Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dairygirl4u2c

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

Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c

i posted this at catholic answers, but any time i post something like this, it gets removed etc. they have very high censorship there. 

 

 
if you go to catholic.com and look at their quotes supporting the papacy, they and read them in a unifying sense only and not as the catholic church would have you believe, you see a different way to interpret them. and, if you look at their most striking quotes from cyprian and firmilian, you might want to defer to the catholics, until you read the context of those qutoes. 
and if you read more on early history, papal supermemcy is far from certain. you'd think it'd be clearer. 
 
St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"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)

Cyprian once called a council of 87 bishops in Carthage. The purpose of that council, according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V, was:

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")

That council declared, in the very first paragraph of its report of proceedings:

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.)"

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!
 
Cyprian's colleague responded....
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). 

"was Cyprian Wrong?  No, Cyprian was right, and history remembers him, not Stephen. Numerous writings of St. Cyprian have been preserved, but none of Stephen's.

But our subject here is not whether Cyprian was right. The subject is whether Cyprian can be quoted as proof of papal primacy in the 3rd century church. And clearly, he cannot be.

Even if St. Cyprian was a heretic and dangerous man, the issue is that Catholic apologists are quoting him in defense of the bishop of Rome having the authority of a pope in Cyprian's time. Quoting him out of the context of his life and his other sayings is simply dishonest."
 

the easter controversy
victor is from about 100 AD .... 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.� "

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

councils and popes

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")

Pope Gregory, 500AD
"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"

" 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? 

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

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

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. Ambrose of Milan (`300): "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].

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural. if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know or did know the extent of his power. Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though it's generally believed he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

what's not to take seriously? these are the same types of arguments the orthodox use. and everyone takes them seriously. the orthodox don't remain separate just because they haven't read www.catholic.com. if the CC claims aren't so weak, this is where the clearer evidence should be inserted.  also, it's indisputeable that catholic.com and other justifications are purposefully distorted as mentioned above. this seems a lot less credible, less to take seriously, than anything from me. 

there's so little from what i've said to criticize me for, that your point is next to without basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarysLittleFlower

I research the early Church sometimes so I'd be interested in sharing some information :) I think I saw your post too on Catholic Answers, or maybe a similar one.

 

Some points...

 

1. St Cyprian disagreed with Pope Stephen on whether heretics are validly baptized (which was a contentious issue in the day). However, didn't the Church actually accept Pope Stephen's view, and this is what is held even today? that's why Protestant baptisms are accepted IF done correctly, in the name of the Holy Trinity.

 

 

2. Regarding "universal Bishop":

 

I looked into this before... actually when this was condemned, by say Pope Gregory, he was writing not the Pope (he was Pope, obviously) but the Patriarch of Constantinople I think, who wanted the title "universal bishop". Pope Gregory disagreed with this title because it makes it seem like *other Bishops are not Bishops*. However, the Papacy doesn't say anything like that. Other Bishops are full Bishops and the Pope doesn't make them "half Bishops" or anything like that. If you look at Pope Gregory's comment carefully, it seems to imply this understanding. It could be the same with "bishop of bishops".

 

Here's the quote:

"For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops."

 

and

 

"how one, who had professed himself unworthy to be called a Bishop at all, should now despise his brethren, and aspire to be called the sole Bishop."

 

But Pope Gregory was a firm supporter of the Papacy it seems. He might have said this to the Patriarch just to promote humility. About the role of Rome, he said things like this:

 

"As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] ?"

 

"Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.

{Epistle XLIII, emphasis added}

 

"To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles . . . Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him . . . Yet he was not the universal Apostle. But . . . John would be called universal Bishop . . . [Popes had never assumed this title, though it had been given them], lest all the Bishops be deprived of their due meed of honor whilst some special honor be conceded to one.

{Epistles, 5, 37; to Emperor Maurice, emphasis

 

Source of quotes: http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2007/03/pope-gregory-great-and-universal-papacy.html

 

So we can see Pope Gregory really supported the role of Rome, while disagreeing with someone calling themselves the "universal bishop" because he thought this is like saying there's only ONE Bishop. Which is not what the Church teaches. So... I'm just showing there need not be contradiction.

 

Saint Peter had the care of the whole Church, as Pope Gregory said... so it's not wrong to say that one can have the care of the whole Church. He then said that he was still not called universal Apostle, because Pope Gregory said this could imply others are not Apostles.

 

If: Saint Peter had the care of the whole Church and was not called Universal Apostle,

 

what's stopping the Pope from having the care of the whole Church and not being called Universal Bishop?

 

So whenever such titles are disagreed with by the Popes, - it's clarified here that it's not the actual role of the Pope that is being disagreed with. Hope that makes sense.

 

Edited by MarysLittleFlower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

what's not to take seriously? these are the same types of arguments the orthodox use. and everyone takes them seriously. the orthodox don't remain separate just because they haven't read www.catholic.com. if the CC claims aren't so weak, this is where the clearer evidence should be inserted.  also, it's indisputeable that catholic.com and other justifications are purposefully distorted as mentioned above. this seems a lot less credible, less to take seriously, than anything from me. 

there's so little from what i've said to criticize me for, that your point is next to without basis.

 

 

people having been attacking the church for 2000 years.  people have been attacking the papacy for a long long time.  I highly doubt throughout history many scholars were unable to prove the church wrong but dairy girl on the internet is smarter than all and can prove the church wrong even though for 2000 years no one else has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apotheoun

The members of the Joint International Commssion for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the commission's working document (a.k.a. the Cyprus Document) noted the different approaches to primacy taken in the East and the West when it pointed out that the Eastern Churches have never accepted the idea that the bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition all bishops share in the same Apostolic office, because they are all successors of the Apostles through episcopal consecration, i.e., successors of all the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter. Perhaps that is why the Roman claims to primacy (or worse "supremacy") over the universal episcopate and the many local Churches are met with disbelief by the Orthodox. Clearly, the two sides view primacy and even Apostolic Succession differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

people having been attacking the church for 2000 years.  people have been attacking the papacy for a long long time.  I highly doubt throughout history many scholars were unable to prove the church wrong but dairy girl on the internet is smarter than all and can prove the church wrong even though for 2000 years no one else has.

 

i'm not trying to disprove the CC. i'm not trying to establish anything that i'm sure hasn't been established before. i am though making known to others what the truth really is, and i am hoping that if i am missing something that i will be informed of it myself. things are not so clear in the west as it is in the east. most people don't care. i didn't just find all those quotes and ideas on one website but pieced them together myself. im sure others have found these before, or seen them, even if not all in one place. i dont claim anything that hasn't been established before, i don't deny it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

it should also be noted, that 'binding and loosing', the same idea that Jesus gave to peter was also later given to the rest of the apostles.

 

Mat 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Papist

 

i posted this at catholic answers, but any time i post something like this, it gets removed etc. they have very high censorship there. 

 

 
if you go to catholic.com and look at their quotes supporting the papacy, they and read them in a unifying sense only and not as the catholic church would have you believe, you see a different way to interpret them. and, if you look at their most striking quotes from cyprian and firmilian, you might want to defer to the catholics, until you read the context of those qutoes. 
and if you read more on early history, papal supermemcy is far from certain. you'd think it'd be clearer. 
 
St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"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)

Cyprian once called a council of 87 bishops in Carthage. The purpose of that council, according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V, was:

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")

That council declared, in the very first paragraph of its report of proceedings:

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.)"

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!
 
Cyprian's colleague responded....
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). 

"was Cyprian Wrong?  No, Cyprian was right, and history remembers him, not Stephen. Numerous writings of St. Cyprian have been preserved, but none of Stephen's.

But our subject here is not whether Cyprian was right. The subject is whether Cyprian can be quoted as proof of papal primacy in the 3rd century church. And clearly, he cannot be.

Even if St. Cyprian was a heretic and dangerous man, the issue is that Catholic apologists are quoting him in defense of the bishop of Rome having the authority of a pope in Cyprian's time. Quoting him out of the context of his life and his other sayings is simply dishonest."
 

the easter controversy
victor is from about 100 AD .... 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.� "

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

councils and popes

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")

Pope Gregory, 500AD
"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"

" 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? 

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

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

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. Ambrose of Milan (`300): "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].

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural. if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know or did know the extent of his power. Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though it's generally believed he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

 

 

Please, if you would. In one clear sentence, can you state your assertion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

it should also be noted, that 'binding and loosing', the same idea that Jesus gave to peter was also later given to the rest of the apostles.

 

Mat 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

 

no other apostle was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  no other apostle was told Jesus will build his church on him.  no other apostle was told to feed his flock.  He also told Peter to bring the apostles back after his death.

 

it really simple dairy.  the catholic church was the only true Christian church around for so long.  every other church split off from the catholic church.  so you tell me what sounds more likely:

 

1. the catholic church is the one true church and everyone split off from it, thus getting farther from the true truth.

 

2. the catholic church is not the true church of Christ so essentially for 1000 years if your orthodox or 1500 years if your protestant the only church of Christ on earth was wrong.  So essentially for 1500 years the whole world was getting it wrong but then incredibly some reformers came along and got it right.  They would have to be smarter than all the Saints before them and even those who lived during the time of the apostles.  So the world had been in absolute darkness for 1500 years and more than likely no one made it to heaven during this time.

 

 

 

so really which is more plausible?  I mean honestly?  do you really think God would let his church disappear from the world for 1500 years? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MarysLittleFlower

it should also be noted, that 'binding and loosing', the same idea that Jesus gave to peter was also later given to the rest of the apostles.

 

Mat 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

but only Peter was called the rock...... and there was the sentence with the keys. Take a look at this article, the part about the Old Testament: http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...