Part 1
Part 2
In that introduction, Ratzinger referred to “an earlier … symposium held here in Rome in October 1989, directed by the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, at the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the theme: The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the First Millennium: Research and Evidence.”
That historical symposium is noted on the Vatican’s website, here.
But it is merely noted. There were “published Acts” from this symposium, but they cannot be found.
THE PRIMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUMAfter this symposium, a work was published containing its results, entitled, Il Primato del Vescovo di Roma nel Primo Millennio. Richerche e Testimonianze. Atti del Symposium Storico-Teologico, Roma, 9-13 Ottobre 1989. Edited by Michele Maccarrone. [Pontificio Comitato di Scienze Storiche, Atti e Documenti, 4.] (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1991. Pp. xii, 782)
Research and evidence
Proceedings of the Historical and Theological Symposium (Rome, 9-13 October 1989)
(Acts and Documents Series, No. 4, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1991, pp. 784).
Symposium on the historical and theological primacy of the bishop of Rome II in the first millennium. Research and evidence, which we have the instruments , is the result of a request addressed to the study of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences, by His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by letter dated January 19 1985. The letter expressed the interest of the congregation, within the jurisdiction of its own, the historical and theological issues concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In this context he felt the need to investigate further as it has been seen and experienced in the first millennium, trying to ascertain what was considered "deposit of faith" during that period and how it has developed the conviction of faith in this regard. To this end, the congregation considered appropriate prior research in their historical and invited the Committee to organize a symposium on the theme of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium, in order to bring out some historical conclusions, in the light of a overview of the issue by enabling a deeper theological point of view.
Contents of volume :
Presentation by Archbishop Michele Maccarrone.
Knock Otto, Petrus im Neuen Testament.
Antonio M. Javierre Ortas, Apostolic Succession and Succession of primacy.
Roland Minnerath, La position de l'Eglise de Rome aux trois premiers Siècles.
Victor Saxer, self-Africaine et romaine de Tertullien primacy to Augustin.
Charles Stone, the first conversion de Rome et du Pape (IV-Way S.).
Spyros N. Troianos, Apostolische Der Stuhl im Früh-und Recht Mittelbyzantinischen Kanonischen.
Stephan O. Horn, Die Stellung des Bischofs von Rom auf dem Konzil von Chalcedon.
Michele Maccarrone, "Sedes Apostolica - Vicarius Pietri." The perpetuity of the primacy of Peter in the office and the Bishop of Rome (Ages III-VIII).
Peter Conte, the "Consortium Apostolicae Fidei" between bishops and the Bishop of Rome in the seventh century (with appendix philological and canonical).
Rudolf Schieffer, Der Papst als Patriarch von Rom
Orlandis José, en la España El Roman Primado Visigoda.
Aidan Nichols, The Roman Primacy in die Ancient Irish and Anglo-Celtic Church.
Michel van Esbroeck, Primates, Patriarcats, Catholicossats, Autocéphalies en Orient.
Hubert Mordek, römische Der Primat des Westens Kirchenrechtssammlungen in den vom IV. bis VIII.Jahrhundert.
Vittorio Peri, The Church of Rome and the mission "ad gentes" (VIII-IX).
Harald Zimmermann, Der Bischof von Rom im saeculum obscurum.
Daniel Stternon, Interpretations, Oppositions Resistances et en Orient.
Horst Fuhrmann, im Widerstand gegen den Primat päpstlichen Abendland.
Roland Minnerath, historical and theological Symposium "The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium" (Rome, 9-13 October 1989).
Patrick Granfield, author of a number of works on the papacy, wrote an untitled review of this work, in The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 80, No. 3 (July 1994). Granfield said,
Monsignor Maccarrone, the editor of this volume, died in May, 1993. He was a superb church historian and a tireless worker for the Vatican in several capacities. For many years he was President of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences. He is well known for his scholarly research on papal history, especially for his studies on "Vicarius Christi," apostolicity, and Innocent III.
The subject of this book is important, with major historical, theological, and ecumenical dimensions: What was the role of the Bishop of Rome in the first centuries—before the Eastern Schism, the Great Western Schism, and the Reformation—The eighteen contributors, whose names are known to anyone familiar with the scholarly literature on the papacy, seek to answer that question. The articles are in various languages—seven in German, five French, four Italian, one Spanish, one English—and provide rich bibliographical data. The volume ends with a summary of the 1989 symposium and an extensive index of names and places.
The book is organized, more or less, chronologically, but not rigidly so, since there is some overlapping. The entire volume can be divided into six major categories.
1. The First Three Centuries.Granfield notes in this section on “Opposition, “The first millennium in general did not reject in principle the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. There was, however, occasional dissatisfaction in the way the primacy was exercised.”
2. The fourth and Fifth Centuries
3. The Third to the Eighth Centuries
4. The Primacy and Churches Outside of Rome
5. The Fourth to the Tenth Centuries
6. Opposition to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
He concludes:
In conclusion, this volume has achieved its goal: to analyze the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first millennium both historically and theologically. The contributors trace the evolution of the primatial concept in the East and the West and provide solid historical evidence. The book is not, nor does it pretend to be, an exhaustive treatment of the topic. No one volume could do that. What it does give us is a panoramic view of the first ten centuries and shows that there was a persistent affirmation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Church of Christ. This volume is a significant contribution to the on-going study of the Petrine ministry.My question is, if this “historical symposium” is such a great piece of research, why has it dropped off the map?
Five years later, Pope John Paul II wrote Ut unum sint, “On commitment to Ecumenism,” in which a pope essentially asks to “re-think” the papacy: I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.
For all the bluster of the previous thousand years of papal statements, who’da thunk that they didn’t get it quite right?
Mr Bugy,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you expect the pope or some future pope to renounce the papacy and admit some huge lie that the Catholic Church made all this stuff up about apostolic succession and the seat of Peter back in the late 2nd century or something and that surprisingly, Christianity went along with it for about 1,500 years.
I just read Ut Unum Sint for about the 10th time and it in I find strong affirmations that the office of the Bishop of Rome was A) Divinely instituted B) Since Peter and C) the source of unity for the church. Nothing is rescinded. You seem to me to be wishing a lot in words that are not elaborated. His letter affirms every dogma that the Catholic Church proclaims about the papacy without rescinding a single one.
It is a strange conspiracy theory that you are selling here. You would have one believe that the Pope on one hand is telling you that the papacy is a big fraud but on the other hand and in the same paragraph affirming that they papacy is an office established by Jesus Christ. Such a reading would only be possible if one were schizophrenic or simply hell bent on finding something to complain about.
Kristen, I am not the one hiding what they found.
ReplyDeleteIf they found good, wonderful justifications for the papacy, why aren't they trumpeting it to the world?
John,
ReplyDeleteSo, you think there is a conspiracy? That this study group found some damning evidence so they buried it? This is based on your not being able to put your hands on any report stemming from the study?
If this was the intent, to hid something, than why announce that you are having a study?
I would think that such a back room deal would be held in complete Opus Dei like secrecy and guarded by Albino Monks. Nobody would even know a meeting took place - much less former Catholics who are obsessed with the Catholic Church.
This is only one link in a chain. Certainly the work was published. Copies of it no doubt are in dusty European libraries somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt Peter was an important apostle. But when Peter died, the supposed "links" to any subsequent "office" or "ministry" reek of theft. Bishops of Rome appropriating for themselves legitimacy and "authority" they never had.
Taking too important a seat at the table, and now trying to avoid the embarrassment of having now to go take a lower seat.
But when Peter died, the supposed "links" to any subsequent "office" or "ministry" reek of theft.
ReplyDeleteWho stole the Petrine office, when did they steal and why did they steal it?
Any office that Peter had, died with Peter. In fact, any office that Peter had, he set aside to go and be a missionary.
ReplyDeleteFor a thorough treatment of this I'd refer you to Oscar Cullmann's work "Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (1962).
So, who started afterwards, calling himself "Peter," and claiming to have any supposed "authority" that Peter had? There you will find your thieves and usurpers.
So, who started afterwards, calling himself "Peter," and claiming to have any supposed "authority" that Peter had?
ReplyDeleteCare to name names?
Is any ECF who makes reference to the office of Peter being held by the Bishop of Rome such a thief and liar? Or are you just looking for the original gangstas?
Care to name names?
ReplyDeleteStay tuned. Essentially, yes, "gangstas". Individuals who admired, or worse, Roman imperial power, sought it for themselves, and sought to justify themselves in it by claiming the name of Peter for themselves.
And no the ECFs did not believe in a papacy as it is held today.
Just to fast forward through some of what you are asking, the current Roman story of the papacy says that no, Jesus made no mention of, had no intention of "successors" -- but the claim today is that "Roman primacy was not a given from the outset; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century (Klaus Schatz, "Papal Primacy" 1996 -- if anyone had access to the works cited in this post, in the dusty libraries of Europe, he certainly did. He received his PhD from Rome's Gregorian University in 1974 and has taught theology in the St. Georgen School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt; and yet even he did not cite any of these works, instead loading up his "selected bibliography" on this time period with works produced prior to 1980.)
John.
ReplyDeletee current Roman story of the papacy says that no, Jesus made no mention of, had no intention of "successors".
That is funny because, again, having just read JP2's 'Ut Unum Sint' it affirms that very thing (apart from Jesus explicitly 'mentioning' successors which is not even what the Catholic Church claims in the first place). Have you read 'Ut Unum Sint' John?
It says: The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God's plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.
Remember - you just quoted this text in the original post. Now you want to claim that the Catholic position is now that Jesus did not establish the episcopate on St. Peter?
John - why force us to wait around and 'stay tuned' to get the names of the people who 'stole' the papacy?
"Roman primacy was not a given from the outset; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century."
This is hardly helping your claim the papacy was stolen by gangstas. This is hardly helping your claim that the papacy is not a divinely appointed office.
Lastly - Schatz's words have a meaning that you miss.
He explained his intent behind his statements in a correspondence published here.
He said: "So I would say: the Petrine office and the Papal Primacy was created by Jesus Christ, but not in an unhistorical manner, that all would be clear since the beginning. There is a seed or a root which will develop through the challenges of the history; and the necessity of a center of unity must become clear through historical experiences. We have this evolution of the conscience in other essential things for the Church, by example in the mission of the Gentiles, in the non-obligation of the Gentiles to the Jewish law, in the development of the episcopate (which exists not before the second century). In this sense, I see no contradiction to the definitions of the First Vatican Council, which certainly speak in a static and a-historical language, but in their essence remain valid also in a more historical perspective.”
Now, Schatz is a theologian and top rate but even he is unable to look into the mind of Jesus or Peter and tell us what their intentions were or were not. Those are questions he tries to answer but he is limited in what he can understand as are all of us. Nevertheless, he affirms that the papacy was established by Christ.
It seems perhaps that a nerve has been hit?
ReplyDeleteI still contend that a proper understanding of the diminishing and decline of the Western Part of the Roman Empire and the rise of the importance of the Roman see go hand and hand. Stability was needed and the Popes and their institutionalizing administrative authority and functioning in the church at Rome provided it.
Warrant from the Scripture or from Christ or the Apostles? Hardly.
Kristen -- here's the key sentence from Schatz: "There is a seed or a root which will develop through the challenges of the history; and the necessity of a center of unity must become clear through historical experiences."
ReplyDeleteFirst, this is not "divine institution". That is the heart of the question.
Second, for this to be true, for Schatz to be correct about it, is to say that Fortescue is wrong. (See my post from a couple of days ago).
And certainly, Vatican I was wrong (about that nonsense about "perpetual successors," "immediately given," etc.) Unless you want to change the sense of what they were saying.
Vatican I wants you to believe that the papacy was given in full power and glory, for all time, when Jesus had his little talk with Peter.
You can't have it both ways. Of course, Rome, being Rome, will certainly try.
There is no doubt that the Lord is the Lord of history. But the "papacy" of the fourth century resembles far more closely the Roman emperor than Christ.
If you stay tuned, I'm going to follow those threads.
Grev?
ReplyDeleteNerve being hit? I would not say that. John is not the only person who has studied this question for any length of time. I just see John as clearly somebody who cares about these issues but at the same time one who clearly has their mind made up and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.
Have you read Ut Unum Sint Grev? Do you think it rescinds the papacy like John?
John.
ReplyDeleteAt this point its cognitive dissonance. If you are going to throw the Church of the 4th century under the bus than you may as well throw Christianity as a whole under the bus because the Christian Church of the 4th century was just as much YOUR church as it was MY church. There was no Presbyterian Church in America in the 4th century that we can point to and criticize. At this point, this is Christian history - full stop.
You cannot take credit for Christianity of the 4th century in some places such as in the early councils that defined the nature of Christ and then look at the episcopal church government from those same councils and say, "Look at those thieves!"
Some of what I am trying to say is discussed about St. Vincent Lerins in this article.
Do you think it rescinds the papacy like John?
ReplyDeleteYou should read more carefully what I said. It doesn't "rescind the papacy."
It looks to me as if it is a pope, seeking that the papacy has gotten caught with its hand caught in the cookie jar -- actually having hijacked centuries'-worth of history, looking for a graceful way to back out of all of the centuries'-worth of bluster.
Of course, if the bluster was just bluster, then it wasn't being "infallible" about itself all along.
Hi GREV. You are exactly right. No warrant from Christ, no warrant from the Scriptures. It is a malleable "tradition" informing itself of its own ability to take more power because there is no one around to act as a check on that power.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to throw the Church of the 4th century under the bus than you may as well throw Christianity as a whole under the bus because the Christian Church of the 4th century was just as much YOUR church as it was MY church.
ReplyDeleteThat's not true. There is ONE Christ, one church, but it is not THAT church.
If you've been reading along, two of my earlier posts contrasted how modern historical research has (a) confirmed the life of Christ and the New Testament, and (b) seriously undermined papal claims.
It doesn't matter that there was no PCA. There was a church -- wolves had laid claim to the leadership of the church, but they were still just wolves.
Christ is risen indeed! And he has given us his Word.
By the way, John Henry Newman threw Vincent of Lerins under the bus. Or did you miss that one?
ReplyDeleteHere's Newman on Vincent:
ReplyDeleteIt does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.
Introduction, Section 19, page 2 in the Notre Dame edition.
Kristen, heads up: You're wasting your time. You first post was a good enough rejoinder, let sleeping dogs lie.
ReplyDeleteHi Tap, yes, just close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and it will all go away.
ReplyDeleteThat's not true. There is ONE Christ, one church, but it is not THAT church.
ReplyDeleteGot it. So it was not your church that held the Council of Nicea in the 4th century. Got it.
John - I don't know if I'll have time to keep checking back. Save me from my Catholic faith now. Name the person responsible for stealing the papacy.
Someone recently pointed out that St. Peter's Basilica was built from the money raised by indulgences?
ReplyDeleteIs that accurate, to a degree?
If so, it seems that thing is way out of line for Christ and His Church seeing the Jews of King Solomon's day already built such a place and look, see what God did with it!
John, though there is and will always be naysayers to your publications, here or there, you seem to be a man of war well able to fight and defeat what may come your way for your labors of love!
Be encouraged my friend and stand up and fight, fight, fight! You never know what weak soul is strengthened by your contending?
Pro 18:19 A brother offended is more unyielding than a strong city, and quarreling is like the bars of a castle.
Pro 18:20 From the fruit of a man's mouth his stomach is satisfied; he is satisfied by the yield of his lips.
Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.
Kristen -- you speak of the church as just One in the 4th century and it was not. A decent church history will establish the many different streams that were present.
ReplyDeleteKristen -- you will not continue? Seems a pity.
ReplyDeleteKristen wrote:
ReplyDelete"Who stole the Petrine office, when did they steal and why did they steal it?"
Why would a critic of the papacy have to know such things? Do you know who the first prostitute was? The first Judaizer? The first Gnostic? The first Eastern Orthodox? Should you refrain from concluding that such things are later corruptions that didn't exist initially, since you can't name their originators or demonstrate what the originator's motives were?
Most of the early Roman bishops left us no extant writings and no words recorded by other sources. If a later bishop of Rome who claimed papal authority received the idea from an earlier Roman bishop, we might have no way of discerning that fact.
What we can say is that none of the earliest Roman or non-Roman sources mention a papacy in our extant records. They say a lot about various types of authority and church offices, and they often comment on the significance of the Roman church, but they say nothing of a papacy. The early opponents of Christianity show no knowledge of the office. The earliest Roman bishop we know of to claim papal authority is Stephen, around the middle of the third century. When he made the claim, it was rejected by bishops in the East and West. If the concept of the papacy seems to be absent from the thinking of the early Christians and their enemies, even when they're discussing subjects like authority and the significance of the Roman church, and the concept is opposed by other bishops when a Roman bishop first advocates it in the third century, such a scenario is devastating to Roman Catholicism. There's no reason to believe that the papacy is a probable implication of anything Jesus and the apostles or any other relevant authority figure taught. And it was unknown in the earliest generations of post-apostolic church history and was widely resisted when it first arose later on.
It isn't enough to cite concepts like Petrine primacy, Roman primacy, or a church father's belief that the bishop of Rome sits in the chair of Peter. Such concepts can be defined in more than one way and have been widely affirmed outside of Roman Catholicism. If you have to give the papacy a sub-Roman-Catholic definition in order to defend it, then you're defending something sub-Roman-Catholic, not Roman Catholicism.
See here for links to some of my material on the papacy.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteWho stole the papacy? Why would a critic of the papacy have to know such things?
Typically when a crime is committed it is committed by a person. John is not making a blanket statement about prostitution being a crime and I am not asking who the first prostitute was. He is making a specific statement about a specific singular crime.
What we can say is that none of the earliest Roman or non-Roman sources mention a papacy in our extant records.
Well, this all depends on how you define 'earliest...extant records.' We have early extant records about the succession of Peter's seat (the very thing John is claiming is a theft) well before extant lists of the canon of the New Testament scriptures. We have it before the definition of the Trinity. We have it before .
The early opponents of Christianity show no knowledge of the office.
This depends on how you define 'early' and also to what degree you are skeptical of references to the significance of the Roman Church, apostolic succession, Petrine primacy etc.
If it does not trouble you that 'sola scriptura' is not affirmed in the 'very earliest Roman and non-Roman extant sources' than it should not trouble you that an explicit description of the office of the papacy as we know it in 2011 is in the 'very earliest Roman and non-Roman extant sources.'
The earliest Roman bishop we know of to claim papal authority is Stephen, around the middle of the third century. When he made the claim, it was rejected by bishops in the East and West.
This is certainly an interesting gloss.
There's no reason to believe that the papacy is a probable implication of anything Jesus...And it was unknown in the earliest generations of post-apostolic church history and was widely resisted when it first arose later on.
This is simply false. Firstly, it is not the case that there is 'no reason to believe'....that Christ instituted the papacy. Billions believe it. So there must be a reason. Even 'first rate theologians' - according to John - like Klaus Schatz affirm it. Your statement strikes me like Bart Erhman proclaiming..."There is no reason to believe that the gospels are eye witness accounts..."
Secondly, you are glossing a singular episode from the 3rd century - the Stephen/Cyprian ordeal that is a lot less black and white than you make it sound. This is a great discussion for another time but not in a combox like this. You might refer to "Studies on the Early Papacy" by Dom John Chapman. The very fact that the Bishop of Rome was appealed to adjudicate a matter starting in the east speaks volumes.
It isn't enough to cite concepts like Petrine primacy, Roman primacy, or a church father's belief that the bishop of Rome sits in the chair of Peter.
Rolling eyes....yet those are the things that John is claiming are 'non-existent.'
Kristen -- Schatz is your guy. His story, as far as it is from what was understood about the papacy for centuries, and as recently as 1920, is the closest you are going to get among today's commentators.
ReplyDeleteListen to what Roger Collins, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), said in his 2009 History of the Papacy:
The author of the Epistle of Clement may have been the man of this name later described as the person drafting communications sent on behalf of the Christians of Rome to other churches.
This means "Pope St. Clement" could very well have been the could really have been the Roman church secretary.
This difference of perspective on Clement is telling. The late-second-century authors (Irenaeus and Tertullian) were probably reporting a tradition that had grown up in Rome in which leading figures amongst the elders of their day were retrospectively turned into bishops, to produce a continuous list of holders of the office stretching back to Peter. Why this happened can be explained, but it would be helpful to ask which of the people named by Irenaeus and Tertullian should be regarded as the first real bishop of the city. Most scholars now agree that the answer would be Anicetus, who comes in tenth on both lists, and whose episcopate covered the years 155 to 166.
The story of the papacy that I grew up with -- the one that Fortescue espoused -- is certainly a fabricated one.
I can't say for certain, but it is a reasonable extrapolation from the Vatican "historical symposium" only confirmed what Collins is saying. That's why they don't want the information to be widespread.
That's why they published the work in six of the original languages -- the fewer number of people who understand what is really going on, the easier it would be for Rome to kinda-sorta perpetuate the story that the papacy is somehow of "divine institution". If the real history were to become firmly established in people's minds, the game of "infallibility" would be over.
You might refer to "Studies on the Early Papacy" by Dom John Chapman
ReplyDeleteWhat an anachronism. Do you think that Schatz (much less Collins) didn't take into account (and reject) what Chapman said?
Natamllc, thanks for your kind affirmation, my friend.
ReplyDeleteCiting the post I made earlier about the Nicene church:
ReplyDelete"many people say that we should uncritically admire the Nicene-era (4th and 5th century) Christian church, overlooking its various doctrinal and practical follies, because you know, "they saved the Trinitarian orthodoxy for us!"
To this I would answer:
"Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not." (Luke 17:9)
In other words, should Nicene-era Christians receive special credit just for having managed not to completely apostasize by denying such an elementary NT doctrine as the real divinity of Christ? Rejecting Arianism was literally merely "the least they could do."
Like the servant of Christ's parable, Nicene-era Christians only did what they were anyways duty-bound to do, not something that they would deserve special extra praise from."
Kristen:
ReplyDelete"This is simply false. Firstly, it is not the case that there is 'no reason to believe'....that Christ instituted the papacy. Billions believe it. So there must be a reason."
You accuse John of reaching?
The reason they might believe it could have nothing to do with the fact it was supposedly established by Christ. Which the Papacy was not.
Hi Viisaus, that's a good point.
ReplyDeleteAnd to GREV, you are correct again, and once we start looking at exegetical considerations, there is NO REASON to believe that the papacy was instituted by Christ.
In other words, it is, what Protestants have been saying all along: a Roman accretion onto the church, which may, politically, have yielded some benefits for itself, but in the long term, for the church, was, as Calvin said, the means by which Satan has worked to pollute every good thing that Christ has given us in the church.
Kristen -- you asked me to read UT Unum Sint. Well, in the first paragraph, problems begin.
ReplyDeleteIf Rome never gets things wrong then how is it the Council of Trent labels me accursed for believing what I believe and the Pope in invoking the 2nd Vatican Council and its ecumenical spirit; wants to act like Trent is no longer in force?
We can talk of other problems but that is where much of the discussion must begin. Until I see Rome repudiate Trent, and its cursing of Protestants, we have a big issue that no amount of talking nice can overcome.
Kristen wrote:
ReplyDelete"Typically when a crime is committed it is committed by a person. John is not making a blanket statement about prostitution being a crime and I am not asking who the first prostitute was. He is making a specific statement about a specific singular crime."
You can know that your home was robbed without knowing who did it. Where did John make a claim about "a specific singular crime" that would require the sort of explanation you're requesting from him?
You write:
"Well, this all depends on how you define 'earliest...extant records.' We have early extant records about the succession of Peter's seat (the very thing John is claiming is a theft) well before extant lists of the canon of the New Testament scriptures."
You're assuming that believing in "the succession of Peter's seat" is equivalent to belief in a papacy. It's not. It's one of the sub-Roman-Catholic concepts I referred to in my last post. If an individual believes that all Christians are successors of Peter, that all bishops are successors of Peter, or that the bishop of Rome is a unique successor of Peter without having universal jurisdiction, for example, he isn't affirming the doctrine of the papacy. That's why, for instance, scholars distinguish between Cyprian's high view of Peter and the bishop of Rome and the concept of the papacy. He viewed the bishop of Rome as a successor of Peter who was sitting in the chair of Peter, but denied that he had universal jurisdiction. See here. Similar distinctions are found in other fathers, as I document in some of the articles on the page I linked in my last post.
You'll have to document your claim about the New Testament canon and explain the alleged significance of the claim. The first extant source to advocate the canon is Origen, and he did it shortly before Stephen asserted papal authority. Who advocated a papacy prior to Origen's comments on the New Testament? And where have I made claims about the history of the canon comparable to the claims Roman Catholicism has made about the history of the papacy? Since we make different claims, we carry different burdens of proof. Why should we expect a concept as complex as a canon of scripture, involving so many documents, to be recognized by ancient Christians in the same manner as the papacy would have been recognized if it had been an apostolic teaching? Why are you comparing such different concepts? The fact that you have to appeal to something so different reflects what a weak hand you're playing with. And I didn't just refer to evidence like "extant lists". I also referred to the implications of what Jesus and the apostles taught. I've argued for the New Testament canon as an implication of apostolic teaching here. You've given us no argument that the papacy is an implication of what the apostles taught.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteI've already addressed the sort of false comparison to the canon and Trinitarianism that you're raising. See here. See, also, the four-part series responding to arguments like yours here, here, here, and here.
You write:
"Firstly, it is not the case that there is 'no reason to believe'....that Christ instituted the papacy. Billions believe it. So there must be a reason."
Why did you leave out part of what I said? I wrote, "There's no reason to believe that the papacy is a probable implication of anything Jesus and the apostles or any other relevant authority figure taught." That's not the same as saying that those who believe in a papacy have no reason for believing in it. People have a lot of bad reasons for believing a lot of bad things. You're distorting what I said.
You write:
"The very fact that the Bishop of Rome was appealed to adjudicate a matter starting in the east speaks volumes."
Document where Stephen was "appealed to adjudicate a matter starting in the east", and explain how it supposedly "speaks volumes". You keep making claims you don't document, and you keep equating sub-Roman-Catholic concepts with a papacy. Churches and individual Christians sought the assistance of others and involved themselves in other people's affairs for a variety of reasons that didn't involve belief in a papacy. Paul wrote to churches and individuals on the basis of apostolic authority, not papal authority. Polycarp wrote to the Philippian church and advised them on some disputed matters as a widely regarded bishop and disciple of the apostles, not as a Pope. Etc. There were reasons for the Roman church to be prominent that didn't involve a papacy. Those non-papal factors are the reasons Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other early sources give for the importance of the Roman church. If you want us to believe that a papacy was involved as well, then you need to argue for that conclusion rather than just stating or suggesting it.
Jason et al.
ReplyDeleteI have to work today so this will be brief.
1) Your interpretations and understanding about the significance of succession and Peter's seat is novel and a forced one at that. That the father's meant much more than merely that 'all Christians are successors to Peter' is manifest in the extant writings. Any interested person can walk to the nearest university and pick up a copy of Jurgens and start reading. The significance of the primacy of the Roman See is evident from the earliest extant writings that mention it. You present a stretch of an argument from silence and impose upon plain words forced meanings to fit your paradigm.
2) Pope Stephen being appealed to by other bishops:
From the Catholic encyclopedia:
"In the early part of his pontificate Stephen was frequently urged by Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, to take action against Marcian, Bishop of Arles, who, attaching himself to doctrines of Novatus, denied communion to the penitent lapsi. For some reason unknown to us Stephen did not move. The bishops of Gaul accordingly turned to Cyprian, and begged him to write to the pope. This the saint did in a letter which is our sole source of information regarding this affair (Epp. lxix, lxviii). The Bishop of Carthage entreats Stephen to imitate his martyred predecessors, and to instruct the bishops of Gaul to condemn Marcian, and to elect another bishop in his stead....The case of the Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides also brought Stephen in connection with St. Cyprian..."
Here we have the bishop of Rome being called to adjudicate matters in other parts of the world. This is a practice that is as ancient as canon – you see it also in Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter.
Kristen, I'm at work, too, so I will be brief.
ReplyDeleteIrenaeus's statement to the effect that "Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome" makes him historically unreliable, given that we know from Paul's letter to the Romans that he neither "founded" nor "organized" the church at Rome. And Peter's alleged (and emphasized by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries) "25-year" bishopric in Rome is known to be built on spurious/fictitious literature. We do need to be discerning with what we read. Or do you want your faith to be founded on sand?
Irenaeus says this in connection with the "list" that he provides in the immediate context. I don't have citations on that, because I'm at work, but I can get them.
But seriously, he was more than 100 years removed from Peter and Paul. Not to demean some of the other things he said -- we do need to "weigh the evidence" -- but he was writing in a turbulent apologetic environment (his "Against Heresies" was written to defend the orthodox Roman church against various gnostic sects). His faith did derive from the Apostles; he also was very clear about that.
As for the identity of "the thief", it is the papacy as a whole. Stephen was one who first put his toe in the water. Relying on that Roman expansionism, as I've noted in my most recent post. But he was, as Jason noted, soundly rebuked by Cyprian and Firmilian.
Kristen wrote:
ReplyDelete"Your interpretations and understanding about the significance of succession and Peter's seat is novel and a forced one at that. That the father's meant much more than merely that 'all Christians are successors to Peter' is manifest in the extant writings. Any interested person can walk to the nearest university and pick up a copy of Jurgens and start reading."
Did you read any of the material I linked? I've been citing a wide range of scholars, including Roman Catholics, making the same distinctions I've been making. I've also been citing passages from Cyprian and other fathers. You aren't interacting with any of that material, much less refuting it.
If you knew much about patristic Christianity, you probably wouldn't be going to sources like Jurgens and the Catholic Encyclopedia for your information. And you'd probably be aware that there is no one view that all the fathers held on this subject. You'd probably also know that what I said wasn't "novel".
I gave you some examples of how Christians could seek the assistance of other believers and involve themselves in the affairs of other churches without any belief in a papacy. Not only did you ignore that point, but you also went on to repeat your error by assuming that Stephen's involvement in the affairs of other churches must have been a result of a belief in his papal authority. All that you're doing is ignoring the evidence against your position while assuming what you have yet to prove. Not only do you assume that Stephen's involvement in affairs outside of Rome must have been a result of a papacy, but you also ignore what some of those non-Roman sources said about Stephen's limited jurisdiction and you ignore other Christians' and other churches' involvement in affairs outside of their immediate environment. Why are we supposed to assume a belief in a papacy only when it's the Roman church or its bishop acting in the affairs of others?
You don't give us any reference where we can find the passage you quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. We have to find it ourselves. It's here. The incidents you cite from that article are addressed by the scholars I cited in my Cyprian post linked above, including the Catholic scholars I quoted. You make no attempt to interact with non-papal interpretations of those incidents, but instead you just assume a papal reading without argument.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteNo papacy is needed to explain any of the incidents you've cited.
The first incident involved Novatian, a rival bishop to Stephen in Rome. Thus, even though the incident involved people outside of Rome as well, it's understandable that a Roman bishop would get involved, even one who wasn't perceived as having universal jurisdiction.
Regarding the second incident, you don't quote what the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say:
"At first they acknowledged their guilt, but afterwards appealed to Rome, and, deceived by their story, Stephen exerted himself to secure their restoration. Accordingly some of their fellow bishops took their part, but the others laid the case before St. Cyprian. An assembly of African bishops which he convoked renewed the condemnation of Basilides and Martial, and exhorted the people to enter into communion with their successors. At the same time they were at pains to point out that Stephen had acted as he had done because 'situated at a distance, and ignorant of the true facts of the case' he had been deceived by Basilides."
Why did these bishops appeal to Cyprian? Was he a Pope? Since Cyprian said that Stephen was deceived and that his actions should be disregarded, should we conclude that Cyprian and the bishops with him had authority over Stephen?
The Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz cites this incident as evidence that Cyprian didn't believe in a papacy (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 20-21). The same is true of the Catholic scholar William La Due (The Chair Of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 37).
You write:
"You present a stretch of an argument from silence and impose upon plain words forced meanings to fit your paradigm."
There's nothing wrong with my mentioning that the papacy is absent in places where we'd expect it to be mentioned if people believed in the concept at the time.
And I'm not "imposing upon" the explanation Ignatius, Irenaeus, and other sources gave for the Roman church's significance. Rather, you're imposing a papacy upon texts that don't mention it.
You write:
"Here we have the bishop of Rome being called to adjudicate matters in other parts of the world. This is a practice that is as ancient as canon – you see it also in Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter."
Your distortion of Victor's role in that controversy is addressed in an article I wrote last year.
I am hesitant to interject given the excellent work of Mssrs. Bugay and Hays, however, one matter of historical error presents itself in Kristen's offerings that I am compelled to address. All other issues to be left in the very capable hands of these two gentleman.
ReplyDeleteIn the matter of Stephen, Cyprian, Marcian, Martial and Basilides, et. al. Kristen quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia noting, “For some reason unknown to us Stephen did not move.” Well, the reason is not really unknown; it is apparent that Stephen was not conversant in the concept of “universal jurisdiction” which has “ever and always” inured to his post. In other words, he didn't know that he was supposed to exercise jurisdiction.
But much more importantly for this discussion is the case of Martial and Basilides who were two Spanish bishops. The nub of this story is that Basilides “blasphemed God” and Martial “joined a pagan guild (collegium), took part in its banquets, and buried his sons in its grounds.” Having so apostatized, the local churches removed them and elected successor bishops.
Now we come to the part that undermines Kristen's position.
Stephen reinstated the apostates. The Spanish church complained to Cyprian who called a synod in 254 to address the matter. Said synod sent a letter to the Spanish church telling them to disregard Stephen's decision and upholding the election of the local churches as to their new bishops.
I believe that this shows the following three things that I hope Kristen will prayerfully consider:
1.Cyprian had absolutely no concept of a primacy of Rome.
2.A synod of bishops together with Cyprian, had no concept of Roman primacy.
3.The local Spanish church affirmed Cyprian and the synod in opposition to Stephen of Rome.
I don't believe this event is unique in it's character although it may be in it's clarity.
Roman primacy did not exist in the early church in a manner resembling – in any way – the modern claims of Rome.
Now, gentlemen, back to you!
Peace.
(Quotes taken from Kidd, B. J. The Roman Primacy to A.D. 461. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1936.)