The Apostle Peter and the Papacy

The Apostle Peter possesses the primacy of power; but why should the Pope of Rome succeed to this primacy? We must confess our entire inability to understand how such a question can be taken seriously. Once it is admitted that there is in the Universal Church a fundamental supreme authority established by Christ in the person of St. Peter, then it must follow that this authority is in existence somewhere. And it seems to us that the obvious impossibility of discovering it anywhere else but at Rome is at once a sufficient reason for supporting the Catholic contention.

Since neither the patriarch of Constantinople nor the Synod of St. Petersburg claims or can possibly claim to represent the rock of the Universal Church, that is to say the real and fundamental unity of ecclesiastical authority, there is no choice but either to abandon all idea of such a unity and accept a state of division, confusion and bondage as the normal condition of the Church, or else to acknowledge the claims and actual validity of the one and only existing authority which has always shown itself to be the center of ecclesiastical unity.

No amount of argument can overcome the evidence for the fact that apart from Rome there only exist national churches such as the Armenian or the Greek church, State churches such as the Russian or Anglican, or else sects founded by individuals, such as the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Irvingites, and so forth.

The Roman Catholic Church is the only church that is neither a national church, nor a State church, nor a sect founded by a man; it is the only church in the world which maintains and asserts the principle of universal social unity against individual egoism and national particularism; it is the only church which maintains and asserts the freedom of the spiritual power against the absolutism of the State; in a word, it is the only church against which the gates of hell have not prevailed.

'By their fruits ye shall know them.' in the sphere of religious fellowship the fruit of Catholicism (for those who have remained Catholics) is the unity and freedom of the Church; the fruit of Protestantism for its adherents both in the East and in the West is division and bondage: division chiefly in the West and bondage in the East.

Think and say what you will of the Roman Church or of the Papacy; we ourselves are very far from seeing or expecting to find in either the achievement of perfection or the realization of the ideal. We are aware that the rock of the Church is not the Church itself, that the foundation is not the same as the building, nor the way the same as the goal.

All that we are maintaining is that the Papacy is the sole international and independent ecclesiastical authority, the only real and permanent basis for the Church's universal activity. That is an indisputable fact and in itself compels us to acknowledge the Pope to be the sole trustee of those powers and privileges which St. Peter received from Christ.

And since the universal monarchy of the Church was not to eliminate the universal monarchy of the political world but to transubstantiate it, was it not natural that the visible seat of the two corresponding monarchies should remain the same? If, as has already been said, the dynasty of Julius Caesar was in a certain sense to give place to the dynasty of Simon Peter, if Caesarism was to yield to Papacy, it was surely to be expected that the Papacy should take up its abode in the existing center of the universal Empire.

The transference to Rome of the supreme ecclesiastical authority established by Christ in the person of St. Peter is a patent fact attested by the tradition of the Church and justified by the logic of circumstances.

As regards the question of the formal manner in which the authority of Peter was transmitted to the bishop of Rome, that is a historical problem which for lack of documentary evidence can hardly be scientifically solved. We believe the Orthodox tradition which is recorded in our liturgical books to the effect that St. Peter on his arrival at Rome definitely fixed his see there and before his death personally nominated his successor. Later times saw the Popes elected by the Christian community of the city of Rome until the present mode of election by the college of Cardinals was definitely established.

Furthermore, as early as the second century we have in the writings of St. Irenaeus unimpeachable evidence that the Church of Rome was already regarded by the whole Christian world as the center of unity, and that the bishop of Rome enjoyed a permanent position of supreme authority, though the forms in which this authority found expression were bound to vary with the times, becoming more definite and imposing in proportion as the development of the whole social structure of the Church became more intricate and diversified.

'In fact' (to quote a historian of the critical rationalist school) 'in 196 the chosen heads of the churches were attempting to create ecclesiastical unity; one of them, the head of the Roman Church, seemed to claim the role of executive authority within the community and to assume the position of sovereign pontiff.' (B. Aube, Les chretiens dans I'Empire Romani, de l afin des Antonitis au milieu du troisieme siecle, p. 69).

But it was not merely a question of executive authority, for a little further on the same author makes the following admission: 'Tertullian and Cyprian appear to hail the Church of Rome as the principal church and in a certain degree the guardian and keeper of the faith and of genuine tradition'.

In the early days of Christianity the monarchical authority of the Universal Church was but a seed scarcely visible but nevertheless pregnant with life; by the second century this seed has visibly developed, as the acts of Pope Victor testify; in the third century the same witness is borne by the acts of Pope Stephen and Pope Dionysius, and in the fourth by those of Pope Julius I.

In the following century we already see the supreme authority and monarchical power of the Roman Church growing like a vigorous sapling under Pope St. Leo I; and finally by the ninth century the Papacy is already the mighty and majestic tree which covers the Christian world with the shadow of its branches.

That is the great fact, the main fact, the manifestation and fulfillment in history of the divine utterance: Thou art Peter. This broad fact is the outcome of divine law, while particular facts regarding the transmission of the sovereign power, the papal elections and so forth concern the purely human side of the Church and have no more than a secondary interest from the religious point of view.

Here again the Roman Empire, foreshadowing as it does in a certain sense the Roman Church, may provide us with an analogy. Since Rome was the undisputed center of the Empire, the individual who was proclaimed Emperor at Rome was immediately recognized as such by the whole world without any question as to whether it was the Senate or the proctorians or the votes of the people which had raised him to the purple.

In exceptional cases, when the Emperor was elected by the legions outside Rome, his first concern was to hasten to the imperial city, without whose support his election would be regarded by everyone as only provisional. The Rome of the Popes became for universal Christendom what the Rome of the Caesars had been for the pagan world. The bishop of Rome was by his very office the supreme pastor and doctor of the whole Church. There was no need to trouble about the method of his election; that depended on circumstances and conditions of the moment. There was usually no more reason for doubting the legality of the election of the bishop of Rome than that of the election of any other bishop.

And once his election to the episcopate was recognized, the head of the central church and the occupant of the Chair of St. Peter was ipso facto in possession of all the rights and powers which Christ conferred upon the rock of the Church. There were exceptional instances where doubt might be felt about the election; antipopes are not unknown to history. But just as the usurpers Demetrius and Peter III in no way robbed the Russian monarchy of its lawful authority, so the antipopes provide no argument against the Papacy.

Any apparent abnormality in the history of the Church belongs to the human 'species' rather than to the divine 'substance' of the religious society. If by some chance adulterated or even poisoned wine were used in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, would this sacrilege have the slightest effect on the validity of the Sacrament itself?

In maintaining that the bishop of Rome is the true successor of St. Peter and therefore the impregnable rock of the Church and the steward of the Kingdom of Heaven, we are putting on one side the question whether the prince of the Apostles was ever personally in Rome. This fact is attested by the tradition of the Church both in the East and in the West and we ourselves feel no doubt in the matter.

But if there are Christians in good faith who are more susceptible than ourselves to the specious arguments of Protestant scholars, we have no wish to dispute the matter with them. We might even admit that St. Peter never went personally to Rome, and yet at the same time from the religious point o fview maintain a spiritual and mystical transmission of his sovereign authority to the bishop of the Eternal City.

The history of early Christianity supplies us with a striking instance of an analogous relationship. St. Paul had no natural link whatever with Jesus Christ; he was not a witness of our Lord's life on earth nor did he receive his commission in any visible or public fashion; nevertheless he is recognized by all Christians as one of the greatest Apostles. His apostolate was a public ministry in the Church and yet its origin, in his relation to Jesus Christ, is a mystical and miraculous fact.

Now if a phenomenon of a supernatural order formed the original link between Jesus Christ and St. Paul and made the latter a chosen vessel and the Apostle of the Gentiles, though at the same time this miraculous commission did not prevent his further activity from being subject to the natural conditions of human life and historic circumstances, then similarly that original relationship between St. Peter and the See of Rome which created the Papacy might well depend upon a mystical and transcendental act, which would in no way deprive the Papacy itself once constituted of the character of a normal social institution acting under the ordinary conditions of earthly life. The mighty spirit of St. Peter, guided by his Master's Almighty Will, might well seek to perpetuate the center of ecclesiastical unity by taking up his abode in the center of political unity already formed by Providence and thus making the bishop of Rome heir to his primacy.

According to this theory (which, let us remember, would become necessary only if it were conclusively shown that St. Peter did not go to Rome) the Pope would be regarded as the successor of St. Peter in the same spiritual and yet absolutely real sense in which, mutatis mutandis, St. Paul must be recognised as a true apostle chosen and sent by Jesus Christ though he had no knowledge of Him except in a miraculous vision. St. Paul's apostleship is attested by the Acts of the Apostles and by the Epistles of St. Paul himself, the succession of the Roman primacy from St. Peter is attested by the unbroken tradition of the Universal Church.

For an Orthodox Christian the latter evidence is intrinsically of no less value than the former. Of the manner in which the foundation rock of the Church was removed from Palestine to Italy we may well be ignorant; but that it was actually so removed and established at Rome is an incontrovertible fact, the rejection of which would involve the denial not only of sacred tradition but of the very history of Christianity.

The point of view which ranks fact lower than principle and lays greater emphasis on a general truth than on the external certainty of material phenomena is by no means peculiar to ourselves; it is the opinion of the Orthodox Church herself.

Let us quote an example in order to make our meaning clear. It is absolutely certain that the first ecumenical council of Nicea was summoned by the Emperor Constantine and not by Pope St. Silvester. Nevertheless the Greco-Russian Church in the office of January 2, in which she celebrates the memory of St. Silvester, has accorded to him special praise for having summoned the 318 Fathers to Nicea and promulgated the orthodox dogma against the blasphemy of Arius. This is no mere historical error -- the history of the first council was well known in the Eastern Church -- but rather the expression of a general truth far more important for the religious conscience of the Church than material accuracy.

Once the primacy of the Popes was recognized in principle, it was natural to ascribe to each Pope all the ecclesiastical acts that took place during his pontificate. Thus with the general fundamental rule of the life of the Church in mind rather than the historical details of a particular event, the Easterns assigned to St. Silvester the privileges and duties which were his according to the spirit, if not the letter, of Christian history. And if it is true that the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life, they were right.

"a fundamental supreme authority established by Christ in the person of St. Peter"

Any Christian has as much authority as Peter. God honors spiritual offices (Pastor, Evangelist, Teacher, etc.), but it is clear He honors faith above any person. The Bible says, "God is no respector of persons". If Peter is esteemed higher than others, then God is lying.

When Jesus told Peter, "upon "this" will I establish my church", Jesus wasn't talking about a person, the "this" he was talking about was what Peter said, and where Peter got the information. Remember, Jesus asked them, "who do people say that I am". And ... what did Peter say, "you are the Son of God, the Christ (the anointed one)". Jesus then told Peter that He knew Peter didn't think of this by himself, but that God had revealed it to Peter. This "revealed information" was what Jesus said he would build his church on - the church was built on revealed information that could only come from God, and not on Peter the person.

This is not to say Peter was not a great man of God. After Peter was Baptized in the Holy Ghost, he stood up and preached to 5,000 - who got saved. But ... there are preachers on the earth today who have preached to and saved more than 5,000 at one time.

You tell the story differently even than most Latin apologists. I have never heard anyone from the West before accuse St. Photius of heresy, only of being a schismatic. The fact that you do so suggests that you are even more wedded to the error of the filioque than are most modern Latins. St. Photius himself was willing to have Ignatius appeal hear by Rome. The real problem came from the fact that Pope Nicholas arrogated to himself authority which was not his. The Canon of the Council of Sardica, given Ecumenical force by incorporation into the Canons of the Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils was the only basis for an appeal to Rome. It permitted the Pope to appoint three Metropolitans from neigbhoring provinces to judge disputes between bishops when the local Holy Synod could not resolve them (as was the case with Ignatius' claim against his deposition).

Dvorik (sp?) a notable Byzantinist has shown convincingly that your claim of a second "Photian" schism is Western polemics rather than history.

The anti-Photian synod of 867 which you Latins call the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" was anathematized by the Council of Constantinople of 897, which was accepted by Pope John VIII of Rome (and I add emphasis for your benefit since your erroneous ecclesiology makes papal assents very imrportant).

The main point of my post vis-a-vis the Soloviev article was the fact that the Palamite Synods are rightly regarded as the Ninth Ecumenical Council of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, invalidating his claim of "silence" on the part of the Orthodox episcopate since the departure of Rome. (And I needed to bring the count up to nine.)

I don't see how pointing out history which support the Orthodox (not generically Eastern) position against the Latin (not generically Western) position switches the debate to one between East and West.

I see from your later post that you go beyond your coreligionists in accusing St. Photius the Great (hymned with St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus as one of the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy) of heresy rather than mere schism, so perhaps you erroneously thought I was lumping an "Eastern heretic" with the Orthodox as is your the wont of Latin apologists. Nothing of the sort: St. Photius' Orthodox critique of the heretical filioque is still quite current, whatever our "liberals" who seem willing to join your confession in papering over the seriousness of the error may think.

If support of arian and monophysite beliefs isn't heretical, then what is? I suspect most latin apologists would agree with me about Photius.

What is odd about the filioque is the nature of the disute--that the holy spirit came from both the father and the son was traditional christian belief, a part of trinitaian orthodoxy upheld against every eastern variation of the monophysites. What made it controversial was its insertion by the Roman church into the nicene creed in order to make this point clear to the newly converted tribes of the west, some of whom who had been arians and did not understand the trinity.

But to Photius the insertion of the filioque as a stick with which to beat the Roman church, claiming it to be heretical. And as I stated in my other post eventually arranged a council to deny the addition of the filioque to the creed, and to approve expansion in constantinople's ecclesiatical power.

The final evidence against photius is that after he had been excommunicated for the second time he was also banished by the byzantine emperor on grounds of treason.

Regardless, I do not see any refutation of Soloviev in your posts. But I do appreciate you giving them some consideration and look forward to engaging you again.

If this is where Jesus declares Peter the head (pope) of the universal church (catholic church) then I must be show in the scriptures where he assumes and executes this role.

Well, let me give it a shot:

Mt 16:17 -- Jesus tells Peter (alone) he has divine knowledge by special revelation
Mt 16:18-19 -- Jesus gives Peter "the keys"
Mt 16:19 -- the power to bind and loose
Is 22:22 -- keys assigned to officeholder
Rev 1:18 -- keys as symbol of authority
Jn 1:42 -- Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: rock)
Mt 16:18 -- Simon is Petras (Greek: rock)
Jn 21:15-17 -- Jesus tells Peter "feed my sheep"
Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; -- Peter first, foremost apostle
Act 1:13; Lk 9:32 -- more of Peter first, foremost apostle
Mk 8:29; Jn 6:68 -- Peter speaks for apostles
Lk 12:41-48 -- Peter, the faithful steward
Lk 22:32 -- Jesus prays for faith of (only) Peter
Lk 22:32 -- "Simon...strengthen your brethren"
Act 4:1-13 -- Jews consider Peter as the leader
Acts 5:2-11 -- Peter utters first anathema (emphatically affirmed by God!)
Act 2:14-40 -- Pentecost: Peter’s first preach
Act 3:6-7 -- Peter works first healing
Acts 8:14-24 -- Peter first to recognize/refute heresy
Act 9:40 -- Peter first after Jesus to raise the dead
Act 10:9-28 -- catholicism revealed to Peter
Act 10:46-48 -- Peter orders Gentile baptism
Act 15:7 -- Peter’s leadership at first Council

The filioque is NOT part of traditional Christian belief. To claim this is to claim that the Holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council did not know what they were doing when they wrote the sections of the Creed dealing with the Holy Spirit. They stuck with Our Lord's plain words "who proceeds from the Father".

The "second procession" confounds the temporal mission of the Spirit with the Eteranal Procession from the Father. It is an error analogous to confusing the Incarnation with the Eternal Begottenness of the Son. As such it is the root and ground of almost all Western errors most of which flow from a confusion between the Uncreated and the created (created grace being the one which is most obnoxious).

It is absurd to claim that denying the filioque supports Arianism, since the Holy Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils which opposed the Arians and their offshoot the pneumatomachians did not confess it, and found the Creed as originally written without the filioque sufficient statement of the Orthodox faith against them. To claim it is also to calumnate the Holy Fathers of the Council of Ephesus who forbade changes to the Creed of which the filioque is the only one attempted since. I realize that the Council of Toledo, which promulgated the error, thought it was a good way to deal with the persistence of Arianism in the West where it was very popular among the Vandals and Visgoths. However, the Popes of Rome did not concur until the time of the schism (which from the point of view of Constaninople dates to 1009 or 1014). St. Gregory the Dialogist (whom you call St. Gregory the Great) caused the Creed in its original wording without the heretical filoque to be carved in silver tablets in St. Peter's in Rome. I am told the tablets are still there for all to see.

It is likewise absurd to claim that the filioque is in any way important to opposition to monophysitism. The destruction of the monarchy of the Father--the traditional ground of the unity of the Godhead as opposed to the Western notion of God's unity being grounded in an abstractly conceived "common essence"--does nothing to oppose the error of confounding Christ's human and divine natures.

I often have the clear sense in discussing the classical heresies with Westerners that you by and large have forgotten what the issues were.

It was in fact the papal assent to the filioque (either in the no longer extant election encyclical of Pope Sergius VI or in the extant cornation rite for the German Emperor Henry II--hence the ambiguity of dates) which caused the Popes of Rome to be removed from the Diptychs of the Great Church of Constantinople. The unfortunate embassy of Cardinal Humbert in 1054 was an attempt to restore communion which had already been broken by Rome's acceptance of the modified Creed.

I would not dryly that when Emperors agree with you, their ecclesiatical acts are taken as "evidence" for your side, but when they are heretics in both our judgements, their acts are used polemically against the "Easterners".

The filioque is NOT part of traditional Christian belief.

Will you please cite your sources for this statement. You are inconflict with the events that happened at the synod of Constantinople in 867.

The dogma of the Filioque can be traced back to the founding fathers, and I can do so if you wish. It seems to me you pride yourself on revisionist history. There is plenty of sources that can give accurate accounts begining with this one from New Advent encyclopedia:

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the nineth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, the double Procession of Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.

The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy.

Again, please cite your sources in regard to the Filioque not being a part of Christian tradition. Thanks.

The Acts 10: 9-26 confuses me. After reading it again I am convinced it was God revealing that Gentiles were hereby declared "clean" and the Good News was to be revealed to them as well.

Saying it was Catholisizm revealed is a stretch, in my opinion.

Also, I will admit that Peter did a lot of good stuff and he had a special place in Jesus' heart. But that doesn't make him the beginning of a long line of Popes. My intercessor is Jesus himself - in the order of Melchizedek.

When Jesus is dead, I'll look for another - if you get my drift.

Peter was a good example for all of us to follow, as was Paul and, of course, Jesus himself. But that is all he was - a man doing the will of God (better than most from what I read).

Go to Rome and read the Creed on the tablet set up by St. Gregory. The filioque is nowhere to be found, despite its popularity throughout the non-Roman population of the Patriarchate of Rome at the time of St. Gregory's papacy. I have already cited my source: the Creed as written by the Holy Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, and the prohibition of additions to the Creed by the Third Ecumenical Council. The filioque is an addition to the Creed.

Citing the acta of a synod which was anathematized by the Holy Orthodox Church does not move me. All additions to the Creed and the (pitfully attended) synod of 867 were anathematized by the Council of Constantinople in 897, which (I add for the benefit of Westerners) was accepted by the Pope of Rome at the time, John VIII.

I suggest you read the writings of St. Photius the Great on the matter. He was at least as learned as the compilers of your "New Advent" encyclopedia, though I'm sure he lacks "accuracy", which you seem to believe is synonymous with accepting the interpretation of events offered by papal apologists.

The Acts 10: 9-26 confuses me. After reading it again I am convinced it was God revealing that Gentiles were hereby declared "clean" and the Good News was to be revealed to them as well. Saying it was Catholisizm revealed is a stretch, in my opinion.

Acts 10:9-26 (or -28 or -48) is about Peter coming to understand that Christ's message was universal (catholic with a lower case "c"), it was was for all peoples. Not only does Peter receive the message through divine revelation, but he also immediately implements it.

Also of note is the necessity of such instructions to Peter, for it reveals that not even the apostles fully grasped the implications of Jesus' teaching on the law at first. The Apostles did not receive doctrine fully formed at Pentecost, but came to fuller understandings over time. Doctrine developed.

Further, Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church in Acts 11:5-18. Without Peter's early leadership role, probably neither of us would be here discussing this issue.

Also, I will admit that Peter did a lot of good stuff and he had a special place in Jesus' heart. But that doesn't make him the beginning of a long line of Popes. My intercessor is Jesus himself - in the order of Melchizedek... Peter was a good example for all of us to follow, ... but that is all he was - a man doing the will of God.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Jesus was up to in these verses:
Mt 16:18-19 -- Jesus gives Peter "the keys"
Mt 16:19 -- the power to bind and loose
Jn 21:15-17 -- Jesus tells Peter "feed my sheep"
Lk 22:32 -- Jesus prays for faith of (only) Peter
Lk 22:32 -- "Simon...strengthen your brethren"

Mt 16:18-19 -- Jesus gives Peter "the keys"
He was giving all believers the keys.

Mt 16:19 -- the power to bind and loose
He was giving all believers the power.

Jn 21:15-17 -- Jesus tells Peter "feed my sheep"
He was sending him on a missionary journey.

Lk 22:32 -- Jesus prays for faith of (only) Peter
Peter was the one with the specific need (Satan had asked to sift him like wheat).

Lk 22:32 -- "Simon...strengthen your brethren"
What he was going to go throug would put him in a unique position to strengthen his brothers at that time. They all knew each other. Going to "hell and back" gives someone a unique perspective as well as credibility regarding their opinion on some issues.

Polemikos, Peter was a great man, as were many Christians and Jews in the Bible. However, all power I have comes directly from Jesus. I need no other intercessor.

To imply that Peter was given special dispensation that I cannot also have goes against the word of God. God is no respector of persons. Peter was just a man, as am I.

I apologize for an inaccuracy in my posts: I am dyslexic and transpose digits easily. The Council of Constantinople to which I refer, which anathematized the anti-Photian synod which you Latins consider the Eight Ecumenical Council but was accepted by Pope John VIII was in 879 not 897. Perhaps this inaccuracy in my posts made you skeptical of my sources. Most of what I know of the history is drawn from Hussey's book on church history (Hussey is a noted Byzantinist), I think the title is "The Church in the Byzantine Empire", but as it is at home, a three hour drive away, I must rely on my memory. I think I generally have cited my sources: most of my argument has involved the Creed and the Acta of the Ecumenical Councils. Do you really want to know which compilation I'm reading them in? I think it's in a series published by Eerdman's.

If you really want to go back to talking about Soloviev, rather than St. Photius (since you offered me the last word on that), you need to engage my point about the Palamite Synods being a plain counter-example to his purported "silence" of the Eastern episcopate. They have all the marks shared by the Ecumenical Councils as understood by the Orthodox--facing down an error which plagued the Church (the rationalism of Barlaam the Calabrian), upholding traditional doctrine in this case the understanding of Grace as Uncreated and the traditional understanding of prayer, and reception throughout the Church (which, alas, by that time no longer included the Patriarchate of Rome).

I suppose I should take comfort, though, in finding a Latin who is true to the Frankish roots of his confession and bandies the accusation of heresy against those who defend the original wording of the Niceo-constantinoplitan Creed against later additions just as Charlemagne's publicists did.

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.