 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
301
Roman Catholicism
Roman
Catholicism (Part 8)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 1)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 2)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 3)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 4)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 5)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 6)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 7)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 8)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 9)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 10)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 11)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 12)
Addendum:
In Their Own Words
(Continued from previous section.)
Lastly, we arrive at the final Roman Catholic appeal, which
involves bishop Victor of Rome. Below is the Catholic Encyclopedia's
arguments on the significance of this matter to Roman papal
authority.
"The Pope - During the pontificate of St. Victor
(189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy
of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference
of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest
of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal
festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground
for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic
(or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case
it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians
should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances,
such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries
may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church,
whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to
the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic
Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church,
but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus,
who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself.
Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however,
intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches
on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He
assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him
not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops
involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates
solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing
his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they
had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that,
as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present
themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether
the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this
or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good
would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
First, note that the word "pontificate" is derived from the
word "pontifex," which was the word for the ancient priests
of the Roman paganism. This word was not applied to the bishops
of Rome until sometime after the Roman Empire melded with
Christianity under Constantine during the early 4th century
A.D.
"Pontifex - The immense authority of the collegium
centred in the pontifex maximus, the other pontifices forming
his consilium, or advising body. His functions were partly
sacrificial or ritualistic, but the real power lay in the
administration of the jus divinum." - Britannica.com
"Pontifex - The title pontifex was used of Roman
Catholic bishops and pontifex maximus of the pope by the end
of the 4th century. In modern usage, both terms generally
refer to the pope." - Britannica.com
"pontifex maximus - highest priest of Roman religion
and official head of the college of pontifices. As the chief
administrator of religious affairs he regulated the conduct
of religious ceremonies, consecrated temples and other
holy places, and controlled the calendar. During the time
of the empire, and until Christianity became firmly established,
the emperor was designated pontifex maximus. After the supremacy
of Christianity, the popes assumed the title." - The Columbia
Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
By referring to Victor's time as the bishop of Rome with a
term that we in modern times associate with the office of
the pope (pontificate) the Catholic Encyclopedia irresponsibly
implies that at the time of his being bishop, Victor was understood
to be the pontiff, or pope. Because these terms only came
into use a century or more later, it is inappropriate for
the Catholic Encyclopedia to apply them in this way without
informing the reader of these details. Thus, by using the
word "pontificate" to indicate the papal office the Catholic
Encyclopedia assumes the very thing that they are attempting
to demonstrate - that such a papal office existence in the
2nd century Church.
Also, note that the Catholic Encyclopedia unequivocally states
that in their estimation this incident with bishop Victor
exhibits "the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of
the Roman See in regard to the other Churches." This means
that what we are about to read is, in their own words, the
best proof that they have available. Admittedly, the standard
isn't that high given the low quality of the previous evidence.
Nevertheless, why does the Catholic Encyclopedia believe that
Victor provides such an explicit assertion of Roman primacy?
Two reasons are provided.
First, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Victor bade
the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder
of the Church." But it is difficult to see how this fact favors
papal supremacy. If papal authority was understood at this
point in the Church, as the RCC claims, then we would expect
Victor to demand that the Asiatic Churches conform to his
authority as pope. Instead, what we find is that Victor appeals,
not to papal authority, but to the custom of the universal
Church. By appealing on the authority of the custom of the
Churches, Victor does not exhibit an "explicit assertion of
the supremacy of the Roman See" at all, but rather exhibits
an assertion of the authority of that which is held by the
universal Church.
Likewise, the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that Victor's
demand, whatever its authoritative basis, was resisted by
Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus as well as the Churches
of Asia Minor. Again, all this demonstrates is that papal
authority was not recognized in the Church at that time.
Second, the Catholic Encyclopedia attempts to convince us
that Victor exercised Roman papal supremacy, by excommunicating
Polycrates. In support of this they claim that Irenaeus, in
writing to ask Victor to reconsider does not deny that Victor
had this power to excommunicate Polycrates. But, how, one
must ask does an acknowledgement that one bishop could excommunicate
another bishop amount to Roman primacy?
In 323, bishop Alexander of Alexandria, excommunicated Arius,
the author of the Arian heresy.
"Eusebius Of Nicomedia - When Arius was condemned
in a synod at Alexandria (September 323), Eusebius sheltered
him and sponsored a synod (October 323) at Bithynia, which
nullified Arius' excommunication." - Britannica.com
"Arius - c.256-336, Libyan theologian, founder of the
Arian heresy. A parish priest in Alexandria, he advanced
the doctrine famous as Arianism and was excommunicated locally
(321)." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Eusebius of Cæsarea - Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria,
excommunicated Arius about the year 320." - Catholic Encyclopedia
"Eusebius of Nicomedia - He now summoned a larger council,
from around the world of which his victorious arms had made
him master. It met at Nicæa in 325. The bishops were nearly
all Easterns; but a Western bishop, Hosius of Cordova, who
was in the emperor's confidence, took a leading part, and
the pope was represented. Constantine ostentatiously declared
at the council went no further than the guardianship of the
bishops, but Eusebius of Cæsarea makes it clear that he spoke
on the theological question. The bishop of Nicomedia and his
friends put forward an Arian confession of faith, but it had
only about seventeen supporters from among three hundred members
of the council, and it was hooted by the majority. The
formula which was eventually adopted was resisted for some
time by the Arian contingent, but eventually all the bishops
signed, with the exception of the two Egyptians who had been
excommunicated by Alexander." - Catholic Encyclopedia
"Eusebius of Nicomedia - The see of Alexandria had
remained vacant during the absence of Athanasius. Eusebius
now claimed to put the Synod of Tyre in force, and a rival
bishop was set up in the person of Pistus, one of the Arian
priests whom Alexander had long ago excommunicated." -
Catholic Encyclopedia
Likewise, Ambrose, bishop of Milan excommunicated Theodusius
I in 390 A.D.
"Ambrose, Saint - 340?-397, bishop of Milan,
Doctor of the Church, b. Trier, of Christian parents. Educated
at Rome, he became (c.372) governor of Liguria and Aemilia-with
the capital at Milan. He was highly regarded as governor and
popular pressure resulted in his appointment (374) as bishop,
although he was reluctant and lacked religious training…He
excommunicated Theodosius I for the massacre at Salonica (390)
and imposed a heavy public penance on him before reinstating
him." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
It is apparent from these accounts that bishops had the power
of excommunication in the early Church. This being the case
Irenaeus' acknowledgement that Victor could excommunicate
Polycrates does not demonstrate papal authority, it only demonstrates
that bishops had the right of excommunication.
And again, we see that the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges
that the Asiatic bishops resisted Victor's demands. Though
the Catholic Encyclopedia contends that this does not deny
the supremacy of Rome, it is hard to see how it would in any
way affirm it.
With all of this in mind, it must be concluded that these
incidents involving bishop Victor of Rome do NOT in any way
provide evidence that papal authority or Roman primacy was
recognized or known to the early Church much less exhibit
"explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard
to the other Churches" as the Catholic Encyclopedia claims.
All these events can demonstrate is a lack of recognition
of papal authority in the early Church. And if this is "the
most explicit assertion" of this doctrine in the early Church,
then the teaching of papal supremacy is, indeed in deep trouble.
Of course, we have already evaluated the rest of the evidence
in the previous pages of this study and so we can confidently
say that none of the evidence substantiates the claims of
the RCC on these matters.
With this we conclude our section on the writings of Ignatius
and Victor having again demonstrated that 2nd century Church
writers do not provide support for the Roman Catholic doctrine
of papal authority or succession.
At this point in our study we have finished examining the
arguments put forth by the Catholic Encyclopedia, by which
they intended to demonstrate the Scriptural and Traditional
evidence for their doctrines of papal authority and Roman
primacy. In each case we have gone beyond the minimal information
provided by the Catholic Encyclopedia (when any was provided
at all) and have shown in the context of these early Church
documents (whether Scriptural or non-canonical) that no solid,
objective, reasonable, explicit support for these Roman Catholic
teaching can be found in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, centuries A.D.
However, even though we have finished with the few appeals
made by Roman Catholics, we can still look at a few other
historic details, which also contribute to our conclusion
that the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal authority and Roman
primacy did not originate with Jesus Christ or His Apostles,
but at the earliest, was a late 3rd century development. First,
we will look at a comment made by another 1st century Church
writer and disciple of John the Apostle, the aforementioned
Polycarp.
Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, lived between
approximately 70 and 156 A.D. He was a friend of Ignatius
and, as Ignatius mentioned, was the bishop of Smyrna.
"Polycarp, Saint - c.A.D. 70-A.D. 156?, Greek bishop
of Smyrna, Father of the Church. He was a disciple
of St. John, who appointed him bishop. Thus he linked
the apostles and such 2d-century Christian expositors as St.
Irenaeus. St. Polycarp was a close friend of St. Ignatius
of Antioch. As a very old man, Polycarp went to Rome to
discuss the problem of dating Easter. He died a martyr in
Smyrna. His one surviving work, the Epistle to the Philippians,
has been the subject of controversy. Some scholars have maintained
that the letter is really two-one written c.115, enclosing
St. Ignatius' epistles, and the other written c.135 to warn
the Philippians against the teachings of Marcion. He was
in his time the mainstay of Christianity in Asia Minor.
Feast: Jan. 26." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
2001.
In his writings Polycarp does not offer much information on
any supposed papal office or authority. All that can be said
from Polycarp is that he commands the Church to be obedient
to the word of righteousness rather than to any supreme bishop
of Rome.
"I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the
word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such
as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case
of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also
in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest
of the apostles." - Polycarp, CHAP. IX.--PATIENCE INCULCATED.
Polycarp's silence on Roman supremacy while mentioning obedience
to the doctrines of Christ does not, in and of itself, contradict
the Roman Catholic teaching with absolute certainty. However,
when viewed in the context of the other early Church authors
that we have looked at so far, including Ignatius, Clement,
and Irenaeus we can see a consensus emerging, which does as
a whole deny that this Roman Catholic teaching was known or
accepted at any time prior to the late 3rd century.
Likewise, the epistle of Barnabas was written at about 100
A.D. Though the work is considered orthodox, it is not known
whether or not this work was written by the Apostle Barnabas
spoken of in the New Testament.
"Barnabas, Saint - Christian apostle. He was
a Cypriot and a relative of St. Mark; his forename
was Joseph. Several passages in the New Testament relate that
Barnabas was a teacher and prophet in the church at Antioch
and the companion of St. Paul on his first missionary journey.
He is said to have been martyred in Cyprus. One of the
oldest noncanonical Christian writings (about 2d cent. A.D.)
is a letter attributed to Barnabas. Feast: June 11." -
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
The epistle of Barnabas comments briefly on Jesus giving authority
to the apostles. In the commentary of this letter it is clearly
indicated that Jesus granted authority to all twelve of the
Apostles. NO mention is made of a singular primary position
existing among them or of such a position being filled by
Peter. Instead, all of the apostles are said to have been
given same level of authority by Jesus.
"To these He gave authority to preach the Gospel, being
twelve in number, corresponding to the twelve tribes(7)
of Israel." - The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 A.D., CHAP. VIII.--THE
RED HEIFER A TYPE OF CHRIST.
In concert with the similar remarks made by these other early
witnesses of Christian doctrine, we see that the Epistle of
Barnabas does nothing to support the Roman Catholic doctrine
of the papal authority of Peter and only provides information,
which contradicts this claim of the RCC by asserting shared
and equal authority among all 12 apostles.
Other early church writers whose works are included in the
Sacred Tradition of the RCC include Papias and Justin Martyr.
Papias, another disciple of John the Apostle and bishop of
Hierapolis lived between 60-130 A.D.
"Papias - fl. A.D. 130, early Christian theologian
said to have been bishop of Hieropolis and a friend of
St. Polycarp. Papias' five-volume work, Oracles; or, Explanations
of the Sayings of the Lord, survives only in fragments quoted
by Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Irenaeus. These are valuable
sources for the history of the church." - The Columbia Encyclopedia,
Sixth Edition. 2001.
Justin Martyr, who wrote two important works, Apology and
Dialogue, lived between 100-165 A.D.
"Justin Martyr, Saint - c.A.D. 100-c.A.D. 165,
Christian apologist, called also Justin the Philosopher. Born
in Samaria of pagan parents, he studied philosophy, and after
his conversion in Ephesus to Christianity at about the age
of 38, he went from place to place trying to convert men
of learning by philosophical argument. He opened a school
of Christian philosophy at Rome, where he and some disciples
were finally martyred under Marcus Aurelius. Of his writings
(in Greek), only two undisputed works remain, the Apology
(with an appendix called the Second Apology) and the Dialogue.
The Apology is a learned defense of Christians against charges
of atheism and sedition in the Roman state; it contains an
exposition of Christian ethics and invaluable records of the
customs and practices of 2d-century Christianity. The
Dialogue sets forth in the form of an argument with Trypho
(or Tryphon) the Jew a philosophic defense of Christian beliefs,
particularly with reference to Jewish writings; it has references
to the Gospels that have been of much interest to students
of the Bible. Feast: Apr. 14." - The Columbia Encyclopedia,
Sixth Edition. 2001.
Though these authors are considered significant contributors
to our understanding of 1st and 2nd century Christianity,
a search of their works finds no mention of Peter, Paul, Rome,
or bishop. The absence of any mention by these authors of
such an important Church doctrine as papal supremacy in conjunction
with the comments we have studied from the other writers of
this time seriously undermines that any such doctrine ever
did exist in the early Church and is impossible to explain
without forfeiting the teaching of the RCC.
This conclusion that the Church of the first three centuries
did not hold to a Roman Catholic understanding of Peter as
the authoritative rock upon which the Church is built, is
shared by Britannica.com.
"Roman Catholicism - Of the Petrine texts, Matthew
16:18 f. is clearly central and has the distinction of being
the first scriptural text invoked to support the primatial
claims of the Roman bishops. Before the mid-3rd century,
however, and even after that date, some Western, as well as
Eastern, patristic exegetes (early Church Fathers who in their
interpretation of the Bible used critical techniques) understood
that by the "rock" Christ meant to refer not to Peter but
to himself or to the faith that Peter professed." - Britannica.com
Analysis of Evidence from the Historical Record
One final piece of historical evidence that should be considered
when investigating the supposed authority of the Roman bishopric
is the schism that occurred between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox
Churches.
While we have seen that papal authority of Rome is anything
but established or recognized as Church doctrine in the first
thee centuries of Church history, something begins to happen
at the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th
century A.D. - the doctrine of Roman primacy begins to be
asserted.
"Christianity - Historians differ greatly on how
far back the 4th-century picture of the church (which is quite
clear) can be projected, especially respecting organization
by bishops (each bishop a monarch in the church of his city),
celebration of a liturgy entailing a sacrament and a sacrifice,
and claims by the bishop of Rome to be head of all the
churches (see papacy)." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth
Edition. 2001.
"The Pope - It is no longer denied by any writer of
weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom
there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however,
of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny
that he was ever bishop of the city…In considering this
point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when
references to it become frequent, and work backwards from
this point." - Catholic Encyclopedia
"The Pope - The limits of the present article prevent
us from carrying the historical argument further than the
year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the
beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ
large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the
first age of the Church that any question can arise."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
As the assertions of Roman papal authority at last become
frequent and explicit in historical writing a struggle emerged
between the bishops of Rome and their counterparts elsewhere
especially in the eastern part of the empire. As the Roman
bishops attempted to assert themselves as the supreme authority
over the Church they were resisted in both the east and in
Northern Africa as the bishops of the other Churches did not
recognize this newly emerging doctrine.
Earlier we saw this trend was already occurring in the late
3rd century, where Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, denied
the jurisdictional authority and supremacy of bishop Stephen
of Rome in the mid 200's A.D.
"Cyprian, Saint - Cyprian returned to Carthage (early
251) and at a council of bishops in May 251 was able to regain
his authority. The decision of the council was that, though
no one should be totally excluded from penance, those who
truly had sacrificed (the sacrificati) should be readmitted
only on their deathbeds, and those who had merely accepted
certificates (the libellatici) were to be readmitted after
varying periods of penance. Three important principles
of church discipline were thus established. First, the
right and power to remit deadly sins, even that of apostasy,
lay in the hands of the church; second, the final authority
in disciplinary matters rested with the bishops in council
as repositories of the Holy Spirit; and, third, unworthy
members among the laity must be accepted in the New Israel
of Christianity just as in the Old Israel of Judaism." -Britannica.com
"Cyprian, Saint - Though Cyprian may have written
two drafts of an important passage concerning the primacy
of the chair of Peter, he implied no acceptance of Roman jurisdictional
prerogatives. When in 254 two Spanish congregations (Mérida
and León) appealed to him against a decision by Stephen
to restore bishops who had lapsed during the persecution,
he summoned a council to consider the case. The council
decided that the congregations not only had a right but
a duty to separate themselves from a cleric who had committed
a deadly sin such as apostasy. Cyprian wrote (Letter 67) that
the Holy Spirit was no longer in such a priest and that his
sacraments would lead to perdition and not salvation. The
church as the "pure Bride of Christ" might be obliged to absorb
a sinful laity, but a sinful priest making offerings on behalf
of the people was unthinkable." -Britannica.com
"Cyprian, Saint - Unity was expressed through the
consensus of bishops, all equally possessing the Holy Spirit
and sovereign in their own sees. There was no 'bishop of bishops.'
The church consisted of the people united to their bishop.
Schism and rebellion against the priesthood were viewed as
the worst of sins. These views-associated with an uncompromising
insistence on the integrity and exclusive character of the
church, which are believed to have been derived from the North
African theologian Tertullian -received divine sanction for
most North African Christians through his martyrdom." -Britannica.com
But, Cyprian's rejection of Roman primacy was not alone. The
Eastern Churches, too, did not recognize this novel doctrine
as a legitimate teaching of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.
Their rejection would later lead to outright schism between
the bishops of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
In modern times, we in the west use the name Greek or Eastern
Orthodox Church instead of the official title for this branch
of the Church, which is the Orthodox Catholic Church. The
term Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church is used in the west
to distinguish between this organization of Christianity and
Roman Catholicism. In effect, these two organizations could
be called Greek Catholicism and Roman Catholicism or Eastern
and Western Orthodox Churches.
The development of the schism between the Eastern Catholicism
(the Greek Orthodox Church) and Roman Catholicism is chronicled
in the Britannica.com quote below.
"Eastern Orthodox - The schism between the churches
of the East and the West (1054) was the culmination of a gradual
process of estrangement that began in the first centuries
of the Christian Era and continued through the Middle
Ages. Linguistic and cultural differences, as well as political
events, contributed to the estrangement. From the 4th to
the 11th century, Constantinople, the centre of Eastern Christianity,
was also the capital of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire,
while Rome, after the barbarian invasions, fell under the
influence of the Holy Roman Empire of the West, a political
rival. In the West theology remained under the influence of
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), while in the East doctrinal
thought was shaped by the Greek Fathers. Theological differences
could have been settled if the two areas had not simultaneously
developed different concepts of church authority. The growth
of Roman primacy, based on the concept of the apostolic origin
of the Church of Rome, was incompatible with the Eastern idea
that the importance of certain local churches-Rome, Alexandria,
Antioch, and later, Constantinople-could be determined only
by their numerical and political significance. For the East,
the highest authority in settling doctrinal disputes was the
ecumenical council." - Britannica.com
"Greek Church - The relations that grew up between
Rome and the Greek Churches during the long period from the
death of Constantine the Great to the end of the Iconoclast
persecutions (337-843) were far from cordial. In principle
East and West were united; in fact they were separated
during most of that time. During those 506 years the Greek
Church was in open schism with Rome during seven periods aggregating
at least 248 years." - the Catholic Encyclopedia
The defining difference between the Eastern Catholicism and
Roman Catholicism then, is that the Eastern Catholic Church
does not recognize the proclaimed supremacy of the bishop
of Rome. While Roman Catholicism is alone in teaching that
the bishop of Rome holds supreme authority in the Church,
the Eastern Catholic Churches hold that supreme authority
resides in and is distributed among all of the local Churches.
"Eastern Orthodox - The Orthodox Church is a fellowship
of "autocephalous" churches (governed by their own head bishops),
with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople holding titular
or honorary primacy. The number of autocephalous churches
has varied in history. Today there are many: the Church of
Constantinople (Istanbul), the Church of Alexandria (Egypt),
the Church of Antioch (with headquarters in Damascus, Syria),
and the churches of Jerusalem, Russia , Ukraine, Georgia ,
Serbia , Romania , Bulgaria , Cyprus, Greece , Albania, Poland,
the Czech and Slovak republics, and America" - Britannica.com
"Autocephalous Churches - in the modern usage of
Eastern Orthodox canon law, church that enjoys total canonical
and administrative independence and elects its own primates
and bishops. The term autocephalous was used in medieval Byzantine
law in its literal sense of 'self-headed' (Greek: autokephalos),
or independent, and was applied in church law to individual
dioceses that did not depend upon the authority of a provincial
metropolitan. Today the Orthodox archbishopric of Mount
Sinai, with the historic monastery of St. Catherine, still
enjoys this privilege." - Britannica.com
"Eastern Orthodox - The bishop is primarily the
guardian of the faith and, as such, the centre of the
sacramental life of the community. The Orthodox Church
maintains the doctrine of apostolic succession -i.e., the
idea that the ministry of the bishop must be in direct continuity
with that of the Apostles of Jesus. Orthodox tradition-as
expressed especially in its medieval opposition to the Roman
papacy-distinguishes the office of the "Apostle" from
that of the bishop, however, in that the first is viewed as
a universal witness to the historic Jesus and his Resurrection,
while the latter is understood in terms of the pastoral and
sacramental responsibility for a local community, or church.
The continuity between the two is, therefore, a continuity
in faith rather than in function." - Britannica.com
"Orthodox Eastern Church - community of Christian churches
whose chief strength is in the Middle East and E Europe. Their
members number over 250 million worldwide. The Orthodox agree
doctrinally in accepting as ecumenical the first seven councils
(see council, ecumenical) and in rejecting the jurisdiction
of the bishop of Rome (the pope). This repudiation of the
papal claims is the principal point dividing the Orthodox
from Roman Catholics." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth
Edition. 2001.
"Greek Church - The term Orthodox Greek Church,
or even simply the Orthodox Church, designates, without
distinction of speech, or race, or nationality, all the existing
Churches of the Byzantine Rite, separated from Rome.
They claim to be a unit and to have the same body of doctrine,
which they say was that of the primitive Church. As a matter
of fact, the orthodoxy of these Churches is what we call heterodoxy,
since it rejects the Papal Infallibility, and the Papal
Supremacy, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that of
Purgatory, etc. However, by a polite fiction, educated
Catholics give them the name of Orthodox which they have usurped.
The term Schismatic Greek Church is synonymous with the above;
nearly everybody uses it, but it is at times inexpedient to
do so, if one would avoid wounding the feelings of those whose
conversion is aimed at." - the Catholic Encyclopedia
Without needing to go into further detail we can confidently
identify a historical trend that identifiably appear until
after the year 300 A.D. The idea of Roman primacy, which has
no reasonable representation prior to the 4th century, did
during the 4th century begin to be asserted by the Roman bishops.
(We will examine more what contributed to the rise of this
doctrine at this point in history later on in our study.)
Since this doctrine had not been known or accepted prior to
this time the bishops of other regions reacted with objections
to it. This historic rejection of Roman papal supremacy is
chiefly exemplified through bishop Cyprian of Carthage and
the Eastern Orthodox Churches. What we see recorded in history
then is not surprising, but is completely consistent with
our conclusions so far.
If the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal authority had been
present in the Church since its inception we would expect
two things. We would expect to see that doctrine explicitly
and consistently reflected in at least some of the writings
of the first three centuries of the Church. And we would also
expect to see a uniform acceptance and adherence to this doctrine
whenever it was exercised as Church history continued.
We instead find the opposite. The first three centuries of
Christian writing contain absolutely no statements confirming
the presence of this doctrine in the Church, but instead undermine
even the consideration of Roman papal supremacy. Then in the
early 4th century just as this doctrine begins to be stated
with frequency and in clear terms, we find a large scale,
widespread reaction against its claims within the Church worldwide.
Additionally, while literature beginning in the 4th century
attests to the emergence and acceptance of papal authority
and Roman primacy at that time, official expression of this
doctrine occurs in the centuries afterward. Official Roman
Catholic certification of papal authority and Roman primacy
as it is understood today in all of its elaborate complexity
comes from the following sources, all of which occurred many,
long centuries after Jesus Christ and His Apostles lived and
taught the original doctrines of Christianity.
For example, as we have already seen, the term pope was widely
applied until the 9th or 10th centuries, after which it was
reserved exclusively for the bishop of Rome.
"Pope - (Latin papa, from Greek pappas, "father"),
an ecclesiastical title expressing affectionate respect, formerly
given, especially from the 3rd to the 5th century, to any
bishop and sometimes to simple priests. The title is still
used in the East for the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria
and for Orthodox priests, but, since about the 9th century,
it has been reserved in the West exclusively for the bishop
of Rome. (See also papacy. The article contains a list
of popes and antipopes.)" - Britannica.com
"Pope - The teaching of the Second Vatican Council
(1962-65) on the role of bishops the office and jurisdiction
of the bishop of Rome, or the pope (Latin: papa, from the
Greek pappas, "father"), who presides over the central government
of the Roman Catholic church, the largest of the three major
branches of Christianity. The term pope was originally applied
to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe the
patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title. In 1073,
however, Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome.
According to the Annuario Pontificio, the papal annual, there
have been more than 260 popes since St. Peter , traditionally
considered the first pope." - Britannica.com
"Roman Catholicism - The word papacy (Latin
papatia, derived from papa, "pope"; i.e., father) is of
medieval origin. In its primary usage it denotes the office
of the pope (of Rome) and, hence, the system of ecclesiastical
and temporal government over which he directly presides."
- Britannica.com
The infallibility of the pope was officially declared in the
First Vatican Council in 1870.
"Infallibility - Roman Catholics hold that the infallibility
of the church is vested in the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra
(i.e., from the chair of Peter, as the visible head of the
church) on matters of faith and morals. Definitive pronouncements
resulting from an ecumenical council, when ratified by the
pope, are also held to be infallible. The pope speaks ex cathedra
only rarely and after long deliberation. The dogma of papal
infallibility was enunciated by the First Vatican Council
(1870)." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
And most importantly, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papal
authority of Peter and the Roman bishops owes its acceptance
primarily to three Roman Catholic popes of the 4th and 5th
centuries.
"Roman Catholicism - Nevertheless, in the late 4th
and 5th centuries there was an increasing tendency on the
part of the Roman bishops to justify scripturally and to formulate
in theoretical terms the ill-defined preeminence in the universal
church that had long been attached to the Roman Church and
to its bishop. Thus, Damasus I, despite the existence
of other churches of apostolic foundation, began to call the
Roman Church 'the apostolic see.' About the same time the
categories of the Roman law were borrowed to explicate and
formulate the prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The process
of theoretical elaboration reached a culmination in the views
of Leo I and Gelasius I, the former understanding himself
not simply as Peter's successor but also as his representative,
or vicar. He was Peter's "unworthy heir," possessing by
analogy with the Roman law of inheritance the full powers
Peter himself had wielded, which he interpreted as monarchical,
since Peter had been endowed with the principatus over the
church." - Britannica.com
"Damasus I, Saint - born c. 304 , Rome died Dec. 11,
384 , Rome; feast day December 11 pope from Oct. 1, 366,
to Dec. 11, 384. During his rule the primacy of the Roman
see was asserted." - Britannica.com
"Leo I, Saint - born 4th century , Tuscany? died
November 10, 461, Rome; Western feast day November 10
([formerly April 11]), Eastern feast day February 18 byname
Leo The Great pope from 440 to 461, master exponent of papal
supremacy. His pontificate-which saw the disintegration
of the Roman Empire in the West and the formation in the East
of theological differences that were to split Christendom-was
devoted to safeguarding orthodoxy and to securing the
unity of the Western church under papal supremacy." -
Britannica.com
"Gelasius I, Saint - born , probably Africa died Nov.
19, 496 , Rome; feast day November 21 pope from 492 to
496." - Britannica.com
All of the above historical facts overwhelmingly point to
one, undeniable conclusion:
The foundational and defining claim of the Roman Catholic
Church to possess supreme authority over the Church in matters
of faith and doctrine as ascribed to the office of the pope
as the successor of Peter, the first bishop of Rome DID
NOT ORIGINATE with the teachings of Jesus Christ and His
Apostles. Now we will consider some of the historical reasons
for why this RCC's doctrine became prominently asserted at
this particular point in time, the middle of the fourth century
AD.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |