Early Papacy?


#1

I was wondering if anyone knew of a book or website showing (in more than just quotes) that the Papacy acctually exsisted in the early church and what kind of role it played? So I can say something to the people who say, “Well, The Papacy didn’t arise till later centuries out of Political strife and destroying the other Autonomous(sp?) churches…” Thus showing that Jesus was talking about Peters profession of faith. Thanks and God bless.


#2

*The Papacy * by Paul Johnson. It may be hard to find because its kind of an old book (might be out of print); I’d say try Barnes and Noble first. That’s where I got my copy after Christmas. Or try Amazon. Its worth it.


#3

If you want something readable and informative you could try Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid, which covers a number of Protestant objections and myths about the papacy.


#4

Also- *The Early Church * by Henry Chadwick. It has a chapter dedicated to the Papacy in the early days.

Another- *A History of Christianity * by Paul Johnson.

For all those who continually see me recommend these books on the forums here, I apologize for sounding like a broken record. Its just that they’re great books.


#5

I do not think you will find it Montie
BH


#6

[quote=BrianH]I do not think you will find it Montie
BH
[/quote]

Let’s see, four books recommended on the topic within 3 posts and you think Montie will not find it? Time for a reality check here. :wink:


#7

[quote=Della]Let’s see, four books recommended on the topic within 3 posts and you think Montie will not find it? Time for a reality check here. :wink:
[/quote]

You will find books sure but actual historical evidence of 'the Papacy acctually exsisted in the early church and what kind of role it played"
Nope. The importance of St. Peter, to be sure, no doubt.
The papacy, no. You will have to wait hundreds of years after the fact to find that.
Because I am helpful though, I will also provide some links

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/trv_infallibility.html

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html

and recommend a book as well:

archangelsbooks.com/proddetail.asp?prod=penwareti-01&partner=pastoralschool

Brian


#8

You might also want to read the epistles of Clement to the Corinthians. Clement was the 4th pope–i.e., the third successor of St. Peter as bishop of Rome, after Linus and Cletus.


#9

Hi Brian,

You have seemed to be a reasonable guy here, one that doesn’t form opinions without research. Have you read those books that were recommended?

I haven’t so I cannot say whether or not your objections are valid.

Just wondering.

God Bless,
Maria


#10

Two are links, which I have read.
I own Bishop Ware’s book, yes.
BH


#11

[quote=Montie Claunch]I was wondering if anyone knew of a book or website showing (in more than just quotes) that the Papacy acctually exsisted in the early church and what kind of role it played? So I can say something to the people who say, “Well, The Papacy didn’t arise till later centuries out of Political strife and destroying the other Autonomous(sp?) churches…” Thus showing that Jesus was talking about Peters profession of faith. Thanks and God bless.
[/quote]

One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church, by Kenneth Whitehead. There is a good chapter on the history of the early papacy, Brian’s comments notwithstanding.


#12

[quote=BrianH]Two are links, which I have read.
I own Bishop Ware’s book, yes.
BH
[/quote]

What about the recommendations by the others?

*The Papacy *by Paul Johnson
Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid
*The Early Church *by Henry Chadwick
*A History of Christianity *by Paul Johnson.

originally posted by Brian H
You will find books sure but actual historical evidence of 'the Papacy acctually exsisted in the early church and what kind of role it played"
Nope. The importance of St. Peter, to be sure, no doubt.
The papacy, no. You will have to wait hundreds of years after the fact to find that.


#13

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, ed. by John Meyendorff, also has several essays on the Eastern Orthodox perspective.


#14

[quote=John_Henry]One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church, by Kenneth Whitehead. There is a good chapter on the history of the early papacy, Brian’s comments notwithstanding.
[/quote]

Excellent Book!

After Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, you’ll find Pope Victor in the 2nd century (circa 190AD) ex-communicating some churches (from the Far East?). When Origen questions the Pope, he doesn’t question his authority to ex-communicate those churches, he just questions the wisdom of it.

There are numerous cases in the Early Church of people complaining about the Pope’s claim to authority. But if you look closer, you’ll find that usually these same people originally appealled to the Popes for resolutions, and only complained after the Pope decided against them.

Notworthy


#15

[quote=NotWorthy]Excellent Book!

After Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, you’ll find Pope Victor in the 2nd century (circa 190AD) ex-communicating some churches (from the Far East?).
[/quote]

This is evidence???

I have already addressed Clement’s letter but this sums it up rather nicely:
"Of course, if we were to conclude that the Roman church had papal authority because it taught and influenced other churches, we would also have to conclude that Paul, John, Jude, James, Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, and other church leaders were Popes, "

Its the Pope Victor comment that really gets me…and I know it shouldn’t but it does.
Do you mean the same excommunication that was IGNORED?
Please show me where there is a shread of evidence it was taken seriously.
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, as recorded by Eusebius, appeals to tradition…down from Philip and John himself and ignores Victor.
This is an example of how a Bishop of Rome was refuted! It in no way, shape, or form proves the papacy. Quite the opposite.


#16

Peace be with you!

Upon this Rock by Stephen K. Ray is the best book on the papacy (I know, I know, people on here have heard me rave about this book all the time;)). What Steve Ray does is look at every biblical passage that shows Peter as foremost of the Apostles, cross-references OT passages, quotes Protestant scholars that agree with Peter’s primacy, and goes through all the writings of the Early Church Fathers to prove the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
A great book!

In Christ,
Rand


#17

[quote=BrianH]This is evidence???

I have already addressed Clement’s letter but this sums it up rather nicely:
"Of course, if we were to conclude that the Roman church had papal authority because it taught and influenced other churches, we would also have to conclude that Paul, John, Jude, James, Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, and other church leaders were Popes, "

Its the Pope Victor comment that really gets me…and I know it shouldn’t but it does.
Do you mean the same excommunication that was IGNORED?
Please show me where there is a shread of evidence it was taken seriously.
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, as recorded by Eusebius, appeals to tradition…down from Philip and John himself and ignores Victor.
This is an example of how a Bishop of Rome was refuted! It in no way, shape, or form proves the papacy. Quite the opposite.
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

The OP did not intend this thread to be a debate thread. There are plenty of threads on the papacy already for that.

In Christ,
Rand


#18

[quote=BrianH]You will find books sure but actual historical evidence of 'the Papacy acctually exsisted in the early church and what kind of role it played"
Nope. The importance of St. Peter, to be sure, no doubt.
The papacy, no. You will have to wait hundreds of years after the fact to find that.
Because I am helpful though, I will also provide some links

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/trv_infallibility.html

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html

and recommend a book as well:

archangelsbooks.com/proddetail.asp?prod=penwareti-01&partner=pastoralschool

Brian
[/quote]

Brian,

I am a convert to Catholicism – and a scholar in Church History to boot – arguably why I made the switch! I have also studied Hebrew and Greek, and teach on the collegiate level on the Aramaic Hebrew Scriptures.

The first source you cite is just historically inaccurate. Whether the modern (or medieval) Papacy automatically equates to the first couple of centuries is not the point. Any honest and reasonable Catholic scholar will immediately agree that the role enjoyed by say, Innocent III is different in many respects (typically secular) than the role enjoyed by Benedict XVI!!! But the existence of a monarchial episcopate in Rome pre-dates the timeframe usually given by Protestant scholars (even sympathetic ones like JND Kelly) by a couple of hundred years.

Your second source discredits the notion of an original Aramaic (or Hebrew) for St. Matthew’s Gospel by introducing the red herring of the “Four Source Hypothesis” (“Q”). This is disingenuous at best. The two issues need to be considered on their own merit – and frankly, are not related. The original language theory of Matthew begins with the Fragments of Papais – 2nd century fragments of documents which insist upon a Matthean priority!

If you wish to disbelieve in the Papacy, that is certainly your perogative. But the sources you cite truly have little or nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Blessings,


#19

Obviously, no one expects the papacy to look the same in 95AD as it did in 200 AD or 350 AD or 1210 AD or 1780 AD or 2006 AD.

Just as the office of President of the United States looks far different today than it did in the time of George Washington, or Samuel Adams, or even Calvin Coolidge or Dwight Eisenhower, even though it is the same institution. And if the U.S. endures for 2000 years, the office would change with the times, and yet remain the same institution.


#20

[quote=BrianH]This is evidence???

Its the Pope Victor comment that really gets me…and I know it shouldn’t but it does.
Do you mean the same excommunication that was IGNORED?
Please show me where there is a shread of evidence it was taken seriously.
Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, as recorded by Eusebius, appeals to tradition…down from Philip and John himself and ignores Victor.
This is an example of how a Bishop of Rome was refuted! It in no way, shape, or form proves the papacy. Quite the opposite.
[/quote]

You want to tone it down there, Brian?

Yes, it was controversial. St. Irenaeus, asked Victor for a little more restraint, but he (as well as others) took for granted Victor’s authority to act. Several local synods had convened throughout the Church to resolve the issue with the celebration of Easter. Most synods agreed with the western custom of Sunday, except for Asia Minor.

For the church to be universal, they had to teach the same thing. Asia Minor had failed to comply with the other local synods and the exhortations of Pope Victor. This is a story that should sound familiar to you, as we’ve seen this happen numerous times today among the separated brethren.

Pope Victor, although he drew much criticism, knew that a higher authority was necessary to resolve such a case. Did Asia Minor ignore it? Of course, as was the case with numerous other ex-communications. No one wants to be told they are wrong, when they are sure they are right (we’re human after all).

Notworthy


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.