“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.