catholic Church but by the Deposit of Faith that was given to the Catholic Church alone. The Church is made holy then because of the grace poured out by God, upon it.

The Church is holy because of its Sacraments through which we are able to receive an outpouring of the grace of God, and through which we may become holy.

Through the Churches doctrines, the church is holy.

The Church is Catholic

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” – Mathew 28:19-20

Churches come and churches go but the Catholic Church will stand forever.

The church is ‘Catholic’, because it is universal, ie it is open to everyone.

The Catholic Church fulfils the scripture that disciples should be made of all nations. To this day catholic missionaries travel the far reaches of the earth to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to know Christ. (over a million africans each year convert to the Catholic faith)

Christ promised to be with the Church (note, not churches) and its members, until the end of time. Hence, Jesus can now – and always will be – found in the Catholic Church.

The Church is Apostolic

“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God,built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone” – Ephesians 2:19-20

Jesus himself appointed the Apostles and gave them the authority to lead the church. Jesus didn’t start something to let it fizzle out, he knew that the Apostles would ordain successors who would in turn ordain successors, thus ensuring an Apostolic lineage that would span nigh on 2,000 years, and for all the years to follow. In the same way, Jesus did not leave his church bereft of a visible leader. He gave St. Peter alone the authority to lead the church and that same authority and power has been passed on to each of St. Peter’s successors.

Since the Church’s foundation it has believed in Christ’s Resurrection, in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, has celebrated Mass, has forgiven sins via the Sacrament of Reconciliation, has baptised its members, has venerated Mary and has accepted the authority of the Pope and the bishops of the Church etc. To this day, it still does so. This can not be said for any other church.

There is a wealth of written evidence to support this in the early Christian writings and scripture itself attests to it.

In summary then, what does this all boil down to?

For the most part, I think it boils down to one thing and one thing alone. If God founded one church and one church alone, what businesses have any of us to be anywhere but in it?

The "notion" that there was no "Monarchial Bishop" as you put it, "is an argument that means nothing"???

No sir, it is part of the overall core of the differences, your own or any other Roman Catholic's unwillingness to see it, notwithstanding.

Where is your friend Pelikan, now? Not that any number of converts is binding upon establishment of truth -- but this particular one went a bit further East, as you have related to us here previously. Personally I know nothing much directly of him otherwise.

Whichever the reasons, there is some discord to that journey (East)by it's very fact of being, compared with that which you extract from him in the ways those things have been [seemingly] sought to apply. His own words bearing directly upon the matter (of his own opinions and reasons for going East as it were) could be of interest --- and of those I mean rather complete words of explanation, if any -- and not taken out of context of what else could be most bearing upon that, stray qualifiers on the matter included. Partial quotes, or just edited snippets, would not do...

Since I've not seen his own work, but have here seen a bit of extraction of snippets, I don't know what his open and complete thought could be in this particular regard --- and I'm not going to hold my breathe waiting for someone to tell me.

But as to Christians, this aspect of difference between those who could possibly be labeled "papists" and all the rest, is far from "means nothing", although at the same time, it is not "everything" either, for both better and worse, with that latter instance, the "for the worse" one could easily add a "sad to say".

The troubles persist, when there are those who maintain that to be in 'communion with' the bishop of Rome (thus fully in communion with Christ also?) it need be on terms unilaterally dictated by Roman Catholics (to be in Romish eyes "full communion") includes acceptance of such concept as there being a Monarchial bishop and the priesthood there also, themselves alone the center of the all Christianity, etc -- with the added concept that God indeed desired it to be that way. That last one is the real deal-breaker.

Whatever consideration of honor & respect Rome once had for reason of it's double Apostolicity, it simply was not, from earliest beginnings believed and considered, said in those times entirely irrevocably to be true in all regards which application of those concepts over span of long centuries later became, bit by conflated bit to the degree that Roman Catholics now try to pretend that it should have been and was the very design from the beginning (when the pretense of it "always was" from Ancient days is swept away).

Or else Newman wouldn't have had to come up with his 'from an acorn (which does not look like an oak) is "developed" the oak' --- for due care need be taken lest one end up like the Jews of old, having added by their own traditions that which God Himself did not decree or direct, but was by hand of man well blended in with all that was more truly of Him, even the Creator of Heaven and the earth.

These pretenses, both the idea that it always was as it is now, or that otherwise things (including but not limited to "papacy as know today) "developed" accurately according to plan of God (chaos home only far from Roman Catholic confine) is quite traceable enough in the various conceptual puff by puff expansions, albeit difficult to condense into a single volume, much less some note of discussion on these pages.

It only takes one small fact --- if not fitting into a "theory", or else needing scads of special pleading and explanation to cover-up for or redefine it so that it shall, to falsify any theory, and if not entirely, then not only leave grounds for further adjustment and refinement as to the theory (or set of them), but rather produce demand for "further refinement" to be done.

“But if something was to impact the entire Church, for it to be binding, Only Rome and its acceptance of the Council would bind it across Christendom.”

Yet the East wholly accepted the 28th canon of Chalcedon, which was even confirmed at the Council of Trullo, an ecumenical council, which had, in its attendance, the major patriarchs of the East, ignoring the complaint of the Pope... which was not disputing Rome having a primacy based on Rome being the “royal city,” which, you would think, would be the real cause for alarm.

If Christian churches believed they couldn’t do anything without the agreement of Rome, then why have they ignored Rome on this matter for 1,600 years?

“The notion that American Protestantism was the model of the early Church, which was Mediterranean and thus Roman and Greek is laughable!”

The idea that the early Church was Roman Catholic, even when they denied essential Romish doctrines, is actually laughable. And I’m the only one whose actually provided primary evidence for that, which the Papists continually ignore as if it was never said.

“The Church at Rome had authority because of its connection to Peter and Paul [Irenaeus stated as much], Ignatius letter to Rome points to that.”

I don’t think you appreciate the problematic nature of your assertions here. Same with everything else. If the early church gave honor to Rome based on the work of Peter and Paul (despite the scriptural and historical problems with the idea itself), or gave Rome honor due to its place as a Royal city, then you gain your Primacy at the expense of the Papacy.

(This is a trade I am willing to make, for obvious reasons, as a Papist understanding of Primacy without a Papacy is nothing at all. And I would be forced to heed the words of Cyril of Jerusalem, and stick with the scripture over the innovations of Rome.)

Romish doctrine does not understand Rome as gaining its authority because of two Apostles, but because of one. Nor does it understand there being a number of Bishops of Rome, each one ordained by Peter or Paul, each a legitimate successor, running things in a “collegial” fashion until a later development forced one to take the lead.

Rome does not see itself as “an” Apostolic See, but as “the” Apostolic See, as we see in Pope Leo’s misquote of Augustine on the matter. Rome does not acknowledge Pope Gregory’s teaching that understood that there were many “Sees of Peter,” and that there was no difference between these Sees. It sees Rome as the Throne of Peter, and its Bishop as the successor over the whole church, a claim which was never accepted by the Christian world, and one which the Papists only developed over time.

It does not see itself as having a “developing” doctrine of the Papacy, or a history of development, but one that has never changed. And when we punch holes with its changes, its lack of unity, the doctrines of the early church fathers which run contrary to official church teachings, and many other things besides, the claims of the Romish church fall to pieces.

“[although 1 was probably the Chief Bishop]”

Why do you continue to make this assertion? You will not find, in any of the writings of the early church, any mention of a title above that of a Bishop, no hint of a “chief” Bishop, nor anything resembling Papist claims, not eve, in fact, in a Pope like Gregory the Great, who condemned the idea itself, as late as the 6th century.

You then have the gall to claim that my response was “speculation,” even though you yourself, under the weight of the evidence, have already began speaking of multiple Bishops existing in Rome, though you insert the “chief Bishop” despite an absolute absence of evidence to save your pitiful claims.

“So, the next thing is start to say, well Irenaues does recognize the Church of Rome as preeminent in authority”

Ignoring the contradiction of a “preeminence” without the Papacy for a moment, could you please provide evidence that shows Irenaeus believed that Rome was “the” Apostolic Sees, or was superior to all the Apostolic Sees?

” So that results in an “O.....” moment.’

First of all, you’re taking me out of context. My reference was to Pope Gregory’s position in the 6th century. I wasn’t talking about the 4th century. You also are making too much out of my statements, since, as already posted before, there was no universal agreement even on what the “Rock” was amongst the church Fathers. For example:

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.)

So when you start beating your chest, you do so only because you’ve ignored most of what’s gone on in this thread.

I am perfectly happy with Pope Gregory applying to himself and others the title of “Peter’s Successor,” since I also recognize that this means something very different, depending on which ancient father you ask. And, in either case, it destroys Romish claims.

Greetings:

It only destroys “Rome’s claims” in your mind. I don’t share your views, sorry. Now, ok, my bad, you were indeed talking about Gregory [590 to 604AD], for some reason, I just thought Leo I at Chalcedon. I did not process that correctly. Again, My bad.

Still, the notion of monarchial Bishop, was the entire point of one of your earlier your post, it was cited in earlier post that the earliest evidence from several sources of a monarchial Bishop is Pius 1, 140AD-154AD. And strictly on a scholarly level, that is the earliest date that we can get multiple sources to confirm Pius I was the monarchial Bishop of Rome [Irenaeus 180AD, Muratorian Fragment, 155AD-180AD]. Although, with respect to Clement of Rome’s Letter, which was written in the name of the Church, I know of no scholar that has ever claimed it was written by additional Bishops or presbyters along with St. Clement.

Again, Papal primacy does not mean papal dominance. The Bishop of Rome while having a primacy to defend the faith and orthodoxy, that does not mean the Bishop of Rome should micromanage every Diocese, that is nonsense and the Bishop of Rome can be imprudent in the use of this authority. Take for example Pope Victor [189-199] in the late 2nd century, he excommunicated numerous Eastern Churches over the date of celebrating pascha [Easter]. St. Ireneaus, wrote to Victor and pleaded for him not to do this and recalled how during the time of Anicetus as Bishop of Rome, Saint Polycarp went to Bishop Anicetus and while there were disagreements about certain practices that Rome observed and Smyrna and the East did not, and maybe vice versa, they kept peace and Bishop Anicetus made way for Bishop Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his Church and Rome and Smyrna remained in communion with each other. Now, this might not mean anything to you, but the fact that Saint Polycarp, who was a pupil of Saint John, went to talk to Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, to ensure the Church of Smyrna remained in communion with the Bishop of Rome, does that not imply both the principle of communion and respect for the principle that communion with Rome was important, even for an Eastern Church like Smyrna, who still had a Bishop who was a pupil of the Apostle John [probably last living Christian who new an Apostle].

In addition, the Letter of Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus to Pope Victor clearly speaks of Bishops in the East were called together to respond to Victor and they, obviously were not happy with the threat of excommunication. Still, nobody questioned Victor’s authority to do so, but it was clear that many other Eastern Bishops thought that Bishop Victor was not acting in Christian charity and humility. For the record, I think they were correct. No need to excommunicate someone over Liturgical traditions on when to celebrate Easter. Nevertheless, and for the record, at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the the Church of Rome’s custom for celebrating Pascha/Easter was what was codified as standard practice for the entire Church. So while I think Pope Sylvester thru Bishop Ossius and the Two Papal Priest Legates, Victor and Vicent got this done, it was done in a more charitable method and gave other Churches in the East a chance to hear Rome’s theological and Liturgical reasons for why Easter should always fall on a Sunday. In other words, it was done with the CHristian theological principle of charity, not autocratic methods.

Now as to the development of the Papacy, and more to the time of Gregory I, which you did refer to several times, I am going to defer to the works from both Jaroslav Pelikan and Henry Chadwick and cite their works with respect to the Church of Rome and thus the Bishop of Rome and its development.

Pelikan in the last chapter of The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Doctrine 100AD-600AD summarized the Bishop of Rome and Papacy [352-357]. He states that while earlier Popes, notably Leo I, hand set forth much of the content of the doctrine of papal primacy, there is probably no exaggeration that the teaching and practice of Gregory I as the significant turning point, not only jurisdictionally, but also theologically. Pelikan cites a letter from Gregory I to illustrate this point where Gregory states “To all who know the Gospel, it is obvious that by the voice of the Lord the care of the entire Church was committed to the Holy Apostle and prince of the Apostles, Peter….behold, he had been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose……And we certainly know that many priests of the church of Constantinople have fallen in a whirlpool of heresy and become heretics…Certainly, in honor of Peter, the prince the of the Apostles the title Universal was offered to the Roman Pontiff by the venerable Council of Chalcedon.

Pelikan notes that the proof text used for the doctrine of primacy of Peter among the apostles and thus the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope in the Church was the Mat. 16:18 and Pelikan notes that the meaning of this passage as it applied to Rome and other Churches had been a matter of controversy going back to Cyprian in the 3rd century, but Gregory had no hesitation in quoting it along with John 21:17 and Luke 22:31, as proof text. Pelikan points out that the all the statement of Gregory were not meant to exalt the place of Peter among the apostles in the first century, but to affirm the place of the Bishop of Rome in the 6th. Peter had been first Bishop of Rome, and the pope was his successor. Even though Peter could be connected to both Alexandria and Antioch as well, everybody new the see of Peter was Rome. When the legates at Chalcedon responded to the reading of Leo’s Tome, “Peter has spoken through Leo” they wee giving voice to this general assumption. Pelikan adds that Rome was where both Peter and Paul had been martyred and were buried, and this had given the Church of Rome a unique eminence as early as the time of Tertullian [155AD to 240AD]. He adds that the title of Universal could not be claimed by Constantinople, even though it was the New Rome. The Church of Rome, Pelikan states, was the mother of other Churches in the Latin West, which were subject to it.

Pelikan continues [p.354] that the Churches of the East, too, owed special allegiance to Rome, including Constantinopile. By hailing the authority of Leo, the fathers of Chalcedon gave witness to the orthodoxy of Rome. One see after another, Pelikan states, had capitulated in this or that controversy with heresy. Constantinopile had given rise to several heretics during the fourth and fifth centuries and other sees had been known to stray from the true faith occasionally. Pelikan continues and states “But Rome had a special position. The Bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, even before a council of called and if there was talk for the need to call one, Gregory asserted the principle that without the authority and consent of the apostolic see, no council had a binding force.” Pelikan notes that while Gregory was willing to draw a parraellel between the 4 Gospels and 4 Councils, he was already formulating a doctrine of the dogmatic authority of Rome, based on the primacy of Peter and corroborated by a record and reputation for doctrinal orthodoxy.

Earlier in Volume 1 [The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition: 100AD to 600AD ; Chapter 2 Outside the Mainstream] Pelikan states, it is becoming increasingly evident that this primitive Catholicism with its movement from kerygma to dogma was far more explicitly at work in the first century than previously thought [p. 70]. He goes on to freely acknowledge in in the later part of Chapter 2 that the Church of Rome was chief among the churches in authority and prestige [p. 118].

In volume 2 of Pelikan’s work [The Spirit of Eastern Christendom], he starts out by stating the schism of Western and Eastern Christianity was one of the greatest calamities in the history of the Church [I agree] and it seriously undermined the powers of resistance in the Christian East against the advances of Islam and on the other hand, it hastened the centralization of Western Christendom which resulted in many abuses and provoked widespread discontent so that the Reformation itself, which split Western Christendom into two hostile camps, was one of its consequences. [I tend to agree with his analysis here].

He then goes on to discuss the Orthodoxy of Old Rome starting out by saying dominating the discussion between East and West was the massive fact of Rome’s spotless [or nearly spotless] record for doctrinal orthodoxy. The Pope’s made use of this record quoting the Petrine text [Mt 16:18-19; John 21-15-17 as well as Luke 22:31, as noted earlier] and Pope Agatho [678-681AD] would rely on Peter’s protection, etc. Pelikan then states that the positive evidence of history was certainly cogent and Pelikan [referring back to his work in Volume 1, which I reviewed earlier] noted that the East had to admit that Pope Leo [Church of Rome] had been hailed as the “pillar of Orthodoxy” and had been remembered ever since [p. 148 of Volume 2].

Pelikan continues on and notes that Rome had been on the side that emerged victorious from one controversy to another, and eventually it became clear that the side Rome chose would be the one that would emerge victorious. Pelikan continues on by referring to the two issues discussed earlier in this work [Volume 2] and states that in the two dogmatic issues that we have discussed thus far, the person of Christ and the use of images in the Church, the orthodoxy of Rome was a prominent element, in the first of these perhaps the decisive element, so that when the relation of East and West itself became a matter of debate, the Latin Case could draw from the record established in the early centuries and the immediate past [p. 150].

Pelikan goes into the Monothelite issue and notes that even though Pope Honorius was said to have fostered it by his negligence [he never defined it, he said nothing in reality], what Rome had sad in local councils in 649 and 680 became the orthodox definition stated at Constantinople in 681 and states Peter was still speaking thru the Pope.

Rev. Henry Chadwick, The Anglican Patristic Scholar [Taught at Oxford and Cambridge] writes, with respect to the Church of Rome, that its role as a natural leader goes back to the early age of the Church. Its leadership can be seen in their brotherly intervention in the dispute at Corinth before the end of the first century. Chadwick continues and states that the first seeds of Rome’ s future development can be seen in St. Paul’s independent attitude towards the Church in Jerusalem and his focus on building up a Gentile Christendom focused upon the capital of the Gentile world. The standing of the Church of Rome was enhanced by its important part in the second century conflicts with heresy, and by it consciousness, expressed as early as 160AD in the monuments erected to the memory of St. Peter and St. Paul. By the end of the 2nd century, Pope Victor insisted, in a manner that others thought autocratic , that all churches should observe Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome.. Chadwick continues that before the 3rd century, there was no call for a sustained, theoretical justification of leadership. All were brethren, but the Church of Rome was accepted First among equals. He points out that the Petrine text of Matthew 16:18 cannot be seen to play a Role in Rome’s leadership till the mid-3rd century when there was a disagreement between Cyprian and Stephen, Bishop of Rome over baptism but by the 4th century, Pope Damasus, Rome would then be seen as using this text more and more for the theological and scriptural foundation of Rome’s leadership [Chadwick, The Early Church Revised Edition, 1989, page 237-238].

In summary, the notion of royal city and that language at Chalcedon was of Eastern theological framework. The Bishop of Rome, while yes it was the capitol of the Roman Empire in the 1st century, was not yet ruled by a Christian Emperor. You will find no writings in the Latin Church Fathers that I am aware of off the top of my head, that use “Royal City” to argue for Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

“I know of no scholar that has ever claimed it was written by additional Bishops or presbyters along with St. Clement.”

What about this Jesuit? Isn’t he a scholar?

From Daniel’s post:

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :

“Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” (page 3, top)

[Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as ‘was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz. therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]

“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).

Schatiz additionally states,

“Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome.” (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)

“Again, Papal primacy does not mean papal dominance.”

That’s exactly what it means, and that is the exact nature of every one of your claims thus far, though you seem to drop your claim and then move on to another assertion, the farther we go into this.

“St. Ireneaus, wrote to Victor and pleaded for him not to do this”

First, I’ll point out that excommunicating large swathes of people doesn’t imply a Papal authority by someone, unless Ecumenical councils or African Synods are, in fact, populated by Popes. From our Jesuit friend again:

“The emperor in turn called a council at Constantinople (the Second Council of Constantinople, 553) made up only of opponents of the three chapters. It not only condemned those three chapters but even excommunicated the pope. This was a unique case of an ecumenical council setting itself clearly against the pope and yet not suffering the fate of Ephesus II. Instead, over time it was accepted and even recognized as valid by the pope. The council got around the papal opposition by referring to Matthew 18:20 (’Where two or three are gathered in my name. . .’): no individual [including the Pope] could therefore forestall the decision of the universal Church. This kind of argument was invalid, of course, because the pope was not alone; the entire West was behind him, and yet it was not represented at the council. Broken in spirit, Vigilius capitulated after the end of the council and assented to its condemnation of the three chapters. The result was a schism in the West, where the pope was accused of having surrendered Chalcedon. A North African synod of bishops excommunicated the pope, and the ecclesial provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke communion with Rome. (Milan returned to communion only after fifty years; for Aquileia the breach lasted one hundred and fifty years, until 700).” (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 53)

I’ll also add that there is no teaching of the Papacy in Eusebius, and Victor is only spoken of as another Bishop, the one presiding over Rome, and not, say, presiding over the whole world.

“Still, nobody questioned Victor’s authority to do so”

Says who? The Papists? Eusubius describes them as “sharply rebuking” him:

“But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.” (Eusebius, Book 5, Ch. 24)

Aside from your blind faith, you have no basis to continue assuming that everyone was living in fear of the Bishops of Rome in religious matters.

“Even though Peter could be connected to both Alexandria and Antioch as well, everybody new the see of Peter was Rome. “

Except Pope Gregory, apparently. You should really take the time to read the post I keep referencing, and actually read what he said, rather than vomiting up something you found from someone else.

” By hailing the authority of Leo, the fathers of Chalcedon gave witness to the orthodoxy of Rome.’

As has been demonstrated, the “fathers of Chalcedon” understood Rome’s prestige as one associated with being in the former Royal city.

“You will find no writings in the Latin Church Fathers that I am aware of off the top of my head, that use “Royal City” to argue for Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.”

What about Augustine? Cyprian? They all do this on that basis, and also give contrary interpretations of the “Rock” that Rome embraces today.

I think you need to lay off the Romish propaganda and check out some primary sources from time to time.

Greetings:

Pelikan and Chadwick or not Romish sources. Fr. Schatz does not refute primacy, he just looks at the evidence of the time to see if Primacy as it developed to our times exactly the same at that time. Again, as a Scholar, he is taking the conservative approach and saying “we probably cannot say for certain that there was a Bishop of Rome in 95AD”. that can be also understood to say we can’t say definitively there was not a Bishop of Rome in 95AD. Schatz, a well trained Jesuit, is writing an academic paper in a scholarly journal, thus likely peer reviewed and subject to an editorial process, and thus is only writing what the extant evidence can let him say definitively.

I have already gone thru the 2nd Council of Constantinopile and alluded to the fact that the West was critical of that Council and its Political influence. And again, what Milan and Some of the Western Churches did was break communion with Rome over this, they eventually, came back to the See of Rome. The Pope [Vigilus] should have stood his ground and only condemned the writings of the 3 Chapters, not 3 men long dead who after the Council of Ephesus, embraced ifs Decrees and remained in communion with the Church. So, his fellow Westerners were correct in being critical of his actions, but were incorrect in creating a schism. There was no theological question at that Council, only to condemn the writings of 3 men, one the Professor or teacher of Nestorius, so as to help the Emperor bring back the Monophysite Churches [those that broke over Leo I’s Tome and the Chalcedon Decrees] back to communion with Constantinople as all of the schismatic churches with respect to Chalcedon were Eastern and around the See of Constantinople or close to it.

Eusebius gives us the account of St. Polycrates Letter to Victor. Irenaues also sent a letter to Victor imploring him not to do it. Nobody questioned his authority, they questioned whether this was wise and charitable and peaceful [I have the same quote that you cited]. They extorted him to consider peace and charity. Apparently, this same issue or similar issue had been an issue at the Time of Polycarp who went to Rome and asked the Bishop of Rome to consider the bonds of charity and peace and Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist in the Church of Rome.

Augustine and Cyprian did not use the “Royal city language” of the Byzatines [The New Rome and Old Rome theory]. And I did not make up anything, I was citing Pelikan’s work, not my own opinion, and the work of Chadwick, again, not my own opinion. Pelikan’s work was done while he was a Lutheran and Chadwick was an Anglican [I am not sure he is still alive].

And I have checked out primary sources. The Fathers of the Church, I have read. Pelikan and Chadwick’s work on the Early Church, I have read and have their books, Fr. Jurgens {Catholic Patristic Scholar] and his 3 Volume Set, Faith of our Fathers, I have read. Warren Carrol [A Catholic Historian] and his History of Christendom, I have read [and have not cited in any post for the reason he is a Catholic historian]. Pelikan and Chadwick were not, although one could detect in Pelikan’s writing a change in his understanding of the early Church as you progressively read his books, so much that He as a Lutheran, returned back to his Slavic heritage and went East although One who in his later years, worked for the reunion of Rome and Constantinople.

And finally, the Primacy of the Church of Rome as it exists by the Time of Gregory the Great or even Leo I is a organic development with its seeds and roots in the NT Petrine texts and the role of Rome in the 1st and 2nd century, which I will not recall here again. So what you have is the Seed and small tree in the 1st century growing into a lager tree by the time of Damasus around 380AD, Leo I circa 451AD, Gregory the The Great 600AD and Agatho at the time of 680AD. Schatz’ paper you cited, based on a quick reading of it, was probably structured in the lines that I wrote above.

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.

Remembering the Early Church

Lately, I have been hearing a lot about how the primitive Church was not Roman Catholic.