Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Right interpretation of patristic quotations on Rome's authority and primacy


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Vasily

Vasily

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 08 December 2010 - 12:23 PM

Catholic apologists go to great lengths to justify the authority and primacy of the Pope of Rome. They quote certain Church Fathers to justify these claims. Foe example: St. Clement,"Rome had no doubt that it's priority would be accepted without argument." St. Ignatius,"the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord." St. Cyprian,"The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly." St. Irenaeus,"if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches."

Are these quotes (and there are others made by the same individuals), being taken out of context and are there any quotes from the early Church Fathers that deny Papal authority and primacy?

Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople (381) stated that the bishop of that city,"shall have primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome." Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council states that," Constantinople will have equal prerogatives to Old Rome."

Do the above canons put Constantinople in an authoritative light? If so, are Catholic apologists ignoring these decisions made by these Ecumenical Councils?

Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome, or having any authority over the other Apostles. St. Linus is said to have been the first bishop of Rome. Catholic apologists adamantly deny these facts. Was St. Peter a "leader" of the Apostles? What is the truth?

I am currently defending the Orthodox Faith with certain Catholic apologists on you tube, and would appreciate some concrete answers.

#2 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 08 December 2010 - 05:43 PM

Use the search function for this forum, this has been covered in numerous threads.

#3 Michael Stickles

Michael Stickles

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 08:37 PM

Here are some links to older threads related to this topic:

Orthodox communion with Rome (102 posts, Aug 2002 - Mar 2007)
St Peter, the 'keys' and the See of Rome (120 posts, Sept 2003 - Sept 2010)
Did Chalcedon prove Roman papal supremacy? (21 posts, Jan 2006 - May 2007)
Pre-schism popes: 'universal rulers' of the Orthodox Church? (113 posts, Dec 2006 - June 2008)
The papacy in the fathers (35 posts, Feb 2007 - June 2008)
Peter, prince of the apostles, and the hierarchical structure of the Church (62 posts, June 2007 - July 2007)
Hierarchs and perceptions of Church authority ('Universal authority'?) (74 posts, Nov 2007 - Dec 2007)
The nature of Roman Catholic heterodoxy (20 posts, Mar 2009 - Sept 2009)
"Upon this rock I build my Church": St Cyprian, Orthodox and Roman Catholic views (12 posts, Aug 2010 - Oct 2010)

There are surely others, this was just my results from a cursory search.

In Christ,
Michael

#4 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 10:49 PM

Catholic apologists go to great lengths to justify the authority and primacy of the Pope of Rome. They quote certain Church Fathers to justify these claims. Foe example: St. Clement,"Rome had no doubt that it's priority would be accepted without argument." St. Ignatius,"the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord." St. Cyprian,"The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly." St. Irenaeus,"if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches."

Are these quotes (and there are others made by the same individuals), being taken out of context and are there any quotes from the early Church Fathers that deny Papal authority and primacy?

Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople (381) stated that the bishop of that city,"shall have primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome." Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council states that," Constantinople will have equal prerogatives to Old Rome."

Do the above canons put Constantinople in an authoritative light? If so, are Catholic apologists ignoring these decisions made by these Ecumenical Councils?

Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome, or having any authority over the other Apostles. St. Linus is said to have been the first bishop of Rome. Catholic apologists adamantly deny these facts. Was St. Peter a "leader" of the Apostles? What is the truth?

I am currently defending the Orthodox Faith with certain Catholic apologists on you tube, and would appreciate some concrete answers.


Yes the catholic apologists do 'skip' over the canons of the councils even though there the most authoratative. The canons of the ecumenical councils give more power to Constantinople than Rome was ever accorded. Roman apologists rail against canon 28 of Chalcedon even though all of christendom immediately recieved it, but ignore the other canons of Chalcedon which gave Constantinople further powers, such as an accused bbishop bringing his case to Constantinople for appeal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users