St. Irenaeus [AD 140-200]
Irenaeus used Rome’s
succession as a “most complete
demonstration” [PG 7: 849-51] of how teaching authority, and the mark of
truth, is based on apostolic succession. His train of thought is that every
Church is bound to agree with that Church because of its “more powerful
principality.” Irenaeus said that those “who
stand aloof from the principal succession” must be considered “suspect, or as heretics, or of bad doctrine...”
[Adv. Haer. IV, 26] Irenaeus chooses the succession at Rome alone and
apart from the rest. If this “principal succession” is not that of Rome where
is it? Also consider that those who stand aloof from it must be considered
“suspect, or as heretics, or of bad doctrine.”
In the passage brought up
by my opponent he says that it, “would be changed into a teaching on Roman
Primacy through a careful mistranslation”
which smacks of deliberate deception.
Actually the portion of the
text he brings attention to presents no problem for the Catholic. Render that
portion of the passage, “go to” or “meet at”, as he asserts it should be. It
doesn’t matter either way.
The bigger problem he needs
to deal with are the words propter
potentiorem principalitatem.
For to this church on
account of the more powerful principality (propter potentiorem principalitatem)
it is necessary that every church convene(“go
to” or “meet at”), that is the faithful from all sides, in which,
always, that which is the tradition from the apostles has been preserved by
those who are from all parts. [PG 7: 848-9]
The important point here is
the reason for convening. It says, “on
account of the more powerful principality.“ So regardless of whether it
is rendered as “go to” or “meet at” the reason is the issue. Considering this I ask how exactly does this
translation of convenire go to the
extreme of “condemning” Roman Primacy? I also ask what does it mean to “go
toward that church?“ What is the reason for this “going toward” if not because
Rome has the “more powerful principality?“
Council of Sardica [A.D. 343]
It is a myth to assert that
Sardica addressed jurisdiction at a mere local level and that there was no
Eastern representation at the council. Eastern bishops who did not attend the
council were Arian schismatics.
I showed no less than 20 Eastern provinces subscribing to the
council of Sardica [I forgot to include Palestine in my opening]. These canons
are excepted by the ancient Greek and Syriac Church.
I reiterate that the
Eastern Council of Trullo [A.D. 692; aka “Quinisext”], in Canon 2, accepted
Sardica’s canons 350 years later.
... if he[the bishop of Rome] judges that the case[of a bishop]
must be reconsidered, let it be reconsidered and let him appoint judges; if
however he concludes that the case is not such that it ought to be rehashed,
whatever he shall have decreed shall stand confirmed. Does this please
everybody? The council answered: “It does.” [Canon 3; Sardica;
Mansi 3:23]
... when a bishop has been deposed by the judgment of the bishops
living in neighboring places, and has proclaimed that his case must be handled
in the city of Rome, after the appeal of him who apparently has been deposed,
in no event may another bishop be ordained to replace him in his see unless the
case shall have been determined by the judgment of the bishop of Rome. [Canon
4; Sardica; Mansi 3:24]
Council of Nicea [A.D. 325; 1st Ecumenical] and Canon 6
About A.D. 305 or 306
Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis[in Egypt] had challenged the authority of his
superior, Peter of Alexandria, by performing illicit ordinations. Peter
convened a council in which Melitius was deposed.
The Council of Nicea not
only had to deal with Arianism but had “Melitianism” to deal with as well. This
is the problem Canon 6 of Nicea addresses.
Canon 6 proclaims that
Alexandria possesses authority, similar to that of Rome, over other provinces.
Alexandria and Rome are, like my opponent had mentioned, “Patriarchal Sees.”
There are ancient Latin
versions of Canon 6 which begin:
The Roman Church always had the primacy. Let the ancient customs
prevail in Egypt, Libya...[etc]. [Mansi 2: 669-72]
Canon 6 in the Ancient
Prisca[an ancient Latin collection] version is listed under the title:
“On the
Primacy of the Roman Church.” [PL
56: 758-9]
The
Coptic Church is an Eastern Church in Egypt. Here is a Coptic Recension of
Canon 6:
Let the ancient laws be observed, notably those concerning Egypt,
Libya and the Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria should have
authority over all these provinces, because
it is a law established by the bishops of Rome... [Cited
in Macarios, Georges, Histoire de
l’Eglise d’Alexandrie depuis Saint Marc jusqu’a nos jours. Cairo 1894, 76;
cf. DTC 11: 2254]
St. Cyprian[A.D. 200-258] and Pope St. Stephen[A.D. 254-257]
My opponent commented that
the council of Carthage “nullified”
the decisions of Pope Stephen.
Cyprian’s position, that
those baptized by heretics who then came into the Church needed to be baptized
again, was very common in the Eastern and African Church at the time. Pope
Stephen held to the traditional practice of the Church which considered these
baptisms as being valid and the imposition of hands should be used for
acceptance into the Church. Cyprian recognized that his own position on
rebaptism was not based on the traditional practice of the Church, yet believed
that the custom of the Church was simply wrong and should yield to reason.
Cyprian and Stephen were going opposite directions on a one way street. Pope
Stephen resisted Cyprian and stood fast on the practice of the Church stating, “nihil
innovetur”-- “let there be no innovation!”.
The council of Carthage
[A.D. 256], under Cyprian, ruled in favor of “rebaptism” and wrote to Pope
Stephen:
... we force no one, nor do we lay down a law, since each prelate
has the right of his free will in the administration of the Church, and will
give an account of his actions to the Lord. [Ep. 72. CSEL 3: 778]
Cyprian believed that the
council of Carthage had every right to rule as it did in this matter. He also
believed that he had no right to enforce his view on any other bishop and vice
versa. St. Jerome spoke on the matter:
Blessed Cyprian... condemning the baptism of heretics, sent [the
acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of
the city of Rome, and the twenty-second from Blessed Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually the
very same bishops, who had laid down with him that heretics were to be
rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, published a new decree. [Contra
Lucif., 23. PL 23: 186]
Ultimately, and in the end,
Pope Stephen and the Tradition of the Church prevailed over St. Cyprian and his
council of 256. The Latin Father Vincent of Lerins sums it up this way:
Agrippinus [Cyprian] of venerable memory, who was once bishop of
Carthage, first of all mortals, against
the divine Canon, against the rule of the Universal Church, against the
opinion of all his fellow priests, against the custom and institutions of the
elders, thought that rebaptism ought to be practiced... Then Pope Stephen of
blessed memory, bishop of the Apostolic See, together indeed with the rest of
his colleagues but more than the others, resisted, thinking it fitting, I
think, that he exceed all the rest as much by the devotion of his faith as he
did by the authority of his place. What
happened in the end? What force was there in the African Council or decree? By
God’s gift, none. Everything, as if a dream or a story, was trampled upon as if
useless, abolished, superseded... [PL 50: 645-6]
The council of
Arles[France; A.D. 314] contains this canon on rebaptism:
Canon 8. Regarding the Africans, who use their own law
to rebaptize, it has been enacted that if anybody comes to the church from
heresy, let them ask him the Creed: and if they see that he has been baptized
in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let the hand be imposed upon
him only, that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if the person questioned
does not answer with this Trinity, let him be baptized. [Mansi
2: 472]
Julius Again
Pope St. Julius[337-352]
restored Athanasius to his see. In the text I provided in my opening statement
Julius said it was necessary for the Eusebians[Arians] to go to Rome first “that
what is just be decreed from here” If the Eusebians had a
problem with Athanasius they were to go to Rome first because these were the “ordinances”
of Paul and the Fathers. The Eusebian depositions had to be referred to and
agreed upon by Rome according to Pope Julius not because of a Primacy of Honor
but because “we have received from the blessed apostle Peter” and they were
the ordinances of Paul and the Fathers. In other words, it is the Sacred
Tradition of the Church to do so.
Sozomen and Socrates are
the greatest Byzantine historians writing in the early 400s. They clearly
stated Pope Julius’ prerogative in this matter.
Sozomen: “because it is a
law that actions taken without the consent of the bishop of Rome are invalid.”
[HE III, 10]
Socrates: “it is unlawful
to legislate for the churches without the consent of the bishop of Rome” [HE
II, 17]
Another example of Papal Jurisdication
During the mid 7th century
Constantinople had fully embraced heresy. A council had convened which accepted
the ecthesis,
which stated Christ had “one will”. Constantinople had become Monothelite.
During this time Pope Honorius[A.D.
625-638] had died and his successor Severinus[A.D. 640] was being prevented by
the emperor from taking his place as Bishop of Rome. Severinus sent legates to
Constantinople to try to encourage the emperor not to prevent his consecration
from taking place.
In a letter to an abbot St
Maximus the Confessor[A.D. 650] describes this event and quotes what the
legates had said:
... do not become for us an obstacle unexpectedly, nor use force
so as to drive us away or detain us here... the Church and clergy of Rome...
the eldest of all the churches under the sun, has the pre-eminence over all. Having
undoubtedly obtained this canonically, both from the councils and from the
apostles as well as from their supreme principality, because of the eminence of
her pontificate she is not bound to produce any writings or synodical letters,
just as in these matters all are subject to her, in accordance with priestly
law.” Having thus by these words shown no fear, but having disputed with
the clergy of the imperial city with all holy and becoming assurance, as firm
ministers of the truly solid and immovable rock, that is, the greatest
apostolic Church, they seemed to calm them down, and preserving humility and
simplicity, they acted with prudence, making known to them at the beginning the
firmness and orthodoxy of their faith. [Mansi X, 677-8]
One of the “originators” of
Monothelitism, Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, was succeeded by Pyrrhus
who was equally Monothelite. As expected Rome did not recognize Pyrrhus. In
regards to this Maximus wrote:
For it is unlawful to name with any praise him who was formerly
condemned and cast out by the apostolic see of the city of Rome... Let him hasten to render in all things
satisfaction to the see of Rome. When that see is satisfied, everybody will in
common proclaim him pious and orthodox... for he speaks in vain if he
thinks he is persuading people like me, if he does not satisfy and implore the
blessed pope of the most holy city of Rome, that is, the Apostolic See, which from God the Incarnate Word Himself
as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and
definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all
things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as
power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word,
who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven. [PG
91: 144]
Maximus reported that in
the end Pyrrhus went to Rome, condemned the ecthesis,
and united himself to “the holy, Catholic and apostolic church.” [PG 91: 352-3]
Eastern Liturgy and Matthew 16:18,19
Nothing can express better
what the Church believes, teaches, and confesses then what is contained in her
liturgy. Liturgical practice is the summit of faith expression. Here are
examples of St. Peter in Eastern Liturgy:
Syriac text for the feast
of Ss. Peter and Paul:
Simon, the chief of the Apostles, ruled over all powers so that he
might bind and loose without obstacle. [Cod. de Prop. Fide
Syr. 65, fol. 369, tr. in J. David]
He [Christ] saw his [Peter’s] sincere affection, and made him Head of His flock... [He
is] Simon, the Head of the Apostles, the
Foundation, the Ruler, the Pastor, and the governor of the Church of Christ,
to whom his Lord bore witness, saying, “Thou art a rock [kipho], and upon this
rock I will build My Church”; to him also the Lord said, ‘Feed the little sheep
of My flock, feed My lambs, feed My sheep; graze them in the green fields of
faith.’ [Cod. de Prop. Fide Syr. 41, tr. in Benni, 55]
Chaldean text for the feast
of Ss. Peter and Paul:
Sing, O Holy Church, sing praises in solemn commemoration of
Peter, the chief of the apostles...
on whose faith He (Christ) based thy foundations, whom He appointed Leader of His flock, through whom He laid open
the portals of His treasures, wherewith He had enriched thy children. [Cod.
de Prop. Fide Syr. 41, fol. 375, tr. in Benni, 34-5]
Syriac
text for the feast Peter, Keybearer of Heaven:
Our Lord chose Simon Bar Jonah, and set him in the foundation of
the Church. He delivered to him the keys of the kingdom, that he might bind in
heaven and upon earth. “If thou shouldst bind I will hear thee, and if thou
shouldst loose I will not gainsay... I
will put in thy hands every power of heaven and earth for thy well qualified
administration. [Cod. Vat. Syr. 234, fol. 62, tr. in Benni, 59]
I agree that bishops have
the power to “bind and loose” in their own provinces. I agree with the
hierarchal structure of the episcopate, but Papal Primacy is not something
conjured up by men. A sort of tipping the hat to the “eldest brother.” A letting the Bishop of Rome “stand first in
line.“ Papal Primacy is divine in origin. Established by Christ Himself. The
history of the early Church attests to that.
There are many other issues
from my opponents opening I would like to address but space constraints prevent
me. During the Questions and Answers I challenge my opponent to ask me to give
Patristic support on John 21:15-17. I also challenge him to ask me for
Patristic support on Matthew 16:18,19 in a separate question. I can more than
make the case.