Early Church teachings about the Papacy and Roman See?

[stephendaniel]

Good morning,

I don't know if I'm being hit by temptation. But I keep wondering what it was that the early Church believed about the papacy and the Roman see. Does anybody have any quotes?

Roman Catholics have a few ancient quotations used to justify their position and it's throwing me off at the moment. One is by Pope Leo the Great:

"And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See"

God help me if I lead anyone into temptation; please forgive me. I'm having trouble right now.

Can someone please run by me why Roman Catholicism is in heresy again? In a thorough, detailed manner? Thank you so much.

[Mark Templet]

Dear Stephen,

Great Question.

A couple of books that come to mind that would be helpful on this subject are:
The Primacy of Peter by John Meyendorff
The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church by Clark Carlton
also this book written by a former Roman Catholic Priest and historian who converted to the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1800s is fantastic:
http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/THE%20 ... UETTEE.pdf

I am sure others on here could recommend others, but these will help you slam the door shut.

Basically, the Roman See was an ancient see in the Early Church. Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, where Christianity flourished from the outset and therefore it was a major center of Christianity. Many other places in the West that Christianity spread depended on Rome as their guide to leading a Christian life. The Church in Rome was therefore considered as having a place of great honor and esteem and many of her Popes were saintly Orthodox stalwarts. With this in mind, the early Church viewed the Bishop of Rome as having the highest honor; he was prima inter pas or the “first among equals.” In other words, if the bishops of all the other churches sat down to eat at a table he would have sat at the head of the table. However, this authority was not above other bishops, he was only the first in honor. The nature of the Church is and has always been conciliar. This means that any bishop essentially only has rule over their own see. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople can’t boss around the Patriarch of Alexandria. Furthermore, it means that decisions must be made by a group or synod of bishops who come into agreement. This is give as the example in the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts as to how the Church is to make decision.

But ask yourself these questions:
If the Pope is infallible head of the Church, then why did they have Ecumenical Councils? Why not just ask him what everybody is supposed to do?

In the modern Papacy the Pope can overrule any bishop, where is there in the historic Church an ordained office above bishop?
Rome claims to be the soul successor to Saints Peter and Paul, but the Church in Jerusalem or Antioch could make the same valid claim to such, why aren’t they the head of the whole thing?

The Roman Catholics are heretics because:

1. They maintain the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed not in its ratified original form but with the addition of the filioque, which is condemned by all the Ecumenical Councils and even some of the Popes.
2. It is in their dogma (required beliefs) that the Pope alone is infallible and exercises supreme authority over the whole Church, rather than the conciliar Church guided by the Holy Spirit.
3. It is in their dogma that purgatory exists, which is not part of the ancient Church, nor universally accepted.
4. They changed the calendar of the Church, including the Paschalion to the point that they often violate the Holy Canons of the early Church (e.g., their Easter can fall before the Jewish Passover).
5. They are also deeply involved in Ecumenism and a litany of liturgical abuses. Just see a few of them here (warning: it is very sickening) : http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007 ... abuse.html

The list of where the once beautiful, glorious, and orthodox Church in Roman has gone astray would take many more pages to explain, but the books above (esp. Fr. Guettee) will definitely convince you.

[joasia]

Stephen,

Pope Leo the Great live in the 3rd century. This was way before the Western Schism so he was speaking from an Orthodox view. Orthodoxy meaning the fullness of the truth of Christ's Church. Perhaps there are other sources that are confusing you that you mix up with the ancient hierarchs of Orthodoxy.

The papists like to use quotes from Church hierachs, before the Great Schism, and pass it on as their law of supremacy of the Pope. Once you distinguish the time line, you will get a clearer understanding. The Patriarchs of Rome started imposing their position of supremacy around the 8th century. It was on and off, depending on the disposition of that particular person, but it came to a head in 1054 A.D. when the Patriarch of Rome decided that he is the be all and end all of the universe.

[frphoti]

Here is a good article. If the Papacy in its current evolution is shown to be a false doctrine (especially the idea of the necessity of being in communion with Rome above all else) then the rest of their pst-frankish doctrines fall apart.

http://www.oocities.org/heartland/5654/ ... ility.html

[GeorgeB]

Hi, I did a little research in my spare time and I like to share with you some quotes that I put together to show the errors of the Papists.

http://photius1.wordpress.com/2012/06/1 ... he-latins/

I hope it is useful!

[Maria]

During my college years at a Catholic university when I was still a Catholic, I had to read the Documents of Vatican II as part of our mandated instruction in Theology. I ended up with almost enough units to have a minor in Catholic theology, if I had wanted to declare one.

Among the worst of the Vatican II documents was Dignitatis Humanae where ecumenism is promoted by insisting that we respect the dignity of each person's freedom to worship. Not too long after this document was published, a Buddhist group was allowed to worship their deities at the Catholic Fatima shrine to Our Lady in Portugal.

Ultimately, this modernist document and others destroyed Papal Infallibility in my mind as I could no longer accept the idea that a Pope who approved of Vatican II could be infallible or could issue infallible statements.

When Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy no longer made sense, then the entire deck of cards came tumbling down.

[joasia]

Among the worst of the Vatican II documents was Dignitatis Humanae where ecumenism is promoted by insisting that we respect the dignity of each person's freedom to worship

You know. I get a deep down feeling that their promotion for Dignitatis Humanae was created not for respect of other religions but to give themselves a stance of voicing their heretical views. They have to let the others be included so that they can instigate their voice. They don't care about the other religious views. They want us to "respect the dignity of each person's freedom to worship". In order for them to feel that they can express their freedom of worship, they need to bring it to a global (ecumenical) level. When what it really means is that they want to express their heretical view and get away with it. It's a smoke screen. It's a red herring.

They are liars. When they couldn't get their way because St. Mark of Ephesus stood up against them, they had to come up with another plan. Ecumenism. If you can't beat them into submission then seduce them into the lie.

But, we know there is no human dignity when God is not the focus of our lives. Anything else is at the level of animals. But, they want to create an illusion of human dignity without God. They think they are gods but really they are animals.