Posted on 07/12/2025 8:59:41 AM PDT by Philsworld
CHAPTER I: The supreme authority founded by Christ in His church
CHAPTER II: Was St. Peter appointed by Christ to be “the head of the church”?
CHAPTER III: The Papalist doctrine of the supremacy of Peter over the universal church
CHAPTER IV: On the titles bestowed upon St. Peter
CHAPTER V: St. Leo the Great and the ‘Papal Pretensions’
CHAPTER VI: The influence of the forgeries on the ‘Papal Pretensions’
CHAPTER VII: The testimony of the council of Florence and the fourth council of the Lateran as to Papalism
CHAPTER VIII: The witness of the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, as to Papalism
CHAPTER IX: The witness of the Sardican Canons as to Papalism
CHAPTER X: The witness of the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, as to Papalism
CHAPTER XI: The witness of the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, as to Papalism
CHAPTER XII: The witness of the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, as to Papalism
CHAPTER XIII: The alleged Roman episcopate of St. Peter
CHAPTER XIV: The testimony of St. Irenaeus
CHAPTER XV: The Testimony of St. Cyprian
CHAPTER XVI: The testimony of St. Jerome
CHAPTER XVII: The Testimony of St. Augustine
CHAPTER XVIII: The testimony of the Easterns—Part I
CHAPTER XIX: The testimony of the Easterns—Part II
CHAPTER XX: The Testimony of the Easterns—Part III
CHAPTER XXI: The Master of ‘The Episcopal College’
CHAPTER XXII: General Councils and ‘The Master’ of ‘The Episcopal College’
CHAPTER XXIII: The Episcopal College superior to the Bishop of Rome
CHAPTER XXIV: The Papalist conception of the position of the Bishops
CHAPTER XXV : Conclusion
NOTES (lengthy and detailed)
You make it sound like warning the world of Papal deception is a bad thing.
Thanks for proving my point. 😎
Papal Supremacy is a lie. Crystal clear from this article.
Is that a picture of one of your Popes?
LOL. Once again, you’ve proven my point. Keep digging! 😂
CHAPTER II: Was St. Peter appointed by Christ to be “the head of the church”?
Nope.
Yep, because apparently Jesus was lying when he changed Simon’s name and said that he would build his church upon him.
Now let’s watch the verbal gymnastics of the Protestants!
——>Now let’s watch the verbal gymnastics
Like how Catholics say that Christ literally meant to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Oh you poor thing--nobody wants to play your worn-out anti-Catholic game so you're reduced to answering your own questions. Pathetic, really.
This dead horse has been beat to death in these forums. No one cares but the anti-Catholics.
——>This dead horse has been beat to death in these forums. No one cares but the anti-Catholics.
It would seem that you’re going out of your way to convince people of that.
This thread speaks for itself. No interest.
No, its just more proof you dayworshippers are wingnuts and can’t stand on your own false “faith”.
Murphy you asked the Seventh day Adventist, phill of dim light, “How is it possible that you want to be so forthright in your indignation toward the Church; but are so disingenuous in ignoring the historical data that you know destroys the very foundation your weak arguments rest on?”
It’s very easy how Adventists do that, because they ignore the failed prophecies of their founder, which make her a false prophet and define Adventism as from Satan
Edward Denny’s Papalism (1912), cited in the provided document, is an Anglican polemic masquerading as scholarship, aimed at dismantling the Catholic doctrine of the papacy as articulated in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896) and Vatican I (1870). The work is riddled with historical distortions, selective citations, and theological errors, which we will expose. Furthermore, the use of this text by a Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) to attack Catholicism is hypocritical, given the SDA’s own foundation on the demonstrably false prophecies of Ellen G. White and the unbiblical doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.
Errors in Denny’s Papalism
1. Misrepresentation of Satis Cognitum and Vatican I
Denny claims that Satis Cognitum and Vatican I’s decrees on papal primacy and infallibility are innovations, unsupported by Scripture, Tradition, or history. This is a gross distortion. Satis Cognitum reaffirms the perennial Catholic teaching that Christ established Peter as the rock of the Church (Matt. 16:18-19), with successors in the Roman See. Vatican I formalized this, defining papal infallibility narrowly (ex cathedra pronouncements on faith and morals) and primacy as jurisdictional, rooted in divine institution.
Error: Denny asserts the papacy lacks biblical basis, ignoring Matt. 16:18-19 (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”), John 21:15-17 (“Feed my sheep”), and Luke 22:32 (“Strengthen your brethren”). These passages explicitly grant Peter a unique role, confirmed by his leadership in Acts (e.g., Acts 2:14, 15:7).
Correction: The early Church recognized Peter’s primacy. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) exercised papal authority in his Letter to the Corinthians, intervening in a distant church’s affairs. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) wrote in Against Heresies (3.3.2) that all churches must agree with Rome due to its “preeminent authority.” Denny cherry-picks sources, ignoring this consensus.
Denny’s Fallacy: He misreads Satis Cognitum as claiming universal papal monarchy in a secular sense, when it speaks of spiritual jurisdiction. This strawman distorts Catholic teaching, which distinguishes temporal and spiritual authority (cf. Unam Sanctam, 1302).
2. Historical Distortions
Denny alleges the papacy evolved through forgeries (e.g., Donation of Constantine) and power grabs, citing councils like Nicaea (325 AD) and Sardica (343 AD) as evidence of no early papal authority. This is historically false.
Error: Denny claims Nicaea and Sardica show no papal primacy. Nicaea’s Canon 6 acknowledges Rome’s authority alongside Alexandria and Antioch, but Rome’s primacy is presupposed (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.7). Sardica’s canons allowed appeals to Rome, affirming its appellate jurisdiction.
Correction: The Council of Florence (1439) and Lateran IV (1215), which Denny misrepresents, explicitly affirm papal primacy. Leo the Great (440-461 AD) exercised universal jurisdiction, as seen in his Tome at Chalcedon (451 AD), accepted as authoritative. Denny’s reliance on forgeries like the Donation is irrelevant, as the Church never dogmatically based primacy on them.
Denny’s Fallacy: He ignores the organic development of doctrine. The papacy’s role clarified over time, as did the Trinity or Christology, without negating its divine origin. Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine (1845) refutes Denny’s static view of Tradition.
3. Selective Use of Church Fathers
Denny cites Fathers like Cyprian and Augustine to argue against papal supremacy, claiming they viewed all bishops as equal. This is a half-truth.
Error: Denny misquotes Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Church to suggest he denied Rome’s primacy. Cyprian actually wrote, “To be in communion with [Rome] is to be in communion with the Catholic Church” (Epistle 55.1).
Correction: Augustine, far from denying papal authority, appealed to Rome against the Donatists (Epistle 43.7). The Fathers consistently upheld Rome’s role as arbiter of orthodoxy, as seen in Athanasius’ appeals to Pope Julius I (340 AD).
Denny’s Fallacy: He projects Protestant egalitarianism onto the Fathers, ignoring their hierarchical ecclesiology. His Anglican bias blinds him to the Catholic synthesis of collegiality and primacy.
4. Theological Errors on Infallibility
Denny calls papal infallibility a “novel dogma” that contradicts history, citing alleged papal errors (e.g., Honorius I). This betrays ignorance of the doctrine.
Error: Denny conflates infallibility with impeccability. Infallibility applies only to ex cathedra statements, not personal opinions or disciplinary acts. Honorius I’s ambiguous letters (condemned post-mortem at Constantinople III, 680 AD) were not ex cathedra and thus irrelevant.
Correction: Infallibility is rooted in Christ’s promise to Peter (Luke 22:32) and the Church’s indefectibility (Matt. 16:18). Vatican I’s definition is precise, limited to faith and morals under strict conditions. Denny’s examples (e.g., Galileo) involve disciplinary, not dogmatic, matters.
Denny’s Fallacy: He assumes contradictions in papal history disprove infallibility, ignoring the Church’s ability to clarify and correct non-dogmatic errors. His Anglican rejection of centralized authority colors his critique.
Your use of Denny’s flawed work to attack Catholicism is the height of irony, given their own theological bankruptcy. Founded on the false prophecies of Ellen G. White (1827-1915) and unbiblical doctrines like the Investigative Judgment, Adventism is a satanic deception that leads souls astray.
1. Ellen G. White’s False Prophecies
White, revered by SDAs as a prophetess, made numerous false predictions, marking her as a false prophet under Deuteronomy 18:22 (“If what a prophet proclaims… does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken”). Her failed prophecies include:
1856 Vision of the Second Coming: White claimed in 1856 that some present at a conference would live to see Christ’s return (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131). This was reiterated in 1868 (Testimonies, Vol. 2, p. 197). All died, and Christ did not return. This alone disqualifies her as a prophet.
Civil War Predictions: White prophesied that England would intervene in the U.S. Civil War, leading to the North’s defeat (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 259). This never happened, as England remained neutral.
Jerusalem’s Restoration: White predicted Jerusalem would never be rebuilt (Early Writings, p. 75). Modern Israel’s existence refutes this.
White’s false prophecies align her with false prophets like Joseph Smith or Muhammad, whose errors Catholics reject. Her claim to divine inspiration is satanic, as it contradicts God’s truth (2 Thess. 2:11). SDAs cling to her writings, despite these failures, proving their cult-like devotion to a fraud. The Catholic Church, by contrast, rests on Christ’s promises to Peter, not the delusions of a 19th-century mystic.
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.