“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.