Tertullian and "Pontifex Maximus"

Misreading Tertullian on Pontifex Maximus

In my last video, I responded to a fellow by the name of William, who almost a year ago posted a video criticizing me. I had started using YouTube initially just simply to post portions of debates to put on my blog.

Evidently, he thinks that somehow is a bad thing for me to do. Seems to indicate that we're trying to hide things from people, even though we, of course, sell these videos and have some of them, like the St. John's debate, for like a decade.

So I'm not sure how you hide things when you're actually distributing the DVDs, but again, the mindset of some of these folks is really educational to observe, and that's the case with William as well.

And what he hears, what he doesn't hear, what he's willing to accuse me of without any basis, things like that. It is educational and hopefully helpful to you, should you have folks who come from the same perspective in your family, things like that.

You're trying to reach them with the gospel of grace. In case someone's going, well, you know, you shouldn't be responding to this fellow, it's sort of unfair. Well, actually, take a look at this little clip.

You get a little idea of really where he's coming from and why I think it's perfectly appropriate to respond to him.

Critiquing Claims About the Early Church Fathers

...believe in the real presence, and I challenge you, James, email me at jrhead .com, jrhead at hotmail .com. I challenge you to show me a single church father, early church father, who didn't hold to the beliefs of the Eucharist as Catholics hold to, the early church was unanimous, and if you'd like to email me, I'll take you to task on that.

I'm sick and I'm tired of Protestants misrepresenting the early church on this topic, and many other topics. I'm sick and I'm tired of it.

Well, we certainly don't want William to be sick and tired of anything, but the question is who's misrepresenting the early church? We just had him say there that every single early church father believed exactly what modern Rome teaches, and you know what, even Roman Catholic scholarship doesn't begin to say that.

William, why do you think Newman came up with the development hypothesis? There's a reason why you have to come up with the acorn stuff, you know. This was not the belief of the early church. It was not the universal belief, and there just simply isn't any way of substantiating the kinds of assertions you're making.

Tertullian’s Mockery of Callistus and Papal Claims

Now, we were looking at some responses he made to actually the rebuttal period in the Pacwa debate on the papacy, and in this next clip, he's going to go into the issue of Tertullian. Listen carefully to what he says, and then we'll look at what Tertullian said, and I think it'll be, again, educational as to the mindset of the very dedicated follower of the modern Roman Catholic apologists.

Okay, I'm going to respond to your comment on the Pontifix Maximus comment by Tertullian. In response to why he pointed out the Tertullian called the Pope Pontifix Maximus, it's funny that White would specifically isolate a quote from Tertullian after Tertullian had fallen away from the Catholic faith and become a full-blown monotonous.

I find it rather humorous, but anyhow, let's find out whether the quote Mr. White is referring to holds no water whatsoever, and in reality, shows him for the poor heresy that he is. I'm going to read the quote.

This is Tertullian. In opposition to this, could I not have acted in dissembling? I hear that there has been an edict sent forth, and a preemptory one too. The Pontifix Maximus, that is, the Bishop of Bishops, issues an edict, quote, I remit to such as have discharged the requirements of repentance, the sins of both adultery and fornication.

O edict, and which cannot be inscribed, good deed, far from Christ's betrothed, be such a proclamation. On Montesquieu 1, 1819, fathers 474. Tertullian is, of course, being very sarcastic, since he uses two titles, the Bishop of Bishops and Pontifix Maximus, both of which are pagan titles.

But this only supports our Catholic position of papal primacy even more, for it shows that Pope Callistus, which is the pope that Tertullian is referring to, had authority throughout the whole universal Catholic Church, and not simply that of Rome, Mr. White.

Such an insulting group of titles that Tertullian uses for the pope, but also titles that show his papal primacy. So even though Tertullian had lapsed into heresy and denied apostolic succession, he notes that Peter was the very rock, and he notes that the pope had papal primacy due to the fact that he uses two pagan titles, Pontifix Maximus and the Bishop of Bishops.

Of course, sarcastically. But read the next quote from Tertullian, also in a negative light, but he identifies Peter as the rock even after he was a heretic. I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you assert the right for the Church.

Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, on this rock I will build my church, that the power of binding elusive has thereby been handed over to you? Well, Tertullian, one of the greatest Church writers of his age, and one of the greatest heretics, unfortunately, falled into heresy.

He fell into heresy, of course, but nevertheless he recognized that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the right of binding elusive. But by this time, he had already fallen into heresy, and he denied apostolic succession, but never changes the fact that he viewed Peter as the rock, and the fact that he recognized that the pope had primacy.

Suddenly, he is, of course, denied, but recognizes that the Church does recognize him. Thank you, Mr. White, for being a poor exegete and supporting our position. Regarding the link between the people's primacy and, of course, Tertullian's comments, it's very clear that Tertullian was regarding the fact that the pope viewed himself as having primacy.

You can read the quotes over and over, and you'll get the same result out of them.

Why Tertullian Was Mocking Roman Arrogance

Well, now, am I such a terrible exegete of Tertullian and the early Church Fathers, or is William a little bit confused? The point that I made in bringing up Tertullian is that he mocked the use of the terms Pontifex Maximus and Bishop of Bishops.

He was mocking the arrogance of the Bishop of Rome, Callistus. This is not the first time that happened. Irenaeus had to tell Victor to cool it. Cyprian, as I mentioned in the clip, likewise had problems with Stephen.

There's no question that these Bishops of Rome certainly thought highly of themselves, but that's the whole point. The Roman Catholic position is that this was a universal position of the entire Church, not that the Bishops of Rome tried to extend their authority over other people.

That's sort of a given. And so Tertullian is an example in the citations that were given. Now, it seems that possibly William doesn't actually have direct access to this material. I have, for example, the volume of Tertullian's writings that he was using here, but I have a feeling he was using some online stuff, maybe some stuff from Mark Bonacore or something like that, because he didn't give any references.

And he didn't give all of the citations either, as you would if you were actually reading this. But the two citations he gave are from that far apart in On Modesty. And if you would actually read what he says, you can not only hear the mockery, but evidently William's idea as well, but Tertullian still recognizes that he has the authority over the whole Church.

That's ridiculous. That's just the opposite. He's rejecting that. He's identifying that as foolishness on the part of the Bishop of Rome. He says, for example, That part didn't get quoted. Maybe it wasn't in, you know, the materials or something, but on thee he says, His whole argument is that the Bishop of Rome is usurping this by applying it to himself.

So who's rightly using Tertullian here? William or myself? Is this not just one of many evidences that is found in Cyprian and his works in Tertullian that the idea, and this is why I brought this out very plainly at the beginning of the papacy debate.

I quoted from Vatican I. I quoted from Satis Cognitum and demonstrated the very strident claims made by the Roman Catholic Church regarding the universal nature of the patristic support for the concept of papacy.

And the fact is, it's just not there. So William, you need to look a little more carefully at your sources and listen a little more fairly. Allow the early Church Fathers to be the early Church Fathers.

They weren't Roman Catholics. They wouldn't have even understood what the term meant. One side can allow the early Church Fathers to be the early Church Fathers. The other side, because of their dogmatic beliefs, has to find what the Church says you will find in those early Church Fathers.

Thanks for watching.