Catholic Church's Claims Are Weak In Early History, Regarding Papa

[linate]

Quote

Cyprian

Cyprian did indeed speak of the “seat of Peter,” in Latin, the “cathedra Petri.” It was also very central to his view of church unity and authority. No one who broke unity with the cathedra Petri was truly in the Church. All of this is quite true. And beyond this, Cyprian spoke highly of the Roman see when defending Cornelius as a result of the Novationist schism in Rome. He rebuked those who rejected Cornelius’ position as the bishop of Rome. Despite this, Cyprian sent a sharp rebuke to Cornelius when he gave audience to men who had been deposed in North Africa.

But it is just here that we learn how important it is to study church history as a discipline, not as a mere tool to be used in polemic debate. We can assume out of generosity that when Mr. Keating wrote his book he actually believed that when Cyprian spoke of the “cathedra Petri” that Cyprian understood this phrase as a modern Roman Catholic would. That is, he may well have assumed that the “seat of Peter” was understood by everyone back then to refer to the bishop of Rome. However, all students of church history know differently. Cyprian (and the North African church as a whole for the span of centuries) believed the “chair of Peter” referred to all bishops in all churches across the world. Cyprian, for example, claimed to sit upon the “cathedra Petri” as did all bishops. For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers (emphasis added).

This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians. Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology, vol. 2, p. 375), “Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a single body.” And a little later Quasten cites the words of an African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:

No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL 3, 1, 436).

Quasten then comments:

From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles….No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).

Quasten goes on to note that Cyprian did see Rome as an important see, however,

…even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59,14).

But there is more, much more, from Roman Catholic writers. Michael Winter writes in St. Peter and the Popes (Wesport: Greenwood, 1960, pp. 47-48):

Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connections of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-papal sense which was alien to his thought…..Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority…Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.

Robert Eno, another historian, writes in The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazer, 1990), p. 58, “The Chair of Peter…belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome….You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church.” And finally, Jesuit Klaus Schatz writes in Papal Primacy, p. 20, “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.”

But there is more. Cornelius’ successor, Stephen, was an arrogant prelate. Full of himself, he sowed discord amongst the churches. Cyprian severely reprimanded him, as did others. When Stephen attempted to meddle in the affairs of the North African churches, including overturning the deposing of one Basilides, who then went to Rome to attempt to find assistance in his cause, Cyprian and the North Africans rejected his attempts. Cyprian wrote,

Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed.

Deceived the bishop of Rome? The source of infallible and apostolic truth could be deceived about the orthodoxy of a man so as to improperly guide the church in regards to its leadership and teaching? How could such be? Obviously, the church of this day had no concept of an infallible Pope, nor any concept that the bishop of Rome was the universal head of the Church. Any reading of the correspondence between Cyprian and Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea (such as Epistle LXXIV, wherein Firmilian accuses Stephen of numerous errors, including transmitting false “tradition”), makes it very clear: neither believed as Karl Keating would like his readers to think they did.

Now we noted above that at the time Karl Keating wrote Catholicism and Fundamentalism, it is quite possible he was ignorant of the situation. He may, like so many other Roman Catholic apologists, have assumed that “chair of Peter” always meant the Roman bishop. He had probably never read much of Cyprian for himself, and was just going on what others had told him. But, the fact of the matter is, that is no longer an excuse. In the years since the publication of the work, Keating has been shown his error, multiple times. And yet his book, and his organization, continues to promote the myth that Cyprian was a believer in Papal infallibility. A glowing Roman Catholic myth.

 

[linate]

Pope Sixtus III “all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.”(433 AD)

[linate]

For Cyprian, "the Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly", and he insisted that "the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church"

"Pope Boniface I (418–422) stated that the church of Rome stood to the churches throughout the world "as the head to the members",[63] a statement that seems to have been already made by Pope Siricius[63] and was repeated by the delegates of Pope Leo I to the Council of Chalcedon in 451" 

the council of constantinople puts that city second after rome in primacy of honor. a point that the east did understand rome as a primacy of honor. 

Pope Gelasius I (492–496) stated: "The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.[71]

that looks like the pope's response when someone tried to define papal infallibility a thousand years after Jesus. that is to say that pope then and the pope above seem to think the pope has such authority that past popes binding mean nothing. 

there's lots more here where i should have read more on papal primarcy and its development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy

[linate]

here are some orthodox dudes talking about cyprian, and moving onto the structure of church authority generally. they talk in the same way i do. there are some very smart dudes posting there.

http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/4863-upon-this-rock-i-build-my-church-st-cyprian-orthodox-and-roman-catholic-views/
 

Pope Leo
"The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests."

Apostolic Canon 34
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_the_Apostles

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by linate

[linate]

"retardedignorantheretic4u2c"

ha. he zinged you good dairygirl. consider yourself officially owned.

oh wait. what, we're actually s'pose to take his sh*t seriously? i guess i'll be condemned for that, too.

[linate]

this has some other otherwise unmentioned quotes and context in the historical development of the papacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_papal_primacy

[linate]

ive read several orthodox who agree with me, that supremacy beyond primacy and and error free rome and more advanced concepts didn't really start picking up steam until around four hundred years after jesus (and perhaps interjection of the roman government and when christianity became a state religion)
this is corroborated by everything warbler shares. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by linate

[linate]

it is easy to understand how "we should listen to rome" can translate into "rome gives us the faith" to "only rome can" to "rome cannot error".  much like how cults form, first treating the leader as a father figure, and branching onto more extreme obedience. 

[linate]

notice iranaeous talks about succession from the apostles. he doesn't talk about papal succession, and he doesn't refer to Peter as catholic do, but rather the apostles all of them. 
 "Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who …are the guardians of our faith…and securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 185 Ad

he talks about these successors together being infallible. 
"It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (Against Heresies 4:26:2 [A.D. 189]).

a catholic blogger concedes...
"With a writing this early, it's important to distinguish papal succession from apostolic succession. I think it's likely Irenaeus had an understanding closer to that of the Orthodox today. The Church at that time did not have efficient internal communication, and local election of bishops who were consecrated into apostolic succession by nearby bishops meant that obedience to Rome wasn't the litmus test we have today. "

but then again, here is iranaeous again. he wants to talk about the succession of all the churches, it matters to him. he limits himself to rome but only due to its honor of rank. the last part of this though is a strong point for catholics. 
"It would be too tedious, in a work like this, to go through the succession lists of all the Churches.  We shall, therefore, take just one, the greatest, most ancient Church, the Church known to all, the Church founded and established in Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.  By showing that the tradition which she received from the apostles, the faith which she proclaims to men, has come down to us through the succession of bishops, we confute all those who, in whatever manner,...set up conventicles.  With this Church, because of its more excellent origin, every Church (in other words, the faithful everywhere) must agree."

 

[linate]

iranaeous does admonish victor when victor tried to excommunicate other churches regarding the easter controversy

and ive read several authorities that say all churches must "agree" should really be translated "resort to". the original langauge is non-existant. 

[linate]

augustine did according to the book i cited, say cyprian was justified in ignoring the pope because there was no council decision on the matter. in another book i read, we see him explicitly looking to councils over popes. 

"As if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: 'Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed'."

see 'his broken body' by an orthodox person, the book. 'upon this rock' is good if you want the catholic perspective, but i think the orthodox book is more faithful to true orthodoxy and what really transpired. the catholic position is plausible but tenuous. 

[chrysostom]

Why aren't you either Orthodox or Catholic yet then?

[linate]

i am examining the idea of orthodoxy. if you are curious here are some posts:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2910

[linate]

here is an exchange of noteworthiness i did at an orthodox forum. i asked about some orthodox looking to the pope regardless of a council, but not necessarily saying he was above a council. here is the response:

"I personally think the 5th Ecumenical Council excommunicating the Pope is a much bigger reason to reject Roman Catholicism than subtle undertones in Chalcedon to reject Eastern Orthodoxy."

------
here is more on the pope getting excommunicated by the council.....
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=13409.0


here is my intial question for context:

"does anyone have any words of wisdom about this quote?
"Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope Leo, AD 449   "The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God's help completely suppress th heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous."

one thing i can say is that this is four hundred and fifty years after jesus. too long to be too serious a foundation. but we still see a big figure from the east trying to get the pope's ideas regardless of a council. it's still possible he viewed a council as the highest authority, but it's not exactly clear. 

does anyone know off hand if there are any other quotes that pull the thread on orthodox claims like this could be said? "

someone else voiced the idea that the oriental orthodox only accept the first three councils. that may be more plausible orthodoxy, because rome was not in communion for the later councils, making them not ecumenical.  

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The Ukrainian rite of holy mother church allows married priests, unsure what else resembles the Orthodox church and so does the byzantine rite I think. While your on your search check out the Coptic's also. Did you know also that the Lutheran church has made enough doctrinal changes now that holy mother church has allowed for a combined service between catholics and Lutherans at the ok of local bishops. We had one in my city last year but didn't go so I'm unsure how it works and whether there communion has been officiated as partial like the orthodox, if it is partial catholics can now receive the body and blood at a Lutheran church if a catholic church is not available. Amazing advances since vat1 in preaching Jesus instead of against other believers because Jesus says in the bible "who is for me can not be against you" a wolf in sheep's clothing hates other baptised believers and isn't a believer anyway but anti Christ, and again Jesus" I have other flock" and again " it is not sacrifice god wants but kindness" and again st Paul " you argue I am from Paul, I am from theodis.. One does the sewing but god does the growing" sorry that's not saint Pauls exact words but words to the effect, and again Jesus "why are you arguing amongst yourselves who is the greatest? For he that lifts himself up will be bought low and he that lowers himself will be lifted up..." 

Happy hunting sweet heart just know God is with you and will be with you as long as you believe.

GodblesS

P.s Nunn bah the holy roman catholic church claims that she is the bride of Christ so vocaly and openly, but also Jesus says there will be 10 bridesmaids at the wedding feast but 5 will run out of fuel and be locked out. Doesn't mean they won't be let back in at a later time for saint Paul says that God can cut off a branch and let it die on the ground and re attach it at any time. And wild horses weep, whinny and Nash there teeth on the bit when they get bridaled and are being broken in/trained. I look at some of those verses like that, learning to be obediant to the master Jesus.