Early Church teachings about the Papacy and Roman See?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
User avatar
Suaidan
Sr Member
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu 8 April 2004 2:31 pm
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Metropolia of the Americas
Location: Northeast PA

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by Suaidan »

Pope St Leo believed in a triune Petrine See. So none of the quotes which speak in such a manner of Peter's see are properly applied by Roman Catholics.

The simple reality is that the modern Roman Catholic church believes in practice in a universal Bishop (condemned by St Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome) the rest of them being an afterthought. This cannot even be compared to the RCC at Florence and is a product not of the second Vatican Council, but the first. This resulted as well in mass defections into what was the nascent Old Catholic movement.

Thus St Gregory: "Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,—what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord’s Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy."

The doctrine of infallibility is a proof of this.

The structure of the Church is such that if the Roman Catholic Church was the way the Church was supposed to be, much of Church history never would have happened. In response to such a claim that it was a "development of teaching", why did such a central part of their church's teaching today take over 1,500 years to develop, most of that period being a virtually non-existent idea?

Fr Joseph Suaidan (Suaiden, same guy)

GeorgeB
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed 29 February 2012 8:42 pm

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by GeorgeB »

I agree, the modernist direction and the Ecumenist trend of the "Catholic Church" since Vatican 2 is enough to show that the Pope is not infallible. Regarding the Roman "traditionalists" who reject the post-Vatican 2 papacy, I prefer to show them that their tradition is not apostolic.

I also agree 100% that "none of the quotes which speak in such a manner of Peter's see are properly applied by Roman Catholics."
The Latin interpretation of the bishop of Rome as the sole successor of Peter is false, and I also recommend to read St. John Chrysostom's Eulogy on the Holy Martyr Saint Ignatius, where Chrysostom says that Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, is "another teacher equivalent to Peter", which I discuss here:
http://photius1.wordpress.com/2012/07/0 ... -catholic/

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Early Church teachings about the Papacy and Roman See?

Post by Maria »

When I was studying the 1870 documents of Vatican I, particularly the "dogmas" of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility, those documents raised a big red flag in my mind. Even though Catholic Answers' (CA) best apologists tried to convince me to read Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, their arguments were so full of convoluted Protestant biblical proofs that I could no longer accept their reasoning nor believe in Papal Supremacy and in Papal Infallibility. The CA apologists preferred the Bible to the Church Fathers even though it was the Church Fathers who preserved and gave us the Bible in the first place. Is it not surprising that many of CA apologists are ex-Protestants.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by joasia »

I came across an explanation, some years ago, of the pope's decision to eliminate the sacred prayer to the Holy Spirit. Forgive me if I'm not using the correct expression. Basically, the prayer that the priest/bishop/Metropolitan/Patriarchate says, at a particular moment, is the most sacred moment that the Holy Spirit descends on the bread and wine. When one of the popes removed that prayer, he basically cut off the connection from God and he (the pope) became the source of worship. He became (in his mind) the source of worship. He felt that he was in the position of Jesus Christ. That's blasphemy. And the successors continued in that belief. I'm sure they knew what it meant. As a result, his physical position turned towards the people. Unlike the Orthodox position where the clergy face the alter, the papists face the people because their view is that they are representing God to the people whereas in Orthodox tradition the belief is that the clergy represent the people and face the Altar. They offer supplications for us. The Orthodox tradition in worship shows humility whereas the papists show such arrogance.

I learned this way after I became Orthodox, but it just gave me such a greater insight of the evil workings of papism. And it really showed me a depth of spiritual significance of worship.

I wonder if the Ecumenists clergy will one day turn to face the people. If they chose to join the papists, I think they will make that decision.

On the point of their protestant views, they are based on rationalism which I believe is what the protestants base their faith on. Conclusion: the papist clergy are protestants. No spiritualism, just worldly intellectualism.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Early Church teachings about the Papacy and Roman See?

Post by Maria »

As a former Catholic, I try to avoid the term Papism and Papists because those terms are offensive to them. Perhaps we should call them Vatican Catholics since we Orthodox Christians are truly Catholic in that we hold to the one holy unchanging Catholic (universal) faith which was given by Christ to the Apostles.

Besides, I do not want to turn away Roman Catholic or Eastern Catholic inquirers into True Orthodoxy as it appears that most of our converts into True Orthodoxy were devout Vatican Catholics who became disenchanted with the Novus Ordo and the lack of spirituality among many of the clergy. Although I did meet some very devout RC clergy who were trying to turn the tide, many clergy spouted the Vatican policy: Do not rock the boat; be part of the solution rather than part of the problem; and above all, do not be holier than the Pope. These clergymen did not encourage true spiritual growth (theosis) but went along with social justice, liturgical innovations, and feel good theology. When my husband and I visited Seattle during our honeymoon, 30 years ago, we attended a Sunday Mass in which the RC priest urged people to grab their guns and go to South America fighting for marxism, social reform, and homosexual rights. We walked out of that church during that sermon.

Looking back into the history of Roman Catholicism, many of their theologians were divided on topics such as the Immaculate Conception and even Purgatory. And when it came to Vatican I, a few cardinals and bishops disagreed with Papal Infallibility, and several left the Roman Catholic Church as they refused to go along with the Vatican. This dogma of Papal Infallibility was the origin of the Old Catholics. In fact, my own inquiry into Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy led me into Holy Orthodoxy too.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by joasia »

As a former Catholic, I try to avoid the term Papism and Papists because those terms are offensive to them.

I am also a former catholic and actually I consider these terms appropriate to what I had posted earlier...the stance that the See of Rome considers himself to be the replacement of Christ. He remove the prayer that invited the Holy Spirit to descend on the bread and wine to transform it to the Body and Blood of Christ. I think that they should come to understand the truth.

The pope considers himself to be the god of all the Christians. But, he couldn't beat the servant of God, St. Mark of Ephesus.

They are not Catholics, in the true meaning of the word. Catholic means the wholeness of the truth of the faith.

And therefore, papist/papism is an appropriate label since it's all based on the pope's (bishop of Rome) personal agenda which is blasphemy. It's not centered on Christ, but the pope.

And to those catholics seeking the truth, they will come to understand this. So the term is no offense to the person seeking truth, only to the laity and clergy who kneel deep in pope worship.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

TedMann
Newbie
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue 8 October 2013 1:32 am

Re: Roman Catholicism

Post by TedMann »

Saint Leo lived in the fifth century, not the third, like Joasia said. I think he started the petrine ideas. But hyperbolic type language made by Roman Bishops, never gained universal and theological significance in the Church. Saint Leo would most certainly have been appalled at the claims coming from Vatican I Roman Catholicism. None of the ancient popes and fathers were Roman Catholics, as this church is understood today.

Post Reply