[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Section 7. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 2002 Edward K. Watson.) pp 77-113. MORMONISM: Section 7, Chapter 6. All rights reserved.]
CHAPTER 6
Roman Catholic Historical Arguments
Roman Catholic apologists will use various passages in the writings of certain early church leaders in trying to portray the early Fathers as believing the bishop of Rome possessed authority over all of Christianity by divine right. When their arguments collapse (this is done when one examines the views of these same Fathers based upon all their writings instead of certain isolated passages), the Roman Catholic will turn around and point out that these Fathers were Catholic and believed Catholic doctrines, and also referred to the church as the “Catholic Church,” thus showing that Christianity was indubitably Catholic as early as the second century. They will then argue that they have to be true, regardless of the views of the Church Fathers on Papal Supremacy.
This argument is baseless for a knowledgeable Mormon for two reasons:
Even if the second-century church was unmistakably Catholic, and even if all the historical arguments of the Catholics were valid, it still doesn't disprove the Mormon concept of an Apostasy due to our belief that the Apostasy occurred in the first century. Because of this, whatever Christianity became and was during the second century has no bearing on the Apostasy because it occurred after the period in dispute. 
It is also possible for Christianity to be “Catholic” as early as the second century and not believe in Papal Supremacy. If so, the early Catholic Church is not the present Roman Catholic Church but is faithfully preserved on this matter by Eastern Orthodoxy such as the Greek or Russian Orthodox Churches.
The Roman Catholic who insists on an historical examination of Christianity against the Mormons will always end up short-changed because whether the 2nd-century Church was Catholic or not shows the weakness of his foundation and if he wants to possess a better historical argument, he must convert to Eastern Orthodoxy before attacking the Mormons.
Eastern Orthodoxy (the early Greek Catholic Churches as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church) possesses the strongest possibility of being the true church based upon authority if the Apostasy never occurred. There are problems nonetheless: The reality of an Apostasy occurring in the first century is very strong (see Chapter 1), therefore, any body to come out of apostate groups will automatically partake of its apostate nature (a live branch can't come from a dead tree).
Secondly, did Eastern Orthodoxy preserve an authentic “Apostolic Succession” and remain indefectible despite the assault and domination of it by the Moslems, secular rulers and communism? Is its succession still valid despite centuries of appointments of its rulers by non-Christian and Secular rulers (called Byzantinism or Ceasaropapism)1 instead of decisions done by the church?2 It seems to me that any genuine line of succession would be broken the moment a person not having divine authority would appoint a religious leader to succeed a legitimate leader (like Herod appointing the successor of Judas instead of his fellow apostles - Acts 1). How much more if this was done over a period of centuries? The Roman Catholics don't get off the hook on this topic since they have also experienced centuries of secular leaders appointing the popes especially in the ninth and eleventh centuries.
Here are the historical arguments of the Roman Catholics and how to refute them:
1) Clement of Rome (d. 102 A.D.)
Modern Roman Catholic apologists claim 1 Clement proves the bishop of Rome was the supreme head of the early church. If this is true, why was 1 Clement virtually unknown in the West from the fourth to the sixteenth century?3 It wasn't until the Patriarch of Constantinople gave a copy to King Charles I in the early seventeen century that the West rediscovered 1 Clement.4 Surely, if it was understood by the western Catholics as being indisputable proof that the bishop of Rome was the legitimate monarchical head of the church, it should've always been honored and trumpeted by them in their dispute with the eastern Catholics. Modern Roman Catholics do, why didn't they? This shows the early Catholics didn't have this view of the importance of 1 Clement modern Roman Catholic apologists do today.
Clement of Rome, who supposedly held the leadership of the church, nowhere mentions in his writings that he possesses the authority and keys of Peter that gives him stewardship over the entire Christian church. The concept of a monarchical bishop is absent in his letter,5 which shows Rome didn't have a monarchical bishop during Clement's time.6 (see #2 Ignatius). The portion of his writings where he talks to the church in Corinth is exactly similar to Paul's style, and all of the other New Testament writers. Does that mean at one point, Paul was the “pope” of the church because he was talking to the churches from a position of authority? Of course not. Such an approach will also give support to James, John, Jude, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Dionysius, the author of the Shepherd of Hermas, the “brethren” of Lyons and Vienne (to Asia and Phrygia), the bishops of Antioch (to Celicia, Mesopotamia and Persia) and the bishop of Alexandria (to Pentapolis)7 as being the monarchical head over the Christian church.
Before the end of the first century, the church of Rome sent a letter to the church of Corinth, following the Jewish habit of communities writing to one another letters of admonishment.8 This letter is called The First Letter of Clement despite the author is not identified but tradition ascribes it to Clement,9 who supposedly was the bishop of the church of Rome during the time (93-102 A.D.).10 There is no evidence that he actually wrote this letter as a bishop of Rome. For the sake of this topic, I will refer to this letter as being from Clement as the bishop of Rome during this time despite the absence of any proof (most scholars believe Clement was either a spokesman or clerk of a church at Rome instead of its bishop,11 since Rome didn't have a monarchical bishop until mid-second century,12 nearly a hundred years after the death of Peter).
There are four passages in Clement of Rome's writings that are used by Roman Catholics to support the idea that the bishop of Rome inherited the keys and authority of Peter. The first is 1 Clement 19:16-20 (some translations have it as 44:1-2) wherein he says:
“So likewise our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should contentions arise, upon account of the ministry. And therefore having a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before said (bishops and deacons in vv.4-6), and then gave direction, how, when they should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry. Wherefore we cannot think that those may justly be thrown out of their ministry, who were either appointed by them, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church; and who have with all lowliness and innocency ministered to the flock of Christ, in peace, and without self-interest, and were for a long time commended by all. For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from their ministry who holily and without blame fulfil the duties of it. Blessed are those priests, who having finished their course before these times have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolution: for they have no fear, lest anyone should turn them out of the place which is now appointed to them.”13
This is a remarkable passage since it shows us the workings of the Roman church in the first century. The apostles appointed bishops and deacons to preside over individual churches. They appointed successors to their ministry. Who were the successors of the original twelve apostles? The bishops and deacons? Or new apostles? If we base it on the Bible, the only possible successor to a deceased apostle is a new apostle (Acts 1:13-26), who could only be appointed by the entire body of surviving apostles and not an individual apostle passing on his authority to someone else.
Clement does not say the bishops and deacons were the successors to the apostles (they chose the bishops and deacons, and then gave direction, how, when they [the bishops or deacons] should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry). What ministry is Clement talking about? It wasn't the ministry of the apostles. It was the ministry of the bishops and deacons! The apostles laid guidelines that when the chosen bishops and deacons die, certain eminent men of the church will choose a successor and then the entire congregation sustains the new appointee in order for his office to be valid. This sounds a lot like the way the Mormons choose a new bishop if the old one dies or is released.
Even if Clement was talking about the succession of the apostles, it is obvious that their successors were not the bishops and deacons because after Clement mentions the bishops and deacons he mentions, “and then gave direction, how, when they should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry.” Who were the “other chosen men?” They weren't the existing bishops and deacons. They could only have been new apostles (Acts 1).
It is possible for the bishops and deacons to be successors to the apostles, but not as someone inheriting all of an apostle's keys and authority but as someone who oversees an individual branch of the church (1 Tim 3:4-5; Acts 14:23 [the presbyters and bishops were the same office-Acts 20:17,28]) because originally, the apostles were also presiding over various church branches that they founded (1 Cor 3:10,6). They passed on those ministries to the bishops, elders and deacons in order for them to concentrate on their primary calling.
The second passage used by the Roman Catholics is 1 Clement 59:1, which says:
“But if there are any who refuse to heed the declarations He has made through our lips, let them not doubt the gravity of the guilt and the peril in which they involve themselves.
For our part we will take care to be innocent of any such offence; and we will entreat the creator of all things with heartfelt prayer and supplication that the full sum of his elect, as it has been numbered throughout all the world, may ever be preserved intact through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, by whom He has called us out of darkness to light, and from ignorance to the clear knowledge of the glory of His name.”14
Catholic apologists interpret this passage to mean Clement did not only counsel the Corinthians; he commanded and demanded obedience of the Corinthians to follow him.15
The third passage RC apologists use is 1 Clement 63:2-4 which states:
“So you will afford us great joy and happiness if you will lay to heart what we have written through the Holy Spirit ... Our purpose in so doing is to let you see that our whole concern has been, and still is, for the speedy restoration of peace among you.”16
Because the Catholics interpret these two passages to mean Clement commanded the Corinthians to obey him, they conclude that the only reason why he would do so was because he had authority over the church in Corinth. They further state, “there is no evidence that the Corinthians questioned Clement's jurisdiction.”17
There is a portion the Catholic apologists skip over in 1 Clement 63:2-4 which negates their entire argument on this topic and is represented by the ellipses. It states:
“... and will respond to the appeal for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter.”
This proves that this letter was not written as a command but was an appeal to the Corinthians to do the right thing. If Clement wrote from a position of authority, why the absence of any indication the church of Corinth was subordinate to the church of Rome and Clement had superior authority over them?18 Besides, for one bishop to command another congregation does not imply the one commanding possesses jurisdiction over the recipient. Proof for this can be seen with Polycarp when he commanded the Philadelphians to “obey the words of righteousness”(Phil 9:1). Does this mean Polycarp was the supreme head of the church?
The Catholic apologist will argue that Clement (the supposed bishop of Rome) really was the head of the Christian church because he interfered in other branches (like Corinth)19 and the other branches listened to him shows that they recognized his authority over them.
Not necessarily. Clement followed what Paul did but the Catholic Church does not consider Paul to be a “pope.” James, Jude and especially John also wrote letters “meddling” in other churches' affairs but they are not considered “popes” so why should Clement be considered a “pope” when what he did wasn't unique? Ignatius did exactly the same thing. The only reason Ignatius is not considered a “pope” by Roman Catholicism is due to his being a bishop of Antioch instead of Rome. Barnabas also wrote to a another church and also called the recipients his “children” (Barnabas 1:1; 6:1; 8:10; 13:4-5) whereas Clement did not (1 Clement 11:2 is the beginning of a biblical quotation and ends in v.8. It comes from Psalms 34:11-19).
A comparison of Clement of Rome with Dionysius of Corinth can also be shown. Dionysius wrote eight letters to various churches including,
“to those at a distance rendering himself most useful to all in the general epistles which he drew up for the churches ... he enjoins care against heretical error ... and orders them to receive those who are converted from any backsliding.”20
As with Clement's letter, the letters of Dionysius of Corinth were viewed with great deference by all the Christian churches.21 Does this mean Dionysius was recognized as possessing superior authority over all Christianity since Clement only wrote one letter to one church while Dionysius wrote many letters to many churches?
By what standard must the assumption he inherited the keys and authority over the entire Christian church be based upon? The only reason Roman Catholic apologists argue Clement was a pope and leader over all of Christianity is due to the assumption he was a bishop of Rome. This presumption that the bishop of Rome is the sole recipient of Peter's authority and keys is completely absent from any manuscript in the first three centuries of the church and such a concept would undoubtedly have mystified the earliest members of the church, including Clement himself, because there is no indication that he were. By any standard, Clement and his position is exactly similar to Ignatius, Polycarp, Dionysius and Barnabas who are not considered “popes.”
Even if the Catholic anti-Mormon argues the Corinthians recognized Clement as having authority over them because they considered his letter to be of great worth and read it to the congregation on some Sundays together with some books that were eventually canonized, still doesn't mean anything because this was a common practice among the early Christians. This wasn't confined to the letter of Clement but also done to numerous letters by early leaders such as Barnabas, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius and so forth. Even the pseudopigraphal Apocalypse of Peter was read in certain churches in Palestine on Good Friday,22 so this practice doesn't mean the readers considered the author as possessing supreme authority over them.
Can't a leader of a particular congregation write to the members of another congregation and admonish them to do what is right if they have serious problems? Does the fact that the letter expects the recipients to follow what the writer says make the recipients acknowledge the writer's authority over them or should they follow what he says because it's the right thing to do despite the writer does not have any authority over them? Ignatius of Antioch did this as can be seen with his seven letters to other churches and so did Polycarp of Smyrna who not only wrote a letter to Philomelium, but also apparently wrote to a number of other churches to strengthen and admonish them, but these letters have now been lost.23
Clement never says in his letter that they must follow what he says because he has authority over them, he instead says they must do what is right. If you were in Clement's shoes, and you saw a neighboring branch of the church slide into apostasy when they revolted against their appointed leader (v.21), would you admonish them to do what is right despite you don't have any authority over them or would you let things be, reasoning to yourself that since you do not have any authority over then, you can't get involved? All true followers of Christ will always try to help his brother or sister in the Gospel despite their help may be rejected. It is a credit to Clement that he tried to help another congregation of the church that was struggling.
There is another problem with this letter. Clement doesn't mention himself as the writer, which is really odd if he were writing from a position of authority. The entire heading merely says, “From the church of God at Rome to the Church of God at Corinth.” In order for this letter to be written from a position of authority, the author should have identified himself because the priesthood authority is always given to an individual, not a religious group.24 Peter, James, Jude, John and Paul wrote from a position of authority, and the beginning of their letters clearly identified who the author was and the author possessed the authority to write the letter (see 1 Peter 1:1; Jas 1:1; Gal 1:1; Jude 1:1; Rev 1:1). In fact, Ignatius and Polycarp follow the pattern of the Apostles (Heading of their letters) whereas 1 Clement didn't. 1 Clement (which was written in the last quarter of the first century), shows the Apostasy was already going on. Some churches, in particular, the Christian church at Corinth were expelling their appointed rulers and were substituting them with men who weren't appointed by the apostles (1 Clement 19:18-21; 20:19,23-27). During the time Clement wrote this letter, the Apostasy was going on throughout the church but still wouldn't be complete for another twenty or so years until the removal of John the Revelator.
The last argument by the Catholic apologists on 1 Clement is a statement in the very beginning of the letter, which states:
“Because of our recent series of unexpected misfortunes and setbacks, my dear friends, we feel there has been some delay in turning our attention to the causes of dispute in your community.”25
The Catholics understand this passage as proof that the Corinthians considered the authority of Clement to be superior to that of the apostle John's because the Corinthians appealed to Rome for help despite John the Revelator was still alive and was in Ephesus, which was more accessible than Rome. Since Clement took upon himself the responsibility of rectifying the Corinthian problem instead of John, this shows his superiority to the apostle.26
The beginning of 1 Clement looks as though the Romans are apologizing for being late in writing to the Corinthians. Because of this, we can assume that some Corinthians or a member of the Corinthian church wrote to Rome and asked for advice.
First, if Clement was superior to John, why was it that it was John who received what is now the book of Revelation and the message to the seven churches in Asia? If Clement was superior, he should have received it. Second, even if certain Corinthians appealed to Rome for advice, this doesn't mean they didn't ask for advice elsewhere. It is also possible that they asked for advice from other prominent Sees such as Antioch or Alexandria. Third, such an appeal for advice doesn't mean they viewed Clement as having authority over them. It most likely means they viewed Clement as a wise and prominent person who was capable of giving good advice. Fourth, can the Roman Catholic apologists prove that no Corinthians ever went or wrote to John about this problem and his reply may have been lost? Fifth, if Clement had authority over all of Christianity, why didn't he say so? Why didn't he invoke such authority and jurisdiction as can be seen whenever a similar situation occurred starting in the ninth century up to this day? Instead, the Catholic apologists have to interpret vague sayings in this letter, and demand their interpretation is the only valid one despite other interpretations have better possibilities of being correct. Finally, it is also possible that Clement was one of the apostates who usurped the authority of the apostles and was one of the leaders of the counterfeit gospel that Paul was warning about (Gal 1), and this appeal was from one apostate church to another. So what if he was a disciple of an apostle? If Christ had an apostate in his inner circle (Judas), why couldn't his apostles?
It is obvious the reason the Corinthians never considered this letter to exceed its bounds is because the thought of Clement having authority over them would've never occurred to them. They viewed this as an important letter and it was held in great esteem among with many others written by early leaders of the church.
Consequently, there is not a single passage in 1 Clement that proves the bishop of Rome was the sole inheritor of Peter's authority over the entire church.
2) Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 A.D.)
Catholic Anti-Mormons may say Ignatius acknowledged the supremacy of Rome over all of Christianity in the header of his letter to the Romans where he said,
“To the church holding the presidency in the territories of the district of Rome.”
By examining this passage carefully, it's noticeable this header does not mention the bishop of Rome anywhere, neither does it say Rome has superiority over all of the Christian churches. It says Rome has the presidency (first among equals not superior) over the different Christian churches in the district of Rome or in the area immediately around Rome. Support for this can be seen in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) that says: “all Sees will retain their ancient rights.” The See of Alexandria was to rule over the different churches within its environs like Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. Why? Because “... there is ... a similar custom in the case of the bishop of Rome. Likewise at Antioch.” This proves that in the fourth century, the bishop of Rome did not have authority over the entire church but only had jurisdiction over the churches within and around Southern Italy.27
Ignatius was also the first to mention the “catholic church”28 but it was used in the sense of universal or worldwide and not as one church.29 Catholic comes from the Greek word “katholikos” which means universal or general.30 Just as when Justin Martyr said, “the catholic resurrection”31 means the “universal resurrection.” “Universal,” “worldwide” and “catholic” are synonyms - they mean the same thing. The Christian church was everywhere (katholikos). Such a statement can also apply to the Mormon Church, the Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists and so on. All of these religions have members in most countries all over the world and to refer to them as universal or worldwide (katholikos) is very appropriate.
The greeting of Ignatius in his letter to the Romans only has reference to the territory around Rome and didn't even include all of Italy or Gaul much less the entire church.
If Ignatius' letters furnished proof that the bishop of Rome possessed a monarchical authority over the church, why was it never popular in the western church?32 This may be due to the fact that despite his exaltation of the office of the monarchical bishop in his letters to Magnesia, Tralles, Ephesus, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and even mentions by name the bishops of four of these churches, it is only in his letter to the church in Rome that has him not mentioning the importance of the monarchical bishop.33 What could cause him to exempt the central theme of his letters? This absence is only explained by the fact that during his time, Rome didn't have a monarchical bishop,34 but was led by a college of presbyters,35 as were a great number of other churches.36
3) The Shepherd of Hermes (approx. 155 A.D.) ***unfinished***
The Shepherd of Hermas mentions the leaders of the Christian church were in a state of apostasy (1 Hermes Vis 3 vv.102-104).
Hermes 3:5-7 compares the church to a tower that's being built but “the completion was being delayed to give Christians a final chance to repent.”
“Elchesai, was publishing a similar message of one last repentance to Christians in the East.”
“By c.112. . . the churches were so beset with sin that they need a chance to wipe the slate clean and begin all over again.”37
This book teaches work for the dead and baptism for the dead,38 and also shows that the leaders of the churches weren't monarchical bishops, but were a college of presbyters (elders).39
Hermas viewed the end occurring as soon as the tower is completed.40 The church was the tower. What did Hermas mean? When the church is built the end will come? What end, and why was it delayed to give the Christians a chance to repent? Was he talking about the end of the world? Why didn't that happen at the turn of the second century? Or, is the tower a negative concept instead of a positive one? Based upon Hermas' statement it is obvious that it is a negative concept and represents the complete apostasy of the church, which is being delayed to give the early second century Christians a final chance to repent. They didn't, and consequently, the tower was completed and the end (complete apostasy) came in the second century.
4) Irenaeus of Lyons (120/140-200/203 A.D.)
Irenaeus mentioned that if anyone wanted to know what the apostles really taught, the inquirer should go to the most accessible church center within his area. If he lived in Achaia, he should go to Corinth. If he lived close to Macedonia, he could go to either Philippi or Thessalonica. If he can go to Asia (Turkey), there is Ephesus. If he lived near Italy (like himself), he can go to Rome.41
Despite writing the succession of the bishops of Rome, Irenaeus never mentioned the bishop of Rome was superior to all other bishops in the church,42 which is surprising if he was trying to assert the superiority of the bishop of Rome over all of Christianity as Roman Catholic apologists assert.43 In fact, he appears to believe the exact opposite! Irenaeus didn't advocate the bishop of Rome being superior to the other bishops but taught that all the bishops were successors to the apostles,44 and viewed Jerusalem as the head of the church.45
Neither did Irenaeus say that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. He explicitly claimed that Linus was Rome's first bishop,
“The blessed apostles (Peter and Paul) when they founded and organized the church of Rome, gave to Linus the episcopate, and the care of governing that church ... Anencletus succeeded Linus; after Anencletus, Clement was the third, since the apostles, who has charge of this episcopate.”46
If our critics claim Linus was the first after Peter then what was Paul doing in this line of authority? The Roman Catholic Church doesn't claim Paul was the second bishop of Rome. Irenaeus however is quite clear that Paul was involved in the placement of Linus as the bishop of Rome. He also mentions that the apostles gave Linus the episcopate of the church of Rome and was charged with “governing that church.” There is no mention of Linus being the head of all of Christianity. Instead, the jurisdiction of Linus extended only over the area of the church of Rome.
Irenaeus' account of the meeting and disagreement of Polycarp of Smyrna and Anicetus of Rome,47 concerning the correct day of celebrating Easter, shows he didn't believe in papal supremacy of the bishop of Rome or else he would've mentioned the grave position Polycarp was in by opposing “the supreme head of the church.”48
5) Victor of Rome (d. 199 A.D.)
The Catholic apologists may use the incident with Pope Victor I (189-199 A.D.) when he threatened to excommunicate any church that disagreed with him of the date for the celebration of Easter,49 as proof that the bishop of Rome wielded authority over all of the church. This is called the Quartodeciman Controversy. Was Easter to be celebrated on the 14th day of Nisan no matter what day of the week it falls on or was it to be celebrated on the Sunday following the 14th day of Nisan?50
If the bishop of Rome really had jurisdiction over the universal church, why is it that it wasn't until Victor tried to impose his view on the Easter question at the close of the second century that we hear anything about the bishop of Rome? Does the action of Irenaeus when he protested to Victor that his threat was too harsh prove he recognized the authority of Victor to do so as Catholic apologists claim?51 Or was it due to the repercussions such an action would cause?
According to Eusebius, because most of the churches in Asia sided with Polycrates of Ephesus in his dispute with Victor of Rome, Victor, the president “of the Romans” (curious, there is no mention of Victor being the supreme ruler of all the church),
“… endeavoured to cut off the churches of all Asia, together with their neighbouring churches, as heterodox, from the common unity ...”52
The term Eusebius used is “endeavored.” Those who endeavor (attempt, try) to do something do not possess the power to perform the idea they want, otherwise the act would follow the will.53 Victor tried his best to have his excommunication recognized by the other bishops. Despite pronouncing it, Victor's excommunication of his opponents didn't have any force because the recipients weren't recognized by the other churches and by themselves as being excommunicated.54 If the other bishops recognized the bishop of Rome as having authority over them, they should have obeyed his pronouncement. Instead, they exhorted him to change his mind because the action he needed to make was:
“… that course that was calculated to promote peace, unity and love to one another.”55
A course his excommunication did not follow.
Catholic apologists claim that Victor took for granted his right to excommunicate others and no one, including the recipients protested that he couldn't do it.56
This really misses the point. Victor could excommunicate anyone he wanted, just as any other bishop could also excommunicate anyone they want, but just because he did doesn't mean the other bishops will recognize that excommunication as being valid. When Victor pronounced that excommunication, no other bishop recognized it as being authoritative over them. Its only effect would be the recipients would be unable to have communion with the See of Rome. Being excommunicated by Rome didn't carry the awful state it does today to modern Roman Catholics; it was just as if one ordinary church excommunicated another. Sure, it was unfortunate, but it wasn't serious enough to threaten the salvation of those excommunicated. It wasn't until later that the prohibition of communion to anyone excommunicated was made and this was only enforced upon the excommunicated by their immediate superiors or by a council.
Why did the other bishops, especially Irenaeus (who “rebuke[d] Victor somewhat sternly”) tell him he was too harsh? Because the action of Victor wasn't Catholic. The other bishops realized that this excommunication was too harsh an action over such a small issue (the correct day of celebrating Easter) because it would cause the Catholic Church to cease being Catholic. This is why they exhorted him to follow “that course that was calculated to promote peace, unity and love to one another.”
Irenaeus' statement to Victor is highly instructive. He related how Polycarp went to Rome and met Anicetus who was the bishop of Rome during that time. Polycarp and Anicetus disagreed on the correct day of celebrating Easter,
“Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe (his method of celebrating Easter) … nor could Polycarp prevail upon Anicetus to adopt that observance … but inspite of all this they communed together, and in the church Anicetus yielded the administration of the Eucharist to Polycarp, plainly as a matter of respect. And they parted from one another in peace, both those who kept the observance and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”57
Anicetus couldn't impose his view upon another bishop, Polycarp, which is an odd situation if Anicetus was the Supreme Head of the church. Why didn't Irenaeus and Eusebius mention the danger Polycarp was in for disregarding the bishop of Rome? Why didn't Victor mention he was the Supreme Ruler of the church and he has to be obeyed by all others?
It is obvious that Victor could not, on his own authority, excommunicate other churches and have that action recognized by others as binding upon them because the other bishops strongly resisted his action.58
If Victor went through with excommunicating all the churches that disagreed with him on when Easter was to be celebrated, this would have split Christianity just as the mutual excommunications of the pope of Rome and patriarch of Constantinople did 850 years later. He settled nothing,59 because the other churches didn't come around to his view until over a century after his death and was only due to the command of Emperor Constantine in the Council of Arles (314) and the Council of Nicea, (325) “Constantine appeared to be the only one on earth capable of (resolving the Easter question).”60 Why didn't the bishop of Rome settle it? It wasn't until centuries afterwards, during Charles the Great, that it was universally celebrated on the same day.61
6) Tertullian (155/160-220 A.D.)
Roman Catholic apologists will claim,62 Tertullian, despite his apostasy from the church, still recognized the supremacy of the bishop of Rome when he referred to him as the:
“Supreme Pontiff, the bishop of bishops”(pontifex maximus, episcopus episcopurum).63
They say that it is obvious that during this time all Christians recognized the bishop of Rome as being the supreme pontiff.
Such is not the case. The evidence points to the bishop of Carthage at that time (Agrippinus) as being the recipient of that sarcastic “praise” instead of Callistus, the bishop of Rome.
By reading Chapter 21 of this book one notices,
“I now inquire into your opinion, to see from what source you usurp this right to `the Church.' If, because the Lord has said to Peter, `Upon this rock I will build my Church,' `to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom,' or, `Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,' you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring this gift personally upon Peter?”64
This passage proves this book wasn't addressed to the bishop of Rome because the phrase, “to every Church akin to Peter” can only be understood to mean a church related to Peter, or an apostolic See such as Rome. This reference fits Carthage perfectly since tradition has it that Roman missionaries founded it.65
Even if Tertullian was referring to the bishop of Rome, things still need to be put in perspective. The bishop of Rome during this time was the head of the most powerful See in Christendom, being the capital of the Roman Empire. The Roman See was the closest major See to Carthage and the church of Carthage was a daughter church of Rome. Because of his power and influence, the bishop of Rome must have viewed himself as being superior to the other less-wealthy bishops and indubitably, (as happens all to often whenever a person is given too much power) went to his head. The title of Tertullian's book, “On Modesty” shows that he was attacking the recipient for pride. The title, “pontifex maximus” or supreme pontiff was a title given to the Roman Emperor,66 and if Calixtus (the bishop of Rome during that time) took to himself such a pompous title, this book shows that Tertullian was attacking him for pride and vain-glory. An examination of the context of this quotation proves that this indeed is the case.
Who was Tertullian anyway and why is he considered an apostate? Tertullian was a brilliant Christian thinker from Africa and is considered to be the first true genius of the Western churches,67 and the Father of Latin Theology.68 He left the Catholic Church and joined the Montanists because he observed the Catholic Church was becoming more and more corrupt and was yielding to pagan influences. He could see the repercussions of the Apostasy all around him and tried to find a Christian body that preserved the original purity of Christianity but couldn't find it. He settled for the group that was a closest as could be to the original, the Montanists who were eventually wiped out by the Catholics.
Why was Calixtus referring to himself as the supreme pontiff or the bishop of bishops? Was it due to him inheriting the keys and authority of Peter over the entire Christian Church or was it due to his ego because of his power, wealth and influence? If he was the recognized leader of all of Christianity by divine right, why the absence of any legitimate document that makes such a claim in the first three centuries of Christianity? Why the express denial of such a title by a later bishop of Rome, Pope Gregory the Great? (See below). In addition, other Christians referred to James, the bishop of Jerusalem as “the bishop of bishops.”69
Tertullian didn't believe that the See of Rome was superior to all the rest. He considered, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica and Ephesus to be more ancient than Rome and therefore had priority.70 All he said was “the Romans, our neighbors.” Rome was the closest apostolic See to his area.
Neither did Tertullian consider Rome to be the standard for truth. Instead, he taught that all churches collectively were the standard that true doctrine must be based by.71
Roman Catholic apologists like to quote Tertullian when he said:
“Thou hast Rome, whose authority is near us. How happy is the church to whom the apostles have given all its doctrine with their blood … Let us see what that church says, what it teaches, what it testifies.”72
This quotation is taken out of context. Here's the entire passage:
“Let us glance at the apostolic churches, where the sees of the apostles still remain, where their epistles are still read, where their voice still resounds, and their face, as it were, is still seen. Is it Achaia that is near thee? thou hast Corinth; if thou are not far from Macedonia, thou hast the Philippians; if thou canst go to Asia, thou hast Ephesus; if thou dwellest near Italy, thou hast Rome, whose authority is near us. How happy is the church to whom the apostles have given all its doctrine with their blood- where Peter suffered death like his Lord, where Paul was crowned by the death of John the Baptist, whence the Apostle John, after being plunged into boiling oil without suffering any ill, was banished to an island. Let us see what that church says, what it teaches, what it testifies in common with the churches of Africa.”73
What the Roman Catholic apologists will avoid pointing out is Tertullian mentioned Rome,
“only after the other apostolic churches, and in the same character; that he appeals to her evidence, only because it was the apostolic church nearest to Africa, whose testimony it was most easy to obtain.”74
Because of this, it is obvious that he did not consider the See of Rome, or its bishop to occupy any supreme place in the Christian Church's hierarchy. He also used the beliefs of the African churches as the standard the church of Rome had to adhere to.
The Roman Catholics may claim that Tertullian believed Peter was the Rock in Matt 16:18 and will quote,
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built?”75
They will avoid another part of his writings where Tertullian said,
“If Christ changes the name of Simon to that of Peter, it is not only to signify the strength and firmness of his faith, for then he would have given him the name of such solid substances as are strengthened and made more durable by admixture and cohesion; but he gives him the name of Peter (the stone) because, in Scripture, the stone typifies and represents Christ, who is the stone of which we read that is laid to be a stumbling -stone and rock of offence[Rom 9:33]. Since, then, he just changes his name, it is to express the change he is going to make in the world, by transforming idolatrous nations into stones similar to him, and fit for the building of his church.”76
Tertullian also said that when Christ addressed Peter he was addressing all of the apostles. Tertullian also stated that the twelve apostles were equal just as the twelve wells of Elim, the twelve precious stones of Aaron's breastplate, and were as the twelve stones taken from the river Jordan.77
It is obvious that when one examines the complete writings of Tertullian, he believed that the twelve apostles were equal and Peter was the rock only in the sense of him representing Christ.
7) Cyprian of Carthage (200-258 A.D.) *** Incomplete***
Cyprian was a staunch defender of orthodoxy whose fame reached far and wide. He was highly honored especially by St. Augustine,78 and Gregory of Nazianzen,79 who described Cyprian as one,
“who presided (not only over Carthage and Africa), but over all the regions of the West, and almost all parts of the East and South, and North, wherever his wonderful reputation spread.”80
Prior to this time, all bishops were equal in authority with each other,81 and Cyprian telling Pope Stephen to excommunicate Marcianus, the bishop of Arles,82 because he was letting the lapsi die without being reconciled to the church around 255 A.D.83 represents the first known instance of the possibility the bishop of Rome could interfere in the affairs of churches away from Italy. Cyprian was also the first on record to mention the office of the bishop of Rome as the seat of Peter.84 Catholic apologists put great import to the statements that the See of Rome is called the See of Peter and will not bring attention to the other writings that also call the Sees of Antioch and Alexandria, the Sees of Peter because this fact disproves their argument. In addition, Cyprian himself considered Carthage to be the see of Peter since he believed the entire episcopate to be the “chair of Peter”85 and all the bishops were the foundation of the church and were the successors of Peter,86 not the bishop of Rome alone.87
There is no evidence Cyprian considered Rome to be the head of the entire Christian church due to divine authority. He considered Rome to precede Carthage “because of its great size.”88 Neither did Cyprian consider the bishop of Rome to be his superior as can be seen when he wrote to Stephen of Rome where he said,
“But the subject in regard to which we have chiefly to write to you, and to confer with your gravity and wisdom, is one that more especially pertains both to the priestly authority and to the unity as well as the dignity of the Catholic Church.”89
Cyprian always considered the bishops of Rome to be his equal and never addressed them as his superior.90 He did not consider Stephen to be his superior, but his equal, one whom he considers to possess a gravity and wisdom he admires (tongue in cheek).
St. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to this same Stephen, and exhorted him to keep the peace and not trouble the church again concerning the baptism of heretics.91 He also wrote to Stephen's successor, Xystus, asking him not to follow Stephen's path of withdrawing communion from other churches concerning the rebaptism of heretics.92 He addressed Xystus as “brother,” instead of his superior.93
If Stephen was recognized by the other bishops as possessing a divine right over them, they should have followed what he said. Instead, he was condemned by the council of bishops in Africa and by Firmilian, who was recognized as one of the holiest and wisest bishops of the time.94 In Firmilian's letter to Cyprian,95 he considered Stephen to be an audacious and insolent bishop who's comparable to Judas due to his action of separating the See of Rome from the other churches just because of the question of the baptism of heretics. He also said Stephen's claim of inheriting the mantle of Peter's authority was in error. Firmilian considered the See of Jerusalem to be the model church,96 and comments that despite the See of Rome abandoned certain things that were originally taught, they are still not excluded by the other churches to maintain the peace and unity of the church. He adds that Stephen is mistaken when he thinks the other churches separated from him because he (Stephen) was the one who separated. Firmilian said,
“…. he is truly schismatic who renounced the communion of the unity of the church.”
It is interesting that no one, not even the bishops of Rome during that time accused Firmilian of being a heretic and needs to submit to the bishop of Rome because the bishop of Rome was his spiritual leader. Neither did any other bishop accuse Firmilian of being wrong. Is it then conceivable that Firmilian believed Stephen was his supreme ruler?
Cyprian also said in the Council of Carthage,
“Let each one give his opinion without judging anyone and without separating from the communion those who are not of his opinion; for none of us sets himself up for a bishop of bishops, nor compels his brethren to obey him by means of tyrannical terror, every bishop having full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another. Let all wait the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint us to the government of his church and to judge our conduct.”97
Here, Cyprian condemned the notion of “a bishop of bishops”98 and stated all bishops were equal. He also said that no bishop should excommunicate those who do not share the identical belief he does, instead, each bishop must follow the dictates of his conscience without any other bishop (especially of Rome) intruding upon him.99 It is very obvious that he was referring to the bishop of Rome who was trying to assert authority over other bishops and who was guilty of such charges. It is unfathomable if such a council of Roman Catholic bishops today were to condemn the Pope in such a manner.
This brings an interesting question to the fore,
If Cyprian believed that the bishop of Rome was the source of unity, why would he reprove the bishop of Rome for withdrawing himself from that unity?
This clearly shows Cyprian's position. To Cyprian, the church rests upon the unity of all its bishops with each other,100 instead of a unity of all bishops to one central bishop who occupies a monarchical supremacy over all others.101
Cyprian also said,
“The episcopate is one, of which a part is held by individual bishops in solidarity (in solidum).”102
This is a fascinating statement, so contrary to the alleged supremacy of the bishop of Rome.
“In solidum is a legal phrase used of joint ownership in a property in which each party is not regarded as possessing a share, but rather as possessing rights, in the whole and as accountable for the whole. Cyprian's concept, then, is of a corporation or college of bishops, with each in his own person and within his own sphere of jurisdiction excercising the whole authority of the episcopate.”103
Even the “papal” text of Cyprian's Upon the Unity of the Church doesn't say the bishop of Rome possesses a primacy of jurisdiction over all the church but shows Cyprian viewed Rome as possessing a primacy of honor, of which no argument is necessary, despite the appearance that Cyprian himself was the one who expunged that passage from the remaining copies of his book so that he wouldn't appear to be advocating a supremacy of the bishop of Rome since Stephen misinterpreted what Cyprian said about Matt 16:18.104 Why would Cyprian advocate the bishop of Rome having supremacy over all the church when the main focus of his treatises, Letters and the Council in Carthage he presided over, was the equality of all bishops with one another and no bishop has the right to raise himself above any other?105
Sure Cyprian called the church of Rome “root and womb” of the Catholic Church,106 the source of the episcopacy,107 and the bishop of Rome was Cathage's elder brother.108 but this doesn't mean he considered it to be superior than all the churches and it was the mother of the Catholic Church. According to tradition, the church of Carthage and the North African churches were founded by missionaries from Rome,109 making them daughter churches of Rome. This makes Rome a womb or root from which other churches were to come from. Rome was a mother church because from it other churches (like Carthage) were created by it. It was not the mother of the entire church because the church of Jerusalem held that honor.110 In fact, the ancient apostolic churches were considered to be wombs and mothers because they gave “origin to others”111 and wasn't used solely in reference to Rome.
Cyprian also said that the primacy status of Rome can be lost due to misconduct,112 and pointed out the fact that Peter never claimed supremacy over the other apostles, and he never demanded obedience from the other apostles and Paul.113
Just because many early leaders appealed to Rome doesn't mean they recognized Rome as possessing a superior authority. If this was the case Rome then should be the only one appealed to and her decisions were recognized as having authority and binding upon all other churches. It was common practice during the time that,
“Those who were condemned in the West appealed to the East, and those who were condemned in the East appealed to the West, and above all to Rome, which was the only apostolic church of that country.”114
Proof that bishops from all over appealed to one another,115 instead of solely to Rome can be seen with just a few examples among many. Faustinus, the bishop of Lyons appealed to Cyprian asking him to condemn Marcianus, the bishop of Arles for heretical views. Does this mean the bishop of Lyons considered Carthage to possess superior authority over Lyons and over Rome because Faustinus appealed to Cyprian instead of solely relying upon the bishop of Rome?
The churches at Legio (Leon) and Asturica (Astorga) in Spain appealed to Cyprian of Carthage concerning two heretical bishops (Basiledes and Martial) instead of appealing to Rome.116 Does this mean they considered the bishop of Carthage to be superior to the bishop of Rome? Does the action of Cyprian when he overturned the decision of Stephen of Rome,117 prove he was superior to the bishop of Rome?
When the bishops of Syria assembled at Antioch to judge Paul of Samosata, they appealed to Firmilian of Cesarea and Dionysius of Alexandria to come and judge with them and did not ask the bishop of Rome to join them. Does this mean these Syrian bishops considered the bishops of Cesarea and Alexandria to be superior to the bishop of Rome?
The Home Synod of the church of Constantinople under the Patriarch of Constantinople, starting around 400 A.D. was the center of appeals from many other churches.118 John Chrysostom deposed many bishops and even summoned Theophilus of Alexandria to appear before him and explain his actions.119 Does this mean the See of Constantinople was the Supreme ruler of the church? The churches of Alexandria and Antioch also appealed to the churches of Carthage and Milan.120 Does this mean the bishops of Carthage and Milan were “the Supreme Rulers of the church?”
Roman Catholic apologists will focus on the Novatus situation, when Novatus appealed to Rome and claimed to be the legitimate bishop of Carthage and when Cyprian protested to Cornelius when the bishop of Rome received certain schismatic priests.121 They say that this situation shows both the schismatics and Cyprian recognizing the superiority of the bishop of Rome over them because both appealed to Rome.
What the Roman Catholic apologists will avoid is an incident that occurred prior to the Novatian situation, and that was when Novatian of Rome claimed to be the legitimate bishop of Rome and both Novatian and Cornelius appealed to Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage for recognition. Cyprian, despite believing Cornelius was the legitimate bishop, did not automatically grant recognition to Cornelius when Cornelius asked him for support,122 since the African Council in session during that time decided to send two priests (Caldonius and Fortunatus) to determine who possessed the legitimate claim to authority. When they received word from other sources that Cornelius was the legitimate bishop, communion was established with him. Does this mean that both Cornelius and his usurper recognized the bishop of Carthage as having authority over them because of their desire for his recognition?
It is obvious that just because certain bishops or priests may appeal to a particular church or bishop for support doesn't mean they recognize that bishop as having authority over them. They did it for the obvious reason politicians do it today with their fellow-politicians; it was done to garner support for their various positions. Roman Catholics may have a valid point if the church of Rome was the only church appealed to by others but history shows this is not the case.
When Cyprian told Stephen of Rome to excommunicate Marcianus, the bishop of Arles,123 Roman Catholic apologists will state along the lines, “This shows that Cyprian acknowledged the pope's jurisdiction over even bishops of France.”124
If this was the case, why did Faustinus of Lyons also appeal to the bishop of Carthage for help when all that was needed was an appeal to Rome? Based upon Faustinus' appeal, Cyprian told Stephen to excommunicate Marcianus and for Stephen to ask the clergy and members of the church in Arles to depose Marcianus and choose another. Surely if Cyprian recognized the bishop of Rome as possessing the authority to depose any heretical bishop by himself (as Roman Catholic apologists assert),125 he wouldn't have told Stephen to ask the faithful members and clergy in Arles to depose Marcianus because it should have happened automatically. This, however, wasn't the case.
Does this action of Cyprian and Stephen prove the bishop of Rome possessed and was recognized as having supreme authority over all of Christianity? No, for many reasons:
1. If the bishop of Rome was recognized as having supreme authority, Faustinus shouldn't have appealed to Cyprian for help.
2. If the bishop of Rome was recognized as having supreme authority, Marcianus should have automatically be deposed once Stephen pronounced the excommunication. Instead, he had to appeal to the members of Arles to depose Marcianus.
3.Why did Cyprian tell Stephen to take care of the Marcianus affair despite the request of Faustinus? He never mentions he can't do it because he doesn't possess the authority to do so and the only one who can is the bishop of Rome. If Rome possessed superior authority, Cyprian would have mentioned this fact. Because of the silence, it is more probable that Cyprian passed on to Stephen the problem because Rome was so much closer to Arles than Carthage and the distance would prevent Cyprian from devoting the time the situation required.
4. Being the closest and only apostolic See in the West, Arles had to be a daughter-church of Rome. Because of this, Rome could take action against its heretical bishop without being reprimanded by the other Sees because such a move would have been viewed as the See deposing one of her own which wouldn't need to come before a council.
5. An understanding of the effects of an excommunication has to be realized. Just because the church of Rome excommunicated Marcianus doesn't mean the entire Christian body will recognize that action as binding upon themselves. Its only effect would be to deprive Marcianus of communion with the See of Rome. If he was to go to another See, he would be accepted by those churches and have communion with them. This is why the members of Arles had to depose of him themselves for the other Sees to view Marcianus as a heretic and withdraw communion from him.
Why did Cyprian say that perfidy can't enter the Roman church?126 Because he was praising the Roman church due to the fact they finally accepted him as the legitimate bishop of Carthage and refused to accept the heretics who came from Carthage. It was a form of praise and gratitude. It is also evident that this praise wasn't directed to the bishop of Rome but was directed at the clergy and faithful members of that church (the Romans). In fact, the remainder of this verse has Cyprian adding,
“… since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord.”
This shows that Cyprian viewed bishops to only have responsibility over their particular church and couldn't interfere in the affairs of other churches.
Even Cyprian's understanding of Matt 16:18 shows he considered Peter to be a representative of all the apostles and all the bishops in the church.
“If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”127
“And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.”128
These show Cyprian viewed Peter and his confession as him being a representative of the entire apostolate and episcopate and not as one possessing superior authority over his fellows.129
In conclusion, it is obvious that St. Cyprian of Carthage did not believe in papal supremacy but viewed all bishops as possessing equal authority.130 Cyprian, the African bishops and Firmilian's actions and words in disregarding and condemning Stephen of Rome's threats prove two things beyond any doubt:
They didn't believe the bishop of Rome possessed Papal Supremacy, or universal jurisdiction over the entire church and the awful consequences of his threats.
The third-party Church Fathers who documented their conflicts with Stephen likewise didn't believe the bishop of Rome possessed a Monarchical Authority over the entire Christian Church since not one of them mentioned, or even hinted the danger Cyprian, et al, were in, because of Stephen's threats.131
Sure, Cyprian was Catholic, but his views on authority are not Roman Catholic but Greek Catholic.
8) Emperor Aurelian (215-275 A.D.)
The pagan Emperor Aurelian in Rome,
“… decided most equitably on the business, ordering the building to be given up to those to whom the Christian bishops of Italy and Rome should write.”132
This statement causes Roman Catholic apologists to claim that even this pagan emperor recognized the bishop of Rome as possessing supremacy over the Christian Church,133 because he appointed the bishop of Rome to decide upon the case of Paul of Samosata.
This claim is highly unlikely for many reasons:
First, to have unbiased judges, he needed to appoint those who were not involved in the fray. That meant the bishops of Italy who were conveniently near.
Second, he would naturally choose Christians he knew, and since he lived in Rome, whom would he logically choose?
Third, he mentioned the bishop of Rome only after the bishops of Italy; which not only shows he did not believe the bishop of Rome had superior authority over the rest of the bishops, but also shows that the bishop of Rome was only one of the numerous bishops to decide the case.
Finally, he would naturally mention the bishop of Rome because he was the leader of the Christians in the capital of the Empire and one he most likely would've had dealings in the past since the Emperor lived in Rome.
If this pagan emperor believed that the bishop of Rome possessed authority over all of Christianity, he wouldn't pass the judgment on to the bishops of Italy and include the bishop of Rome in their number only after mentioning the others. Instead, he would've asked the bishop of Rome to settle the problem by himself. This he did not do, consequently, he did not believe in papal supremacy but made this appointment solely to have impartial judges.134
If the Christians during this time didn't recognize the bishop of Rome as their supreme head, why expect this pagan Emperor to believe such?
9) Dionysius of Alexandria (c.260)
RC apologists claim,
“After some members of his diocese denounced him (Dionysius of Alexandria) to Rome, the Pope (Dionysius) asked his namesake to present his side of the case. {Dionysius of Alexandria) did so and was exonerated. Note the implications. If the Bishop of Rome had the right to judge the Patriarch of Alexandria, then all bishops and Christians were subject to him.”135
These Cyrenaican opponents of Dionysius who appealed to Rome didn't do so because they believed the bishop of Rome possessed supremacy over them, they did so seeking support for their position.136 An examination of the surviving fragments of this incident shows Dionysius of Rome never claimed, and neither did the Patriarch of Alexandria acknowledge, the bishop of Rome possessed authority over the church of Alexandria.137
If the Roman Catholic apologists insist it does, they have a major problem. A substitution of the names of the churches and bishops in the above article destroys any pretension this incident proves papal supremacy:
“After some members of his diocese denounced him (Cornelius of Rome) to Carthage, the bishop (Cyprian) asked Cornelius to present his side of the case. {Cornelius of Rome) did so and was exonerated. Note the implications. If the Bishop of Carthage had the right to judge the Pope of Rome, then all bishops and Christians were subject to him.”138
Just because members of one church appealed to a bishop of another concerning their bishop doesn't mean they believed the bishop appealed to possessed jurisdiction over their church and their bishop. The actions of the two Dionysius' doesn't mean the bishop of Rome was the supreme ruler of the church anymore than the incident between Cornelius and Cyprian means the bishop of Carthage was the supreme ruler of the church.
10) St. Athanasius (293-373 A.D.)
Roman Catholic apologists claim that the case concerning St. Athanasius proves the early church recognized the bishop of Rome as possessing supreme authority over the entire church when Athanasius and four other bishops went to Rome and,
“when they had explained their case to Julius, bishop of the city of Rome, he sent them back to the East and restored to each his See, as is the prerogative of the Roman Church.”139
What prerogative did the Roman church enjoy and how did its bishop receive it? Was it due to the bishop of Rome inheriting all the authority that Peter had (if he really did) over the entire church? The bishop of Rome mistakenly claimed he was granted the ecclesiastical right by the Nicene Council to become the interpreter of the councils and the East could not decide anything without consulting Rome for its opinion.140 This the East did not do he said when they condemned Athanasius and his fellow bishops.
According to Sozomen,
“The bishop of the city of Rome and all of the bishops of the West, regarded the deposition of the orthodox bishops as an insult to themselves; for, from the beginning, they had approved of the Nicean faith, and still continued of the same opinion. Hence, they graciously received Athanasius, who went to them, and they claimed the right to judge his cause. Eusebius (of Nicomedia) was much grieved at this, and wrote of it to Julius.”141
The Eastern bishops gathered at Antioch (341) and drafted a letter to Julius, the bishop of Rome in which they told him to mind his own business with their heretics just as they minded their own when Novatus was condemned by the West as a heretic.142 Part of this letter is very intriguing because it clearly shows what the Eastern bishops thought of the authority of the bishop of Rome and his See:
“… that the Church of Rome was glorious, because it had been the abode of the Apostles, and that from the beginning, she had been the metropolis of piety, although the teachers of the faith had come to her from the East. Yet it did not appear just to them, that they (the Eastern churches) should be regarded as inferior, because they were surpassed in number and in magnificence by a church to whom they were superior in virtue and courage.”143
This statement proves that the Eastern bishops did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed supremacy over them by divine authority. Instead, the See of Rome was superior to them due to it having more members,144 and was more magnificent or wealthy than the Eastern churches while they were superior to Rome in virtue and courage. These Eastern bishops also said that the idea the Eastern bishops needed to be judged by the bishops of the West and of Rome in particular was a strange claim, and is without precedent in all of Catholic history.145 They said all bishops are equal and Julius of Rome didn't have any special rights.146
They were right since there isn't a canon from the Council of Nicea that states the Eastern churches can't legislate anything if the bishop of Rome was against it.147
How did Julius respond to this letter? He didn't claim superiority over them by divine right, instead he reminded them of the ecclesiastical rule that was done by the Council of Nicea that gave Rome the right to be summoned and consulted before any decision is to be made:
“… this prerogative, due to the dignity of his see, gave him the right to take care of all those who had appealed to him, seeking refuge from the persecutions of the Arian faction of the East, and that he should restore to each one his church.”148
Julius said in his letter to the Eastern bishops, that even though he was the only one writing, his opinion, “was that of all the bishops of Italy and these regions.” Why didn't he tell them his right derived from the fact he was the Supreme Ruler of the church and possessed jurisdiction over them, and they better obey him or else? He also said, “Are you ignorant that it is the custom to write us first?”149 Was it due to Rome possessing divine authority over all the churches? No. Julius' arguments are always based upon a prerogative given to the bishop of Rome by the Council of Nicea, not by God. Unfortunately, he frequently alludes to non-existent canons in his arguments that must've bewildered the Easterners. The claim that the Council of Nicea twenty years earlier decreed the East couldn't judge anything without consulting with the West150 because of its importance and dignity is a false one.
Sure Julius summoned the Eastern bishops to go to Rome for a council to decide the case of Athanasius. What Roman Catholic apologists will avoid to point out is Julius's own statement that he didn't call for a council on his own authority, but it was the Eastern opponents of Athanasius, especially Martyrius who demanded for one to convene.151
The issue here isn't which side was correct, it is, “How was this conflict between the East and Rome resolved?” Did the Eastern bishops submit to the decision of the bishop of Rome? They should have if he was their leader. No. Instead, the Council of Sardica (347 A.D.) was assembled by the Roman emperors to decide upon the issue.152 This fact proves the judgment of Julius, the bishop of Rome, was considered by the entire church to be subordinate to the judgment of the council. Julius' position triumphed because of the support given by Emperor Constans to his cause.153
Athanasius's view of Rome is quite clear that he didn't believe the bishop of Rome was the Supreme Ruler of the church and sole recipient of Peter's (supposed) Monarchical Authority. The closest he came to exalting Rome was when he said concerning the Arians,
“… so from the beginning they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury until it covered even his territory. They had no reverence for his See because it is Apostolic, nor respect for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of the Roman Empire, nor recollection of the letters in which they had once addressed him as successor of the Apostles.”154
He viewed Rome as an apostolic church, meaning, it was founded during the Apostolic Age (during the time of the Apostles). Rome was the center and heart of the Roman Empire; it wasn't the supreme head of the church. And the Eastern bishops previously addressed Liberius as the successor of the Apostles (note the plural). Does this mean the Eastern bishops believed Liberius was the Supreme Ruler of the church? No, whenever one was addressed as the successor of the apostles, that meant the recipient was believed to be an orthodox member who followed in the apostles' footsteps. Basically, Athanasius was pointing out that the Arian bishops praised the previous bishop of Rome for his orthodoxy while his successor Julius was viewed as heterodox despite Julius' position was identical with his predecessor.155
11) Optatus of Milevis (fl.370)
Roman Catholic apologists claim Optatus believed in papal supremacy when he said the unity of the church was
“… manifested by communion with the See of Rome, whose first occupant was Peter, the apostle whom Christ, for the sake of unity placed before all others.”156
They will avoid other parts of his writings where Optatus laid equal stress on the desirability of communion with the Sees in the East.157 Since Optatus lived in Northern Africa and the See of Rome was the closest Apostolic See to his area, and his church was founded by the See of Rome, shouldn't it be expected that Optatus would mention the See of Rome more often than the other Sees? This statement of Optatus supports papal primacy (first among equals) but definitely doesn't support papal supremacy.158
12) Jerome (340-420)
Roman Catholic apologists claim Jerome believed the bishop of Rome was the supreme ruler of the entire Christian church and will quote Jerome when he wrote to Damascus of Rome,
“Following no one as leader except Christ, I associate myself in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the See of Peter. I know the church was built upon that Rock. Whoever eats a lamb outside the house (Ex 12:46) is profane, any who is not in Noah's ark will perish when the flood prevails.”159
This interpretation is untenable since it shows unawareness of what “communion” means in this context. Jerome made himself in communion with the See of Rome. This doesn't mean he was only in communion with the See of Rome and no one else. Catholics during his time had to be in communion with all the churches in order to be orthodox since orthodoxy was the unity of all the churches combined. Sure, he referred to Rome as the See of Peter. This doesn't mean the church of Rome possessed supreme authority over the entire church since during his time “the See of Peter” was another way of saying “an orthodox Catholic church” and if it has reference to a specific church being labeled “the See of Peter” it still wouldn't support the Catholic argument since during Jerome's time, Alexandria and Antioch were likewise called “the See of Peter.” In addition, while he mentioned Rome was the See of Peter, he further on said to Damascus,
“So may you sit with the Twelve upon the judgment-seat, so may another gird you with Peter in your old age, so may you obtain the citizenship of heaven with Paul.”160
It is obvious his praise to Damascus doesn't imply a belief Damascus possessed supremacy over all since his praise was for him to sit with (not over) the Twelve if he personified Peter. Neither does he ascribe supremacy to Peter since Paul was the one holding the citizenship of heaven. In fact, Jerome himself said that all the bishops are successors of the apostles.161
Even if Jerome intended more than this, it could only be that he was expressing his loyalty to Rome since he was a Roman,162 (he was born in Yugoslavia but grew up in Rome where he went to school).
13) Pope Leo I (d. 461 A.D.)
Roman Catholic apologists claim that all of Christianity recognized the bishop of Rome as their universal head when the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon (451) in the second session proclaimed, “Peter has spoken by Leo.”163
The entire text reads,
“Such is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles! We all believe thus! Anathema to those who do not thus believe! Peter has spoken by Leo. Thus taught the Apostles. Leo teaches according to piety and truth; and thus has Cyril taught.”164
Based upon the text, it is noticeable this joyful exclamation wasn't due to them recognizing Pope Leo as having authority over them, but was given because the contents of Pope Leo's letter were shown to agree with traditional Catholic teaching. Further proof that this is so is the fact that not all of the bishops present in the Council of Chalcedon gave this praise. Some doubted that the doctrine contained in Pope Leo's letter was traditional. They agreed to meet after five days at the home of Anatolius, the bishop of Constantinople, to receive clarification from the legates of Leo who explained what certain Latin words meant. After this examination, those bishops who were in doubt accepted Leo's letter as conforming to the traditional view.165
It is difficult to agree with the interpretation of RC apologists that this praise of Pope Leo shows they recognized him as possessing authority over the bishops present during this council, since his letter explicitly advocated the unity of all bishops with no supreme head.166 These bishops gave this praise to Leo only after it was shown that his view was in agreement with the bishops present and with Cyril, the former bishop of Alexandria.167
When they said that Peter has spoken through Leo, this doesn't mean that Leo was superior to the council. This praise was given to Leo because he was a bishop of an apostolic See and doesn't mean he possessed superior authority over all the other bishops, because if that was the case; his view should have been the standard for truth, and they had to conform to his doctrine, not the other way around. Neither was he recognized as the representative of Peter when it was common knowledge that the bishops of Alexandria and especially Antioch were also successors of Peter. Neither does this prove Peter possessed superior authority in comparison with the other apostles.
The Roman Catholic apologists will also argue that Leo really had superior authority over the council because in his letter to Empress Pulcheria he claimed he annulled the decree of Chalcedon by the authority of the blessed Peter.168
What is he talking about? Pope Leo was against the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon that gave the bishop of Constantinople the second in honor after the bishop of Rome and extrapolated further the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople. This canon revised the ancient order of honor among the Major Sees as promulgated in the sixth Canon of the Council of Nicea and bumped the bishop of Alexandria from second to third, and the bishop of Antioch from third to fourth.
Pope Leo didn't want the bishop of Constantinople to possess the second position in honor because it went against the sixth canon of the Council of Nicea,169 and because Constantinople wasn't apostolic:
“Let him [the Bishop of Constantinople] not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation.”170
Interestingly, this reasoning was disregarded by the later Roman Catholic Church when it granted Constantinople the second rank after the Romans conquered Constantinople in the early thirteenth century (Pope Innocent III in 1204 and the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215), and during the Florentine Union in 1439.171 Leo didn't say he couldn't grant Constantinople the second rank on his own authority. He expressly said that the decrees of the Council of Nicea can't be changed by anyone and were to last forever.172
When Leo claimed he annulled the decree of Chalcedon, does this mean he possessed superior authority over the council or does it mean he was speaking due to him being a bishop of an apostolic See and the only apostolic See in the West? If we examine all of his writings against the Council of Chalcedon, we notice that he never claimed to possess a superior authority than the Council. Instead, he considered himself to be a “guardian of the catholic faith and of the constitutions of the Fathers.”173
He even wrote to the bishop of Antioch and told him that he should consider this canon null because it was against the Council of Nicea and not because he said so,174 just as the actions of the Robber-Synod was annulled by the Council of Chalcedon,175 not by Leo's own power.
If Leo didn't like what the 28th canon said, he was entitled to speak out due to his being a bishop of an apostolic See and because his was the only apostolic See in the West.176 If the Council of Chalcedon claimed to be an ecumenical council, it had to be ratified by both the East and the West otherwise, it wouldn't be ecumenical. The problem with Leo is his reasoning against accepting the bishop of Constantinople as being second in honor was flawed because the same standard used by the Council of Chalcedon in deciding to give the bishop of Constantinople the second in rank was the same the Council of Nicea used in creating the ranking in the first place!
Rome wasn't given the primacy by the Council of Nicea because it was an apostolic See. If this was the standard to be used, Jerusalem then should have had the primacy because it was the earliest of all and Antioch (which is alleged to have Peter as its bishop for seven years), Caesarea, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica & Corinth should have priority over Rome. Rome instead was given the primacy because it was the capital of the Empire during that time (325 A.D.) and because of its splendor and importance. During the time of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, Constantinople was the capital city and was the most influential and important See in Christendom. Because of these facts, these councils could have given Constantinople the first in rank “because it was the new Rome.” Instead, they gave Constantinople the second in rank and let Rome keep the primary rank to honor the memory of the apostles Paul and Peter since they were martyred in Rome.
This ranking wasn't due to divine revelation or authority; it was an ecclesiastical custom. Neither did (or could) Leo protest against the decision of the council as being against divine will because the primacy of Rome wasn't due to divine authority.
Because of this objection by Leo, it is noticeable that a rivalry was going on between the See of Rome and the See of Constantinople and Rome didn't want Constantinople to have any more glory that it then possessed. This is why, despite the opposition of Leo, this ranking remained, and was recognized both in the East and West as ecumenical.177
RC apologists will also quote Leo when he said,
“From the whole world is Peter chosen to lead the vocation of all peoples, all the Apostles, and all the Fathers of the church; so that, though there are many priests and many pastors, nevertheless, Peter governs all those whom also Christ governs in chief. The divine condescension gave to this man a great and wondrous participation in His power; whenever He willed there should be something in common between him and the other princes, he never gave save through him what he did not deny to others.”178
What they will avoid is what scholars have to say about this “sermon.” This sermon is considered by most scholars to be a forgery.179 Even if it wasn't; it still doesn't support papal supremacy since Leo said before that statement,
“This power is confided to him in a special manner, because the type (forma) of Peter is proposed to all the pastors of the church. Therefore the privilege of Peter dwells wherever judgment is given with his equity.”180
Because of this we can see Leo viewed Peter as being a form or type of the apostolic power. He was a representative of the office and authority of the apostles and as we've seen in the letter Leo wrote to the Council of Chalcedon, he viewed this authority as being passed on to all the bishops of the church and not extant solely in the office of the bishop of Rome.
Why then the frequent mention of Peter? Leo explains,
“The disposition of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation … we might know the nature of his association with Christ.”181
Based upon this statement we can understand Leo. He said the strength of the rock Peter received could only be his witness of Christ. He is also called “rock and foundation” but Leo says these titles are a mystery and signify Peter's unity with Jesus due to his ordination. Therefore, the insistence of Peter being the rock in Matt 16:18 can't be accurate. What then was the special status of Peter? Leo said he held the reins of the church and never abandoned them. Does this mean he was the only one who led the church? No. The other apostles could just as easily held the reins of the church in addition to Peter. What was it then? It was because he was ordained before the others!
Leo of Rome professed to the Council of Chalcedon that he did not envision Peter possessing superior authority over his fellow-apostles, he made mention of him because Peter was the first to be ordained of all the apostles. Because of this ordination, Peter became united with Christ.
Whenever the authority of Peter is mentioned in early Christian literature, this refers not to the personage of Peter but to the authority he received due to his ordination, which he shared with the other apostles equally.
In the eyes of Leo, this authority was passed down to all the bishops of the apostolic churches equally. If Peter is mentioned more frequently, it was only due to him possessing the priority of ordination and not superior authority.
Conclusion
Not one of these historical leaders believed the bishop of Rome possessed a monarchical supremacy over all of Christianity, whose views can't be contravened by anyone. The closest any of these came to such a position was by Leo I of Rome, who himself was the bishop of Rome. It is quite noticeable that there isn't a single legitimate historical claim by RC apologists proving the bishop of Rome was viewed by all Christians as being their supreme head, who alone inherited that supremacy from Peter.
[ENDNOTES]:
1.THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.43.
2.A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE WORLD (Manschreck). pp.111-112.
3.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). pp.224,226; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY(Burn-Murdoch). p.114.
4.THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.67, f.12.
5.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.71-72.
6.HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY (Conzelmann). p.26; THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). pp.4-5.
7.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 2:96-97 f.3.
8.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.12.
9.Eusebius, Eccl Hist. Book 3; Chapters 16 & 38.
10.Eusebius, Eccl Hist. Book 3; Chapters 15,34.
11.THE CHURCH (Jay). p.33; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.137.
12.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.260.
13.THE LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. (Bell Publishing). pp.131-133.
14.EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS (Staniforth). p.54.
15.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh) pp.138-139; THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley) pp.131-132; PATROLOGY Vol 1 (Quasten) pp. 46-47.
16.EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS (Staniforth). pp.56-57.
17.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh) p.139; THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley) p.132.
18.THE BEGINNING OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.117; A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE WORLD (Manschreck). p.43.
19.THE PAPAL ENCYCLICALS (Fremantle) pp.34-35.
20.Eusebius. Eccl Hist. Book 4, Chapter 23.
21.PATROLOGY Vol 1 (Quasten). p.282.
22.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.239.
23.Eusebius. Eccl Hist. Book 5, Chapter 20,8. Eusebius quoted from Irenaeus.
24.APOSTASY FROM THE DIVINE CHURCH (Barker). pp.639-640.
25.EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS (Staniforth). p.23.
26.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh) p.139; THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley) p.132.
27.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). pp.5,261.
28.THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA VOL 6. p.247.
29.A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Walker). p.57; THE CHURCH (Jay). pp.29-30.
30.WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY AND SEVEN LANGUAGE DICTIONARY. (Encyclopedia Britannica). Vol I. p.353.
31.Justin Martyr. Dialog with Trypho. 81:4.
32.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.229.
33.A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Walker). pp.41-42.
34.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY(Burn-Murdoch). p.83.
35.Shepherd of Hermas. Vision 2.4; 1 Clement 42.44; THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). pp.4-5.
36.THE CHURCH (Jay). pp.33,38.
37.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). p.388.
38.Shepherd of Hermas. Similitude 9:16.
39.Shepherd of Hermas. Vision 2.4:3.
40.EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (Kelly). p.462.
41.Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Chap 21.****
42.APOSTASY FROM THE DIVINE CHURCH (Barker). pp.644-645.
43.THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley) pp.133-134; EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh) pp.124,141,191-192. They utilize Irenaeus' Against Heresies Book 3, 3,2 & 3,3 and understand it to mean Irenaeus taught that the bishop of Rome had authority over all the Christian churches in the world. There is another interpretation they disregard which is supported by the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) and repeated at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and that is Rome was recognized as having primacy over the entire Christian church due to Rome being the seat of imperial power in the empire and Constantinople was second in primacy among the Sees because it was the new Rome or the new seat of power. Primacy and having authority over are two different things. Rome's other claim to primacy (not authority) was due to both Peter and Paul suffering martyrdom in Rome instead of in another area. Rome's authority over other churches steadily grew over the centuries and its authority extended to nearly all of the west at the time of the Council of Constantinople, because of the lack of any rival Sees in the area. A statement in the sixth Canon of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) makes clear the See of Rome did not have any jurisdiction over any area outside the West but was entitled to keep its traditional dominion just as the See of Alexandria was to maintain its traditional area of jurisdiction in the lands around Alexandria and the See of Antioch was also to maintain its authority over the lands around Antioch.
The terms Irenaeus used were “the greatest, oldest and universally known” in reference to the church of Rome. It also possessed “a pre-eminent authority.” He did not say it possessed authority over all of Christianity. It possessed a “pre-eminent authority” (primacy) among the churches, which everywhere must agree with it. Based on this it appears Irenaeus felt that the doctrines and position of the Church of Rome was the standard that all other churches must adhere to. The problem with that conclusion is its based upon a mistranslation. Convenire (or convenire ad) is translated to mean, “to agree with” when it actually means, “to go” or “assemble.” It can only be translated metaphorically to mean, “to agree with.” Irenaeus himself used the same Latin word, convenire as meaning “to go:” “All the priests who have gone to (convenerunt) Asia, to John …” [Against Heresies, Book 2, Chap 22,5]; “being assembled at (convenientibus) Ptolemy's house …” [Against Heresies, Book 3, Chap 21,2]. See THE PAPACY (Guette). pp.62-67; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.232; EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (Kelly). p.193.
St. Gregory Nazienzen referred to Constantinople just as Irenaeus did to Rome. He said, “This city (Constantinople) is the eye of the world. The most distant nations press toward (convenire- in the Latin translation) her from all parts, and they draw from her as from a spring the principles of the faith.” [Greg. Naz. 42nd Discourse, 10, col 470, Migne's Edition.]
Since the Latin version describes the nations as (convenire) with/to Constantinople, if convenire means “to agree with” that would mean that according to St. Gregory Nazienzen, Constantinople [not Rome] was the standard that the Christian church must follow.[THE PAPACY (Guette). p.69]. Even Pope Stephen understood convenire to mean, “to go” instead of “to agree.” (Cyprian's 75th Epistle.)
The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible mentions convenire 111 times, of which, it is understood to mean, “resort to” or “assemble” 97 times and only ten times is it understood to mean, “agree with.” Convenire ad occurs twenty-six times and always means “resort to.” THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.95.
Initially, all bishops possessed equal honor. Eventually, the bishops of the metropolitans were given superior honor, “because all those who had business come to the metropolis from all parts.” [Council of Antioch (341 A.D.), 9th Canon.]
“If the faithful were drawn to a mere metropolis to transact their business, how much more to the capital of the empire, which was for them a necessary center, and in which they must meet from all parts of the empire!” (THE PAPACY [Guette]. p.69).
It would be very inconsistent of the church of Rome if it did not develop immense power and influence among the other churches when it was in the center and capital of the Roman Empire.
44.Irenaeus Against Heresies. Book 4: Chapter 26,5.
45.Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book 3, Chapter 12.5.
46.Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book 3, Chapter 3,3.
47.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 5, Chap. 24.
48.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.85.
49.Eusebius, Eccl Hist. Book 5, Chapter 23 & 24. Polycarp met Anicetus as equals and didn't yield to the bishop of Rome's position, which would've caused him to be schismatic if the bishop of Rome was the supreme head of the church. Polycarp's action proves he didn't believe in a perceived supremacy of the bishop of Rome over him. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.85.
50.THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.91.
51.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p.140; THE PAPAL ENCYCLICALS (Fremantle). p.36; THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley). p.133.
52.Eusebius. Eccl Hist. Book 5; Chapter 24.
53.THE PAPACY (Guettee). p.58.
54.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp. 99-101.
55.Eusebius. Eccl Hist. Book 5; Chapter 24.
56.THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley). p.133. EVIDENCES FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p.140. Cavanaugh states, “ … no one even suggested that Victor could not do what he threatened.”
57.Eusebius. Ecclesistical History. Book 5, Chapter 24.
58.THE PAPACY (Guettee). p.60.
59.APOSTASY FROM THE DIVINE CHURCH (Barker). pp.645-648.
60.Eusebius. Life of Constantine. Book 3, Chapter 5.
61.Even then, it was the church of Alexandria's nineteen-year cycle that was to emerge triumphant instead of Rome's sixteen-year cycle. THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.472-473; A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 1:330-331.
62.THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley). p.134; EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). pp.141-142.
63.Tertullian. On Modesty. 1. Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:74-75.
64.Tertullian. On Modesty. Chapter 21.
65.PATROLOGY Vol 2 (Quasten). pp.234-235,243,313; THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.148 & f.1; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.125; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.218; THE CHURCH (Jay). p.51.
66.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). p.658; PATROLOGY Vol 2 (Quasten). p.235.
67.PATROLOGY Vol 2 (Quasten). p.247; THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.151.
68.A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Walker). p.64; THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.123 & f.1.
69.The Pseudo-Clementines. The Twenty Homilies; PATROLOGY Vol 1 (Quasten). p.60.
70.Tertullian. Against Marcion. Book 4, Chapter 5.
71.Tertullian. De Prescriptionibus. Chapter 36.
72.Tertullian. De Prescriptionibus. Chapter 36.
73.Tertullian. De Prescriptionibus. Chapter 36. From The Papacy. See also The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 3, p.260.
74.THE PAPACY (Guette). pp.82-83. Italics are copied.
75.Tertullian. De. Prescription. Chap 22.
76.Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 13.***incomplete on p.365.***See also On Modesty. Chapter 21; Prescription of Heretics. Chapter 22.
77.Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 13.
78.St. Augustine. On Baptism Against the Donatists, 5:23; 6:2.
79.Gregory Nazianzen. Orations, 18:21; In Praise of Cyprian; Opp 1:281.
80.Gregory Nazianzen. Orations, 18:21.
81.Cyprian. Treatise upon the Unity of the Church. 4; THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (Gibbons). 1:421; THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY (Carmichael). p.153.
82.Cyprian, 66th Epistle; 68th Epistle(Oxford Edition).
83.THE POPES (Walsh). p.33.
84.Cyprian, 51st Epistle, 8; 54th Epistle, 14; 55th Epistle,8 & 59th Epistle,14 (Oxford Edition).
85.Cyprian. Treatise Upon the Unity of the Church, vv.3,5.
86.THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.136; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.352; Cyprian. Epistles. 33:1; 45:2; 55:20; 66:7-8; 68:1-3; 69:8,11; 70:1; 71:2; 73:1; 74:4-5.
87.THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.78.
88.Cyprian, Epistles, 52:2-3; 54:20; 59th Epistle to Cornelius(Oxford Edition),20.
89.Cyprian, 71st Epistle to Stephen,1.
90.Cyprian. Epistles. 45; 49; 52; 59; 60; 67; 68.
91.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 7, Chapters 3,5.
92.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 7, Chapter 5.
93.Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Book 7, Chapter 9.
94.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 6, Chapter 27; Book 7, Chapters 5,28,30; Gregory of Nyssa. Life of Gregory Thaumaturgos; St. Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 29. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.135.
95.Cyprian, 74th Epistle; 75th Epistle (Oxford Edition); PATROLOGY Vol 2 (Quasten). pp.128-129.
96.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.79.
97.Council of Carthage. St. Cyprian, pp.329-330, Bened. Edition; The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5, p.565; PATROLOGY Vol 2 (Quaster). pp.375-376. See also Epistle 71,3 (72).
98.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). p.507.
99.See also Cyprian's Epistles. 72:3; 73:22.
100.A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Walker). p.67.
101.Also Cyprian's Epistles. 67:4.
102.Cyprian. Upon the Unity of the Church. 5. See also Cyprian Epistle 51,21(55) and Epistle 68,8(66).
103.THE CHURCH (Jay). p.70.
104.Cyprian interpreted Matt 16:18 as a support for the idea that all bishops were equally heirs to the promise Christ gave to Peter and were all his legitimate successors. He said Christ conferred his authority upon one man to symbolize the unity of the bishops in the church (Upon the Unity of the Church,4). Incidentally, Stephen was the very first bishop of Rome to interpret Matt 16:18 as something favorable to the authority of the bishop of Rome. EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.150.
105.THE CHURCH (Jay). p.71.
106.Cyprian, 41st Epistle,1; or, Epistle 48:3; 45th Epistle to Cornelius(Oxford Edition).
107.Cyprian. Epistles. 14.
108.Cyprian. Epistles. 59:10.
109.PATROLOGY (Quasten). 2:234-235,243,313; THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.148, f.1; THE CHURCH (Jay). p.51; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.125; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.218.
110.Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 35; 1st Council of Constantinople, Labbe's Collection of the Councils; Works of St. Avitus, Edited by Father Sirmond. 2nd Volume of The Misscelaneous Works of P. Sirmond.
111.Tertullian, Praescript, Chap 21; Council of Africa, Labbe's Collection.
112.Cyprian. Epistles. 73:4,125.
113.Cyprian. Epistles. 61:3.
114.THE PAPACY (Guette). p.84.
115.THE PAPACY (schimmelpfennig). pp.13-14.
116.Cyprian Epistles. 67. THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.393-394.
117.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.354.
118.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.750; SAINTS AND SINNERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH (Frend). pp. 148-149,154-155; A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 3:416-417.
119.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p. 751; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.188.
120.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.49.
121.Cyprian, 54th Epistle; 59th Epistle to Cornelius(Oxford Edition).
122.Cyprian, 41st Epistle.
123.Cyprian, 66th Epistle; 68th Epistle to Stephen(Oxford Edition).
124.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p.142.
125.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p.142; THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley). p.134.
126.Cyprian, 54th Epistle,14; 59th Epistle,14 to Cornelius(Oxford Edition).
127.Cyprian. On the Unity of the Church. 4.
128.Cyprian. On the Unity of the Church. 5.
129.Cyprian. On the Unity of the Church, verse 4; 71st Epistle,3 Oxford Edition; THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION (Pelikan). 1:159.
130.PATROLOGY Vol 2 (Quasten). pp.375-378; A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Walker). pp. 67,81-82.
131.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.137.
132.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 7, Chapter 30.
133.THIS IS THE FAITH. (Ripley). pp. 134-135.
134.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.387.
135.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p.143.
136.THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.136.
137.The Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria. (C.L. Feltoe. Ed. Cambridge, 1904) Cited from THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.136.
138.What actually happened was the moderates in Rome chose Cornelius and the rigorists chose Novatian as the bishop of Rome. Both sent notices to Cyprian for recognition. Cornelius sent a standard notice of election via messenger but Novatian sent a delegation. Both messengers arrived in Carthage while a Council was taking place. Cyprian read the form letter of Cornelius to the Council but was offended with the writing style and delegation of Novatian. The delegation of Novatian addressed the African Council over Cyprian's opposition. The charges of the Novatianists against Cornelius were quite serious, hence the African Council didn't recognize either party but sent two priests to Rome to determine who was the legitimate bishop. Before the return of Caldonius and Fortunatus, other clergy arrived in Carthage who came from Rome and they said Cornelius was the true bishop. Because of this information, the bishops of Africa, and Cyprian recognized Cornelius as the legitimate bishop of Rome. THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.349-350.
139.EVIDENCE FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p.143, as cited from Socrates, Hist. Eccl. II,15.
140.Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Book 2, Chapter 17.
141.Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Book 3, Chapter 7.
142.Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Book 3, Chapter 8.
143.Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Book 3, Chapter 8.
144.A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Walker). pp.60-61. Even as early as 100 A.D., the church of Rome was already the largest congregation of the church and coupled with the occasional prominence of its bishops, it began asserting its authority over the rest of the church.
145.St. Hilary of Poitiers. Fragments. 4:1,12. THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.530.
146.St. Athanasius. Apology Against the Arians. Chapter 25.
147.Socrates. Eccl. Hist. Book 2, Chapter 5:17. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.260,262-263,271.
148.Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Book 3, Chapter 8.
149.Athanasius, Apology. Chapter 35.
150.Athanasius, Apology. Chapter 36.
151.Athanasius. Apology Against the Arians. Chapter 21-35. Epistle of Julius to the Eusebian Bishops at Antioch. It is extremely difficult to envision Julius as the Supreme Ruler of the church talking to his subordinates with the way he wrote this letter.
152.Socrates. Hist. Eccl. Book 1, Chapter 20.
153.THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.500-502.
154.Athanasius. History of the Arians. Chapter 35.
155.I'm not taking into account Liberius' succumbing to pressure to adopt a heretical position.
156.Optatus. On the Donatist Schism. 1.10; 2.2; 7.3.
157.Optatus. On the Donatist Schism. 2.6; 6.3. EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES(Kelly) p.419.
158.THE CHURCH (Jay). p.224.
159.Jerome. Epistle 15. Quoted from THE CHURCH (Jay). p.94.
160.Jerome. Epistle 16.
161.Jerome. Epistle 146:1.
162.Jerome. Epistle 15.
163.EVIDENCES FOR OUR FAITH (Cavanaugh). p.194; THIS IS THE FAITH (Ripley). p.135.
164.HISTORY OF THE CHURCH COUNCILS (Hefele). Book 3. p.317.
165.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:244-245; A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 3:331.
166.THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.38.
167.THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.48.
168.St. Leo, 105th Epistle. 3. To Pulchera. May 22,452.
169.St. Leo. 105th Epistle. 3. To Pulchera. May 22, 452; 106th Epistle. 2-4. To Anatolius. May 22, 452.
170.St. Leo. 104th Epistle.3. To Emperor Marcianus. May 22, 452. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff and Wace). Vol 12. Letters of Leo the Great. p.75.
171.A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS (Hefele). 2:359; 3:448-449; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.307-309; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.624-625, f.293.
172.St. Leo the Great. Epistle 106.
173.St. Leo. 61st Epistle, Vet. Edition; 80th Epistle, Quesn. Edition.
174.St. Leo. 119th Epistle. 3-5. To Maximus. June 11, 453.
175.St. Leo. Epistle. 139.
176.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.101.
177.THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:288-290.
178.St. Leo, Sermon 3 (Sermon 4 in Migne's Edition). Quoted from THE PAPACY (Guette).
179.Note this sermon's absence in the collection of the sermons of Leo in NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff & Wace). Vol 12 and the statement of Rev. Feltoe in the Prefatory Note on b 2.
180.St. Leo, Sermon 3 (Sermon 4 in Migne's Edition). Quoted from THE PAPACY (Guette).
181.St. Leo. Sermon 3,3 delivered on the anniversary of his elevation to the Pontificate; NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaffs and Wace). Vol 12. Sermons of Leo the Great. p.117.
