The Papacy Debate at Boston College Pt II (White/Zins vs Sungenis/Butler)

The Papacy Debate and the Historical Case Against Roman Claims

Referring to the entire concept of the papacy and papal infallibility, the great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge said, if any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing, all must admit that the assumption of infallibility by the ignorant to the erring and the wicked must be an evil inconceivably great.

The Romish theory, if true, might be a blessing. If false, it must be an awful curse. It is our position that the theory is most definitely false, and hence is, as Hodge put it, an awful curse for those trapped in its power.

We turn now to the fact that history itself demonstrates beyond all possible controversy that the Christian church has not historically understood that Peter was appointed by Jesus Christ to be vicar of Christ on earth, nor that he was granted a plenitude of jurisdictional authority over all the church.

The great Vatican Council of the last century taught the following as a matter of Christian doctrine. Please listen closely. At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord and his church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction, or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the church and through the church on Peter as her minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema," end quote.

This is truly a monumental claim. The same council spoke of interpreting scripture solely in harmony with the unanimous consent of the fathers. As we shall see, the very concept of such a thing as the unanimous consent of the fathers with reference to this topic is a sheer myth.

No such thing exists. Instead, the majority of the early fathers are opposed to the Roman claims. Before examining the large amount of evidence that speaks against the Roman claims, let us note a number of the commonly committed errors made by Roman apologists in attempting to defend their position.

Error number one I call anachronistic interpretation. Anachronistic interpretation. That is the reading into the early fathers' ideas, beliefs, and concepts that were not a part of their world and did not develop until much, much later.

Keep an eye out for that error. Error number two I call the Peter syndrome. This refers to the propensity on the part of many Roman Catholic apologists to find any statement about Peter in the writings of an early father and apply this to the Bishop of Rome.

There are many exalted statements made about Peter by men such as Cyprian or Chrysostom. However, it does not follow that these statements about Peter have anything at all to do with the Bishop of Rome.

The Roman apologist must demonstrate that for such statements to be meaningful, that the father under discussion believed that the Bishop of Rome alone is the sole unique successor of Peter so that any such exalted language about Peter is to be applied in that father's thinking to the Bishop of Rome alone.

If such a basis is not provided, references to Peter are irrelevant. And error number three I call ignoring the broad context. This error involves the Roman apologist in asserting a particular father believed in the modern theory of Roman primacy even when that same father made statements or took actions that demonstrate that he did not in fact hold to any such concept.

Let me give you some brief examples of these errors. One of the most often cited passages from an early father that allegedly shows a Roman primacy is the saying of Augustine from sermon 131, Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

I have seen this phrase used over and over again without context as evidence that Augustine held a modern Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. Yet as Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno notes, it was at this point that the famous words of Augustine were uttered as misquoted, Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

Actually he said, and here's what Augustine really said, already two councils on this question have been sent to the apostolic sea and replies have also come from there. The case is closed. Would that the error might sometime be finished as well.

But beyond any quibbling over precise words, the greater irony is the use of this quotation in later centuries. We have all heard it used in the following sense. Rome has made its decision, all further discussions must cease, end quote.

Hence not only is the citation not accurate in and of itself, but the import is given by many Roman apologists is inaccurate as well. Von Derlinger noted in regard to these same passages, quote, the Pelagian system was in his eyes, that is Augustine's eyes, so manifestly and deadly an error that there seemed to him no need even of a synod to condemn it.

The two African synods and the Pope's assent to their decrees appeared to him more than enough and so the matter might be regarded as at an end. That a Roman judgment in and of itself was not conclusive, but that a plenary council was necessary for that purpose, he had himself emphatically maintained and the conduct of Pope Zosimus could only confirm his opinion, end quote.

Von Derlinger mentions Pope Zosimus and well he should have for Zosimus provides us with a glowing example of how a father like Augustine can be misused by less than honest historical apologists. Upon becoming Pope in 417, Zosimus reversed the course of his predecessor and fell into the sway of Pelagius and Celestius.

J .N .D. Kelly notes, quote, in brusque letters he informed the African Episcopate that both heretics had cleared themselves, criticizing the action taken against them as over hasty and based on unscrupulous witnesses.

The outraged reaction of the African bishops who frankly told him that innocent sentence must stand forced Zosimus to beat a retreat. The Pope had no option but to make a complete climb down and address to the bishops of East and West a lengthy document known as his Tractoria in which reversing his previous stand, he anathematized the Pelagians and their teachings, end quote.

In fact, it is in this context that Augustine said, when faced with Zosimus' about face, Christ has spoken, the case is closed. So much for the first citation proving papal primacy. We note that not only does this incident illustrate how easy it is to proof text the fathers without reference to the real meaning of their words, but we shall see that Zosimus will provide us with another example of the truth of our denial of the historicity of the concept of papal supremacy, which we shall examine later.

My second example of a common error made by Roman apologists is found in the words of the Council of Chalcedon often quoted in Roman works, Peter has spoken through Leo. We are told that here we have clear evidence of the belief that the early church viewed Leo as the unique and supreme successor of Peter.

Yet, is this the case? Not at all. If we take the time to examine the issue, we discover that first of all, that Leo had written his work, the Tome, prior to the synod held in 449, but it had not caused that synod to follow Leo's position.

Leo sent his legates to Chalcedon with a letter that instructed the council not to bother deliberating, since his tome was a sufficient statement of the faith. John Meyendorff, the great Orthodox historian, noted regarding this, quote, no wonder that his legates were not allowed to read this unrealistic and embarrassing letter before the end of the 16th session, at a time when acrimonious debates on the issue had already taken place.

Obviously, no one in the East considered that a papal fiat was sufficient to have an issue closed. Furthermore, the debate showed clearly that the tome of Leo to Flavian was accepted on merits and not because it was issued by the Pope.

Upon the presentation of the text in Greek translation during the second session, part of the assembly greeted the reading with approval. Peter has spoken thus through Leo, they shouted. But the bishops from the Illyricum in Palestine fiercely objected against passages, which they considered as incompatible with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

It took several days of commission work to convince them that Leo was not opposing Cyril. The episode clearly shows that it was Cyril, not Leo, who was considered at Chalcedon as the ultimate criterion of Christological orthodoxy.

Leo's views were under suspicion of Nestorianism as late as the fifth session, when the same Illyrians, still rejecting those who departed from Cyrillian terminology, shouted, the opponents are Nestorians, let them go to Rome.

The final formula approved by the council was anything but a simple acceptance of Leo's text. It was a compromise which could be imposed on the fathers when they were convinced that Leo and Cyril expressed the same truth only using different expressions, end quote.

And a footnote is provided to the above shout of the fathers which reads, quote, the acclamation Peter has spoken thus through Leo, often quoted as a triumph of Roman authority, seems to have actually been a defensive reaction against objections by the Illyrians, end quote.

So here we have what was in fact a defensive reaction raised in defense of Leo's position against the objections of many of the bishops present, taken by many modern Roman Catholic apologists as evidence of a primacy that the very council of Chalcedon not only denied by its very existence, but by its famous Canon 28, which we shall examine at a later point.

Matthew 16 and the Patristic Interpretation of Petrine Texts

Now in the brief time I have available to me, I shall attempt to address two major topics. First, I shall very briefly address the issue of the patristic interpretation of the key passages upon which the papacy claims to be founded and will demonstrate that the modern Roman interpretation of these passages flies in the face of the patristic understanding.

Then I shall begin presenting just a sampling of the large body of evidence that demonstrates that the early church did not view Peter as the vicar of Christ in the Roman understanding. And hence they did not see the Bishop of Rome as the sole successor of Peter, nor the head of the universal church with jurisdictional authority over all of Christ's flock.

We turn to the pivotal passage, you may be getting tired of it by now, Matthew chapter 16. When we look at the patristic information regarding this passage, we find a wide variety of interpretations. It is easy to understand why many Roman Catholic scholars felt it necessary to leave communion with Rome following Vatican I for any person even slightly familiar with patristic interpretation and slightly concerned about being truthful would never ever say that the church has always interpreted this passage as it is interpreted by that council.

The first thing to note is that there simply is no one understanding of this passage in the early fathers. And what is the importance of this? Dr. Salmon said, quote, but none of these can be reconciled with the interpretation which regards this text as containing the charter of the church's organization.

A charter would be worthless if it were left uncertain to whom it was addressed or what powers it conferred. So at the mere fact that the fathers differed in opinion as to what was meant by this rock and that occasion of the same father wavered in his opinion on this subject proves that none of them regarded this text as one establishing a perpetual constitution for the Christian church, end quote.

Next, we know that the central aspect of Rome's understanding of this passage, specifically the identification of Peter as the rock is in fact the minority understanding of the early church. The French Roman Catholic Illinois surveyed the patristic evidence and found 17 citations supporting the concept that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16.

Please note that this does not mean that all 16 of these fathers also felt that this meant that the Bishop of Rome was a Pope, but only that they saw Matthew 16 in the phrase this rock is referring to Peter.

However, Lenoy found 16 citations that identified the rock as Christ himself. He found eight that identified all the apostles together as forming the rock of Matthew 16. And he found 44 citations, including that, indicating that the rock of Matthew 16 was the confession of faith made by Peter in Jesus Christ.

Now, if we add these numbers together, we find the Roman position, which claims to have always been the faith of the Catholic church actually represents in Lenoy's survey, 20 of the fathers. 80 of the time then the early fathers expressed in Vatican I's words, perverse opinions at the very best.

I might note in passing that even as late as the Council of Trent, one can find that council referring to this passage as referring to the faith that Peter expressed. But should one Roman Catholic survey not be enough, we turn to Jesuit Maldonatus who writes quote, there are among ancient authors, some will interpret on this rock that is on this faith or on this confession of faith in which thou has called in the son of the living God as Hillary and Gregory Neeson and Chrysostom and Silo of Alexandria.

St. Augustine going still further away from the true sense interprets on this rock that is on myself Christ because Christ was the rock, but origin on this rock that is to say on all men who have the same faith end quote.

Was Maldonatus correct? Well, let's look for example, at Hillary's statement regarding Matthew 16, 18 has found his work day Trinitate book six chapter 37 quote, this faith it is, which is the foundation of the church through this faith, the gates of hell cannot prevail against her.

This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven end quote. Indeed as one reads all of chapter 37, one finds Hillary referring to each of the prime texts upon which the papacy is built, including John 21 and Luke 22 and yet not once mentioning the papacy.

Can you imagine a modern Roman apologist citing all three of these passages and not mentioning the papacy? For once come at this perverse notion that the passage here refers to the faith of Peter's confession, not to Peter himself.

Was it not as we've been told, the common belief of Christians for centuries before that this passage referred to Peter thus establishing the papacy? How could Hillary be ignorant of such a fundamental concept?

And how could he be joined by the likes of John Chrysostom or Gregory Nazianzus? How could these great men and preachers be ignorant of such a basic truth unless perhaps it's not such a basic truth at all?

And what of the great Augustine? Surely many are aware of his statement in his Retractionis regarding this passage and its meaning and I shall not take the time to read it yet once again. I would point out however that Augustine left his readers to decide how they would interpret the passage.

May I ask us all to think seriously about what it means that the great Bishop of Hippo, Augustine, could think that how one views this passage is a matter of freedom. When Vatican I tells us it is a matter upon which the anathema can and should be used.

Can we not see in this the tremendously huge amount of evolution that has taken place between the early part of the fifth century and the latter part of the 19th? Indeed we can. The Roman interpretation of Matthew 16 is vulnerable on many other points as well.

In fact, it requires of us faith in a long, intricate and highly questionable chain of propositions. First, Jesus must be referring to Peter as the rock. Second, this must involve a giving of authority to Peter that is given to no one else.

Third, this passage must somehow provide to us something about successors of the Roman position to have any meaning at all. Yet the idea of succession in Matthew 16 is simply absent from the understanding of the early fathers.

As Oscar Kuhlman said, quote, we thus see that the exegesis that the Reformation gave was not first invented for their struggle against the papacy, it rests upon an older patristic tradition, end quote.

And the great historian Von Derlinger in his work, The Pope and the Council said, quote, of all the fathers who interpret these passages in the gospels, Matthew 16, 18, John 21, 17, not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors.

How many fathers have visited themselves with these texts yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hillary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in Catinas has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter.

Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation in which Christ would build his church, of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors. But they understood by it either Christ himself or Peter's confession of faith in Christ, often both together.

Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other apostles, the 12 being together the foundation stones of the church. The fathers could the less recognize, listen closely, in the power of the keys and the power of binding and loosing any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop.

In as much as, and listen very closely gentlemen, what is obvious to anyone at first sight, they did not regard the power first given to Peter and afterwards conferred on all the apostles as anything peculiar to him or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops.

And listen closely, they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing, end quote. To this we add the authority of Carl Fried Fröhlich who noted that until the time of Innocent III in the 12th century, over a millennia after Christ, quote, the understanding of these Petrine texts by biblical exegetes in the mainstream of the tradition was universally non-primatial, end quote, that is not with reference to a primacy of the Pope in Rome.

Early Church Evidence Against Papal Supremacy

As time is fleeting, we pass from the interpretation of biblical passages to the numerous statements and actions by early fathers and councils which demonstrate to the unbiased and I would pray today even to the biased observer that the Roman concept of Petrine primacy preserved in the person of the Bishop of Rome is a belief that was not at any time in the past nor is it today the universally held belief of the Christian people.

I begin with the fact that it's often overlooked by defenders of the Roman concept. Joseph F. Kelly in the Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity said, quote, it is likely that in the earliest Roman community, a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership, end quote.

This is echoed by Ferguson, the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, and the eminent church historian J .N .D. Kelly concurs, saying with reference to an alleged early Pope, quote, his actual functions and responsibilities can only be surmised for the monarchial or one-man episcopate had not yet emerged in Rome, end quote.

This is in reference to a period all the way into the middle of the second century. Ask yourself this question. If Vatican I was right and if Christians have always believed that Peter alone was given a primacy and that Peter alone was given the keys and that Peter's successors are alone to be found in fullness in the bishops of Rome, why would the church at Rome go for nearly a full century without a single bishop as leader, instead using the primitive and most biblical concept of a plurality of elders?

John Henry Cardinal Newman, probably the most noted Roman Catholic scholar of the 19th century in his work and essay on the development of Christian doctrine, quoted approvingly from Barrow's 1836 work against papal supremacy.

He noted that it was quite right for the Protestant to point out that there are historical facts that are contrary to a functioning, widely recognized papacy in the early church. For example, he agreed with Barrow that had the pagans been aware of the institution of the papacy, they would surely have raised great objections to it, but such objections are not to be found anywhere.

And very importantly, he quoted with approval Barrow's statement, quote, it is most prodigious that in the disputes managed by the fathers against the heretics, the Gnostics, Valentinians, et cetera, they should not, even in the first place, allege and urge the sentence of the universal pastor and judge as a most evidently conclusive argument, as the most efficacious and compendious method of convincing and silencing them, end quote.

Note what Newman admits that it is decisive that the early fathers, when debating against the heretics, such as the Gnostics, did not appeal to the papacy as judge and arbiter of theological issues. But if modern Roman claims are correct, how can this be?

Is not the papacy the ancient and constant faith of the universal church? Have not Christians always understood the scriptures as teaching the existency of the papacy at Rome? The silence of the church in this instance is devastating evidence against papal claims.

The Council of Nicaea provides us yet another fact that is contrary to papal claims. As we found in Canon 6 of that council, and it reads as follows, quote, let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.

Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges, end quote. Notice that the Bishop of Rome is not here given universal sovereignty, but is instead seen as an equal, one with jurisdiction in a particular geographical area.

And folks, that geographical area was limited, not worldwide. Yallin noted regarding the Council of Nicaea that, quote, the first ecumenical council knew nothing of the doctrine of papal supremacy, end quote.

And with reference specifically to the language of Canon 6, quote, it is not what would be natural on the part of any assembly of Christian bishops who believe that Christ had given to the Roman see a plenitude of jurisdiction, which differed not only in degree, but in kind from that of any other see whatsoever, end quote.

In Canon 6, nothing is mentioned about Peter or the vicar of Christ. Indeed, I note in passing that the first man audacious enough to allow himself to be called vicar of Christ seemingly was Galatius I in 495, half a millennia after Christ came to Earth, and 450 years after the true vicar of Christ came to Earth, that being the Holy Spirit of God.

But as Kelly notes, the use of the title vicar of Christ did not become current for popes until the reign of Hadrian IV in the middle of the 12th century. About returning to the topic of the Council of Nicaea, I wish to point out that here, at probably the most important council in all of church history, we not only do not find any papal supremacy, we find quite a bit of evidence that is contrary to such claims.

First, why did no one inform Constantine that all he had to do was send word to the bishop of Rome and obtain an infallible ruling from the vicar of Christ and the person of the pope so that all Christians everywhere would obey?

Obviously, because no one had thought such a thought. Constantine called the council together, again seemingly ignorant that he should have let the bishop of Rome do that. And again, no one seemed to mind, as they had never thought that they needed the bishop of Rome to do such a thing in the first place.

The current bishop of Rome at that time, Sylvester, did not attend, pleading old age, but sent two presbyters in his place. History records that Rome had little or nothing to do with the events at Nicaea.

It was not the bishop of Rome who undertook the defense of the Nicene faith during the years of Arian ascendancy that followed Nicaea, but Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria. Indeed, one might note in passing that while Athanasius was forced from his sea five times, yet remained unbowed, Liberius, the bishop of Rome, yielded and signed the Arianized Sermium Creed.

Be that as it may, the very fact that the council of Nicaea was convoked is a strange thing indeed, if in fact Roman claims are true. Would it not have been much easier to simply ask the pope for a ruling on such a central doctrine?

But history will not allow for such simplicities. Even when Nicaea had concluded its proceedings, its creed had to fight for survival for 60 years thereafter, despite the fact that Roman bishops, excluding Liberius' lapse, defended it.

Again, it is plain that just because the bishop of Rome took a particular position was no guarantee that all the Christians would follow suit. And why is this? Because all the Christians did not look to the Roman bishop as the final authority in matters of faith and morals.

Over a century later, we find more indication of the absence of absolute papal supremacy at the Council of Chalcedon. Here we find the famous Canon 28, a can that Rome resisted, and for obvious reasons.

I read to you in part. Quote, we do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy church of Constantinople, which is new Rome, for the father has rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.

And the 150 most religious bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is and ranked next after her.

End quote. Note well what is said here. First, it is said that the fathers granted privileges to Rome. On what basis? Because of Matthew 16 and the bishops of Rome being the successor of Peter and Isaiah 22 and all that stuff?

No, indeed. The privileges were granted to Rome because it was the royal city. And now Constantinople, being the seat of government, assumes such privileges, which are bestowed logically on the church that resides in the capital of the empire.

It is highly instructive to note the reaction of Rome to this canon. When it was proposed to the Roman legates at the council, they indicated that they had no instructions from Rome and withdrew. The canon was passed in their absence.

The next day when they objected, their objections were dismissed. The commissioners bluntly declared the issue closed. All was confirmed by the council, they said, explicitly denying any papal right of veto.

When Pope Leo heard about this, he was angry and rejected the canon. But on what ground did he reject it? This is very important. He did so on the basis of allegedly defending the older patriarchates, Alexandria and Antioch.

And by so doing, of course, he was protecting Roman claims as well. Leo did not refuse to recognize the canon because it had been passed without his consent, but because he said that the canons contradicted the decrees of Nicaea, which he said would last forever and could be altered by no one.

Did this end the dispute? Not at all. In fact, the pope's resistance to the canon had no effect. The Quintessex Council in 681 confirmed all the Chalcedon canons without exception, and the Council of Florence repeated the same order found in the canon with Constantinople second.

The canon appeared in the Syntagma and 14 titles in the 6th century, in all later Byzantine collections, and even in some 6th century copies of the oldest Latin canonical collections, the Prisca. Another indication from a conciliar action takes us back to good old Pope Zosimus that we mentioned before.

I quote again from Meyendorff, quote, finally in Africa, the disciplinary claims of Rome were passionately rebuked in 418. Examining the case of a presbyter deposed in Africa and received in Rome by Zosimus, the African bishops formally forbade appeals beyond the sea.

Furthermore, writing to Pope Celestine in 420, the Africans proclaimed what amounted to a formal denial of any divine privileges of Rome. Who will believe, they stated, that our god could inspire justice in the inquiries of one man only, that is the pope, and refuse it to innumerable bishops gathered in council, end quote.

The fierce independence of North African bishops had a long history, going back to the great martyr bishop of Carthage, Cyprian. Very shortly before his martyrdom, Cyprian presided over the Seventh Council of Carthage, which gives us the following information, and I quote, for neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishopss, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleagues in the necessity of obedience, since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another, end quote.

It is easy to recognize a reference to Stephen, the bishop of Rome with whom Cyprian had clashed in previous years, in the rebuke of the title bishop of bishops. Why is this important? Cyprian is truly one of the greatest obstacles to any serious acceptance of Roman Catholic claims regarding papal primacy.

While he is often cited by Roman apologists, it is only at the expense of the fullness of his teaching that this is done. You see, Cyprian was one of the minority of early fathers who saw Peter as the rock of Matthew 16.

Indeed, he saw Peter as the symbol of ecclesiastical unity. And because of some of his words, if relieved of their context, can lend support to the Roman contentions he's often cited. However, a full examination of Cyprian's words and actions is the death knell for Roman pretensions.

First, we know Cyprian's rejection of Stephen's claims to authority over the North African seas in his own words, quote,. Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected the Basilites after the detection of his crimes.

And the bearing of his conscience, even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen, our colleague, placed at a distance and ignorant of what had been done and of the truth to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed, end quote.

Cyprian specifically rejected the intrusion of Stephen. How can this be if Cyprian saw Peter as the rock? The answer is devastating to Roman claims. Cyprian believed that every bishop, himself included, was fulfilling the role of Peter as the rock.

In Epistle 26 of Cyprian, he makes this very claim, citing Matthew 16, 18 with a reference to all bishops, nowhere mentioning the Bishop of Rome alone. Such passages led Meyendorff to note, quote,. In fact, however, Cyprian's view of Peter's chair was that it belonged not only to the Bishop of Rome, but to every bishop within each community.

Thus, Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy, but that of his own authority as successor of Peter in Carthage, end quote. We can only agree wholeheartedly with the words of Dr. Cox, who, commenting on Cyprian's treatise on the unity of the church, said the following, quote,.

Compare this treatise of Cyprian, then, with any authorized treatise on the subject proceeding from modern Rome. It will be seen that the two systems are irreconcilable. Thus, in a few words, said a confession of Pius IV, quote,.

I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, end quote.

This is the voice of Italy in the ninth century, but Cyprian speaks for ecumenical Christendom in the third, and the two systems are as contrary as darkness and light, end quote. It is no wonder, then, that for a million, Bishop of Caesarea could write to Cyprian joining in his condemnation of Pope Stephen, speaking of those who were at Rome vainly pretending the authority of the Apostles and making schism from the peace and unity of the Church, and could go on to say, quote, I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who boasts the place of his Episcopate and contends that he holds the succession from Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were laid should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches, end quote.

Such are but a few of the many historical facts that could be presented to you this evening. We could bring in Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius's letter to the Roman Church, Irenaeus's rebuke of the impetuous Victor, Tertullian's mocking use of the phrase Pontifex Maximus, and many more items, all of which demonstrate that the concept that Peter was chosen by Christ as a vicar of Christ on earth, the head of the universal Church, and that his successors are solely the bishops of Rome, is a historical novelty that took many centuries to develop.

It is a claim that flies in the face of the early Christian leaders, and as such, is without merit. Thank you very much. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Lord, I just come before you as one wanting to be used today, and I pray that you would lead me and help me to bring forth these truths of your church for 2 ,000 years.

I ask that you would articulate these things through me in the name of Christ, amen. One of the things that James had brought up, which I think is very, very important, is the councils. When I was an evangelical, I accepted many parts of the councils.

For example, the first council of Nicaea in 325, it said that Jesus Christ was God. The second council, 1 Constantinople in 381, said that the Holy Spirit was God. The fourth ecumenical council in 451, Chalcedon, said that Jesus Christ was fully divine and fully human.

The seventh ecumenical council in 787 at the council of Nicaea, said that Jesus had two wills and two operations. So I accepted all those different things that were coming out of the councils. But out of the councils are also coming things that have to do with Peter.

And that's what we're gonna look at. We're gonna look at not only in the councils, the things that they're talking about Peter, we're gonna look at the papal jurisdiction where the West is asked to intervene in the East on all types of doctrinal and authoritative things.

And thirdly, we're gonna look at the Bishop of Rome, and I believe because he has the power of the keys, that he will have the line item veto on the canons that are coming down through the councils. John Meyendorff, the Orthodox scholar, he says, curiously enough, the ecclesiastical problem was never posed as a real issue in the mediaeval debate between Constantinople and Rome.

Only in 1204, after the sack of Constantinople, did Byzantine theologians begin to discuss seriously the origin of the power which the popes claimed to have had. It wasn't an issue until about the year 1204 for the Byzantine Church.

I belong to the Eastern Catholic Church. And one of the reasons that I came into the Catholic Church after studying orthodoxy was I found these different principles that I had to be united with Peter.

The first instance of this happening is Clement of Rome. The Corinthian Church, this is around the year 95, had appealed to Rome to make a decision. Rome was 600 to 800 miles away. They could have gone to Ephesus, where John was still living, and had them take care of the situation.

But they appealed to Rome. Why would they be appealing to Rome very early in the church? Rome writes back, excusing themselves for not writing back in time, but they say this. "'Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret.

"'If anyone disobeys the things "'which have been said to him, Jesus through us, "'let them know that they will involve themselves "'in no small danger. "'We, however, shall be innocent of this sin, "'and will pray with intrinsic and supplication "'that the creator of all may keep unharmed "'the number of his elect.'".

Protestant patristic scholars are saying something quite different than what Mr. White is saying. For example, J .B. Lightfoot says this. "'It may perhaps seem strange "'to describe this noble remonstrance "'as the first steps towards papal domination, "'and yet this is undoubtedly the case.'.

Monsignor Battleoff, an Anglican scholar, says that this is the epiphany of the Roman primacy. Harnack, a liberal scholar, says, "'Yet it might not be unreasonable "'to infer from these words "'that the Roman Church was already conscious "'of some degree of external responsibility, "'such as does not appear to have been realized "'by geographically neighboring churches of Philippi.