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

[linate]

Edited December 29, 2018 by linate

[linate]

on the 'rome has spoken; case is closed' quote by Augustine, here is the actual quote... . . . "for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise." here it is in context...

"What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. “They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” What is, “not according to knowledge”? “For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc."

==========

“It is nothing to wonder at — that they presume to blaspheme the see of the blessed Apostle Peter… And on top of this, they call us proud when the first see has never ceased offering them whatever there is of piety. They with their utter shamelessness trust they will be able to subjugate it.. I will ask them this: the trial which they call for, where can it be held? With them (in the East), so that they may be the plaintiff, witnesses, and judges all in one? Neither human affairs nor the integrity of the divine faith must be entrusted to such a tribunal. It matters of religion (faith/morals), the canons say that the ultimate judgement must come only from the apostolic see. The powers of this world? It is not for them to judge — rather they are to learn from the bishops — and above all, from the vicar of blessed Peter about divine things. No ruler of this world, however powerful, whether Christian or not, can presume to claim this for himself, unless of course, he is a persecutor." Pope Gelasius

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]

"pestiferious doctrine" Pope Nicholas III & John XXII "What John XXIII rejected was the assertions of a sect within the Franciscan Order who called themselves “the Spirituals.” The Spirituals erroneously held that their interpretation of the rule and lifestyle of Saint Francis, especially in the matter of practicing poverty, was the the only legitamite way to follow Jesus Christ. In holding to this erroneous view, they asserted that approval of their disciplinary rule by earlier popes was a matter pertaining to faith and morals; and since the disciplinary rule was equal to the Gospel (in their erroneous view), no subsequent Pope could change or revoke it. The above decree from John XXII refuted this Spiritualist assertion. Thus, a pope could (and sometimes might have to ) modify an earlier pope’s legislation or revoke it. This pertains to matters of discipline, not faith and morals. Thus, John XXII is not even discussing the object of papal infallibility."

Edited May 20, 2020 by linate

[linate]

here is a quote from cyprian, that appears misleading, and the consensus in the link is that the quote is next to spurious, and a quote that may be better.. 
“Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” 

https://forums.catholic.com/t/misquotation-in-papal-infallibility-tract/25621/3

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare-a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics-to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”

[linate]

Quote

Are there a few Bishops, specifically Popes, that asserted Papal Supremacy or things that can be inferred as such? Of course. However, what we see is their claims were consistently, and often definitively, rejected. If more Orthodox knew this, we would be less intimidated by the claims of the Papacy.

2nd Century: Saint Pope Victor I excommunicated churches in Asia Minor over the date of Easter.

Eusebius recounts this was rejected by all and later the issue was decided in Nicea I, showing that the Church recognized the council was the final arbiter in these matters.

3rd Century: Saint Pope Stephen I excommunicated Saints Cyprian and Firmilian over their doctrine on Baptism.

North African council rejects Stephen, Saint Dionysus of Alexandria rejects Stephen, and Firmilian claims the “eastern churches” rejected Stephen. The next Pope (Saint Pope Sixtus II) lifted excommunications even in the face of open defiance, claiming (inexplicably) victory that everyone agreed with him.

4th Century: Saint Meletius was not recognized by the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Alexandria.

Second ecumenical council affirms Meletius and appoints his successor, explicitly rejects the authority of the Papacy over their decision, reconciles with Alexandria, and tells Rome they had the consent of everyone and they do not belong to her. (This is literally true, read the Synodical letter of the council).

5th Century: Saint Pope Celestine and Saint Cyril of Alexandria excommunicate Nestorius. Nestorius appeals the excommunication to an ecumenical council.

The council (tentatively) rules in favor of Cyril and is only fully received by Antioch two years later, after concessions are made by Cyril. The episode corroborates Saint Augustine’s claim that the Pope and western councils can be appealed and overturned by ecumenical councils. A letter exists between Celestine and his legates and another between himself and Cyril where he acknowledges that his excommunication of Nestorius is subject to conciliar review. (Celestine, Letters 16-17)

Two decades later Pope Saint Leo the Great demands no council be held over the heresy of Eutyches and asserts his Tome settles the Christological controversy. Leo is rejected on both points. A council is held, his Tome put under review, and then he is forced to reject Canon 28 even though immediately preceding the council he accepted Canon 3 of Constantinople I. This is verified by Roman allies, legates, and western saints affirming the existence of this canon and Leo’s acceptance, as well as corrboration in every copy of canon law in Latin having it–including one contemporary collection from the 5th century.

6th Century: Pope Vigilius refuses to attend fifth ecumenical council, emphatically writing that it is impossible for the Church to anathematize someone after death, but otherwise affirming every other doctrinal conclusion the council made.

Fifth ecumenical council deposes Pope Vigilius and declares itself ecumenical. Vigilius recants twice.

Conclusion. I can continue giving more examples, but I believe the preceding suffices. It is pretty clear that the RC “narrative” that the buck stopped with the Papacy and that the only time the rest of the Church “went their own way” was when they were heresy is false. There are obvious examples of the churches and councils rejecting Rome when she was asserting false doctrines and practices, and rebuffing broad assertions of Papal power.

When people actually look at the evidence instead of focusing on a few flowery words with no actions or consensus, one may surmise that the doctrine of the Papacy is literally a solid and impressive looking edifice on top a foundation of historical sand.

This is why the whole historical approach of RCism is counterfeit. They have a shifting approach to what is faith and morals in order to defend any attacks against Rome’s supposed infallibility. But isn’t this shooting the arrow and then painting the target after the fact? Isn’t the ability of the Church to condemn people after death an essential matter of ecclesiology on par with the “doctrine of the Papacy?” Wouldn’t Pope Vigilius be in error rejecting this emphatically? Isn’t what the Church can do an issue of faith? Hence, didn’t Vigilius commit an ex cathedra error, something that Vatican I teaches is impossible?

This is why everything with RCs becomes a shell game of technicalities and arguments over what terms mean, a useless wrangling over words that the Scriptures warn us against.

If anyone takes a deep breath and looks at history like a normal human being, one finds the “Rad Trad” Roman Catholic presentation of Church History to be senseless–which is why almost every single Roman Catholic scholar which is published via peer review rejects it and only online apologist hacks pretend that its true.

 

[linate]

crazy that this thread hasn't been posted in for so many years. it's a very important thread, though.... so i'm glad its getting archived 

[linate]

Iranaeus on how he said churches look to the roman church 

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/irenaeus-and-the-church-at-rome-in-his-day/