Historical Anti Pope Quotes

[dairygirl4u2c]

some of these quotes have been discussed here before. not sure about all of em.
in any case, it's always good to quote this sorta stuff from time to time.


St. Cyprian of Carthage: "To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power..."(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)

The roman Catholic church claims that papal supremacy has existed sinced ancient times but obviously Greogory (the bishop of rome) didn't think so.

"I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others"

Does the catholic church not beleive that the pope is the universal ruler? Obviously they do, so are they the precursors of the anti-christ? I wouldn't dare to give them such a title but that quote above would give me suspicions. Another point that i would like to make about this quote is how can you "raise yourself above others" without thinking that you had authority over them? Obviously Gregory wanted to drive in the point that no bishop had authority over the other. The quote is so simple and clear.

-----

Said by a pope....

" Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY."

The reason why he wrote this letter was to refute schisms that the bishop of rome had more authority then the other bishops. Would it make sense to think that gregory had authority over the other bishops after he just wrote this letter to the bishop of alexandria saying in so many words that he was equal to him? Not at all.

It's undeniable that the Roman Catholic church believes in a universal bishop but do they take into consideration this other quote by gregory?

"It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall"

St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian")

Does this include that the bishop of rome cannot lord over the other bishops and have authority over them? Ofcourse it does!

St. Jerome (342-420 a.d.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."

St. Jerome hit it right on the head. All of the bishops are of the same worth and are the self governers of their territories and does not have authority over the other bishops, the bishop of rome is NO exception.

The Counsil of NIcea (325 a.d.)
In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. (Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles")

St. Ambrose of Milan: "He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men...." [Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34].

Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn�t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren�t intimidated by Victor�s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said �we ought to obey God rather than man.� "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).

[dairygirl4u2c]

always liked this link about cyprian (important, as it's one of the seemingly pretty supportive quotes at catholic.com )

[url="http://www.christian-history.org/catholic-apologists.html"]http://www.christian-history.org/catholic-apologists.html[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[img]http://anongallery.org/img/4/1/i-have-no-idea-what-im-doing-dog.jpg[/img]

[Papist]

[img]http://troll.me/images/bedtime-hitler/this-thread-makes-no-sense-thumb.jpg[/img]

[Mark of the Cross]

The answer to the question of whether the Pope is the successor of St. Peter is both yes and no. For the Roman Catholic Church he is and has every right to claim that position. But the Pope is not the head of the [u][b]c[/b][/u]atholic (universal) Church. I cannot think of any reason the leaders of each Christian denomination cannot make the same claim.

[quote]I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. [/quote]
A Bishop once said to us that his position is one which must be filled (there must be leaders) and he took the position to fill a need, not for his own ambition. Certainly not for pride or glory. I should think that this applies to all the church hierarchy including the Pope. The Pope fulfils the role of Peter for the purpose of leading Catholics in the same way that Peter led the Christians of that time. It is a successive position which is required to be filled for the benefit of Catholics, but it is not one that he can or would claim sole ownership to, I would think.

[qfnol31]

Dairy, have you been reading Orthodox Christian apologetic tracts? This sounds like a lot of them that I've read.

Prior to all of the Saints listed above, you omitted St. Irenaeus of Lyons. He says that the Holy See in Rome has a very particular role in the transmission of Christian (Catholic) Tradition.

[Groo the Wanderer]

dairy - quit snippeting and actually research. IF you are actually interested in the development of papal authority in the early Church, I suggest reading "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church" by Kenneth Whitehead.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[img]http://plinkplunk.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/explanation-motivational-poster.jpg[/img]

[img]http://plinkplunk.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/explanation-motivational-poster.jpg[/img]

[thessalonian]

Seems to me he is trying to settle a dsipute with humility. Further the Pope is not a dictator and so this aspect can be seen in his words as well. Individual bishops have autonomy in their diocese. The Pope is not a Monarch. Other Bishps are not "below" him in their authority over their own diocese. The Patriarches also have no biblical standing and so his words should be seen in that light as well.

You really need to start understanding development of doctrine Dairy. Of course what you really need is to be able to submit to God rather than your own thinking.

[Annie12]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1337818679' post='2434145']
some of these quotes have been discussed here before. not sure about all of em.
in any case, it's always good to quote this sorta stuff from time to time.


St. Cyprian of Carthage: "To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power..."(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)

The roman Catholic church claims that papal supremacy has existed sinced ancient times but obviously Greogory (the bishop of rome) didn't think so.

"I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others"

Does the catholic church not beleive that the pope is the universal ruler? Obviously they do, so are they the precursors of the anti-christ? I wouldn't dare to give them such a title but that quote above would give me suspicions. Another point that i would like to make about this quote is how can you "raise yourself above others" without thinking that you had authority over them? Obviously Gregory wanted to drive in the point that no bishop had authority over the other. The quote is so simple and clear.

-----

Said by a pope....

" Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY."

The reason why he wrote this letter was to refute schisms that the bishop of rome had more authority then the other bishops. Would it make sense to think that gregory had authority over the other bishops after he just wrote this letter to the bishop of alexandria saying in so many words that he was equal to him? Not at all.

It's undeniable that the Roman Catholic church believes in a universal bishop but do they take into consideration this other quote by gregory?

"It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall"

St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, "The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian")

Does this include that the bishop of rome cannot lord over the other bishops and have authority over them? Ofcourse it does!

St. Jerome (342-420 a.d.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."

St. Jerome hit it right on the head. All of the bishops are of the same worth and are the self governers of their territories and does not have authority over the other bishops, the bishop of rome is NO exception.

The Counsil of NIcea (325 a.d.)
In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. (Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles")

St. Ambrose of Milan: "He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men...." [Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34].

Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn�t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren�t intimidated by Victor�s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said �we ought to obey God rather than man.� "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).
[/quote]

what? I don't follow your train of thought.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Annie12

[Amppax]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1338220392' post='2436361']
what? I don't follow your train of thought.
[/quote]

few can. Its ok.

[dairygirl4u2c]

As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).

i already quoted that. but it's worth pointing out, that if you read the cyprian quotes and issues as the link i posted above illustrates... then these quotes bring all that much more meaning. firmilian wrote the letters to cyprian... firmilian was definitely not believing in too much roman bishop authority, and it seems cyprian was too. we see that firmilian was probbaly writing to cyprian as a friend, a comrade on the same mission... it adds to the idea that cyprian was not who catholics think he was.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[b]Cyprian once called a council of 87 bishops in Carthage.[/b] The purpose of that council, according to [url="http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1149259&item_no=30823"]The Ante-Nicene Fathers[/url], vol. V, was:

[indent=1]When Stephen, bishop of Rome, had by his letters condemned the decree of the African Council on the Baptism of Heretics, Cyprian lost no time in holding another council at Carthage with a greater number of bishops. ("The Seventh Council of Carthage, Under Cyprian, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics")[/indent]
[b][i]If St. Cyprian believed that the bishop of Rome was pope and had primacy over all other bishops, he sure had a strange way of showing it![/i][/b]
That council declared, in the very first paragraph of its report of proceedings:

[indent=1]For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. (ibid.)[/indent]
[b]Can there be any more certain proclamation against the papal authority than this?[/b] The Seventh Council of Carthage, called by St. Cyprian himself and with 87 bishops unanimously assenting, came together [i]specifically[/i] to reject a decree by Stephen, bishop of Rome. In doing so, they declared that no bishop can set himself up as "bishop of bishops," or "compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience."


----------------

80 plus bishops dissenting from the roman bishop...

Edited June 6, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Papist]

So what are you debating?

[Basilisa Marie]

The thing is, the papacy as we know it has undergone a LOT of growth and evolution since the time of Peter. The bishop of Rome didn't have the same "pull" of authority in the very beginning over everyone that he does now. One of the reasons the for the Great Schism was because other bishops rejected the primacy of the seat in Rome.

So what I'm trying to say is that when you look at the early writings of the fathers you have to expect them to have a different perspective on what the papacy is, because the current understanding of the papacy WAS different then. The function of the pope grew and changed over time, partly in reaction to different historical events and peoples.