Introduction:
We’ve already discussed Sola Scriptura, but the Protestant view that Scripture is our ultimate authority does not exist in isolation. Roman Catholics have an ultimate authority as well: the Magisterium, whose chief officer, in turn, is the pope. So it’s fitting to discuss the papacy next. And to do that, we must examine what Rome believes about the papacy, and what standard of proof the Romanist must meet. The dogmatic decrees of the First Vatican Council (and remember, the decrees of ecumenical councils are infallible according to Rome) made a number of striking claims about the papacy. We’ll read three excerpts from the prologue and 1st chapter (emphasis all mine). From the prologue:
We, therefore, for the preservation, safe keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy…
From chapter 1:
We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord.
It goes on to quote Matthew 16, John 1 and 21, then continues:
At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple 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 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 honour only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.
This is the bar set by Rome, and we believe that close scrutiny of these texts in the light of Scripture and church history will find them to be definitively false. The first phrase which raises issues is the prologue’s claim that this teaching is “in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church…” Let’s examine the evidence.
1st and 2nd Centuries:
One of the earliest documents we have from the early church is a letter generally called First Clement. This is a poor name for it since we know that Clement didn’t write additional letters, and it’s not Clement alone who wrote the letter. Rather, it’s addressed,
The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ…
The reason the Roman church is writing to the Corinthian church is over an ecclesiastical dispute there. Some of the elders in Corinth have been wrongfully deposed and the Romans encourage them to reinstate the elders and repent. But this tells us something important about the ecclesiastical structure of the early church: Corinth was ruled not by a singular bishop but by a college of presbyters. Even more importantly, it’s obvious that Rome is as well since the first person plural is used throughout the letter.
Next we have Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote numerous letters on the way to his martyrdom. Interestingly, when he wrote to the Roman church, he makes no mention of a pope or of some sort of monarchical bishopric. In fact, he notes incidentally that the church at Rome presides over the region of the Romans, not over other areas or even over other churches. And in most of his letters, he tells the people in the churches to whom he is writing to honor and be subject to their bishop, presbytery, and deacons. He views the bishop as the head of a college of presbyters who rule a local church. He said to the Ephesians,
Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.
Notice the relationship there: It is one bishop to one presbytery to one local church. Ignatius has no concept of the monarchical bishopric or of diocesan rule, and we have every reason to believe this was also alien to the Roman church at this time.
3rd and 4th Centuries:
Moving into the 3rd century, we have Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage. In 254, two Spanish bishops were deposed for idolatry and blasphemy, but they appealed to the bishop of Rome, Stephen, who ordered for them to be reinstated. However, Cyprian, together with other north African bishops, wrote his 67th epistle to the Spanish churches praising them for deposing the bishops and encouraging them to remain steadfast in their decision, contrary to Stephen. Another clash with Stephen occurred just two years later when he condemned the decrees of an African council on the subject of the baptism of heretics. What did Cyprian do? He called more bishops, had another council, and reaffirmed their position. In his opening remarks at the council, he said,
It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to 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. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.
Cyprian not only defies the pope, but brings 87 bishops with him to do so, attacks Stephen’s use of the title “bishop of bishops,” and rejects his imperious overreach. What was the ecclesiology which undergirded Cyprian’s courage? In Epistle 26, probably written around the same time as the council, Cyprian said,
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.
In other words, Cyprian said that all bishops hold the keys, that all bishops possess, through succession, that which Christ gave to Peter. So much for Petrine primacy.
But these must be outliers, right? Not exactly. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, numerous canons were ratified along with the creed. Among these is Canon 4, which reads,
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
More strikingly than that, Canon 6 reads,
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. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.
Note carefully that Alexandria is given regional jurisdiction since the like is customary for Rome. So we can deduce a) that Rome had only regional jurisdiction, and b) that this was a custom, not a binding dogma. Furthermore, at the Council of Constantinople in 381, Canon 2 reaffirmed this teaching:
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.
5th and 6th Centuries:
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Canon 28 assigned Constantinople, as the New Rome, second place, the reasoning being clearly political and certainly not from a Roman Catholic ecclesiology:
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured 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 rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.
Now we’re into the 5th century and still Vatican I’s view of the papacy is being contradicted by ecumenical councils. A particularly striking example of this occurring not just on paper but in real life occurred early in this same century. The series of episodes in the Pelagian controversy ensued thus:
Two bishops in Palestine made a complaint against the heretic Pelagius and in response, the metropolitan bishop called a synod to address the charges. However, the accusers were unable to attend due to illness and only written charges were presented. These charges were written in Latin, which Pelagius understood but the bishops presiding did not, which allowed him to, through deceptive wording, essentially trick the synod into acquitting him. Pelagius attempted to leverage this acquittal to clear his name and legitimize his teachings. When the north African bishops caught wind of the true nature of the synod, they met in Carthage in 416 to reaffirm their condemnation of Pelagius. Given the standoff between the Carthaginian and Palestinian councils, they both wanted Rome to intervene on their side. As it happened, Innocent sided with the Carthaginians, led by Augustine, and excommunicated Pelagius. However, Innocent died shortly thereafter, and was succeeded by Zosimus to whom Pelagius took the opportunity to make his case face to face. Zosimus excommunicated the original two Palestinian bishops and issued an encyclical letter to the Africans condemning them, claiming that Pelagius was orthodox, and ordering them to either drop charges or appear in Rome in two months to prosecute them.
The Africans did neither, prompting an additional letter from Zosimus appealing to his apostolic and Petrine authority in telling the Africans to get in line. What did Augustine and the African bishops do? Surely as good Catholics they apologized for their disobedience thus far and complied, right? In early 418, they convened another council with about four times as many bishops present and replied to Zosimus, respectfully but firmly reaffirming their sentence of condemnation on Pelagius. This seemed to take Zosimus down a notch, and he softened his stance towards the Africans a bit, but didn’t change his mind. However, he was about to be overruled yet again. The emperor issued a royal decree that Pelagius and all who held his views were to be banished from Rome. As this was occurring, the very next day, the Carthaginian council went on to pass canons likewise condemning Pelagius’ teachings even after receiving Zosimus’ second letter.
So the Africans, led by Augustine, withstood and defied the pope not once but twice and actually made the pope back down. After these events, Zosimus excommunicated Pelagius, and wrote another letter condemning his teachings. He also required assent to the Africans’ canons on the part of all bishops as a litmus test of orthodoxy.1 Of course none of these years-long proceedings were in accord with Vatican I, demonstrating that her understanding of the papacy was not anywhere close to unanimously held.2 But we can go further than even the 5th century. In the early middle ages, Gregory the Great, a doctor of the church and bishop of Rome in the late 6th and early 7th centuries, also did not share Vatican I’s understanding of the papacy. He wrote a letter to John, the bishop of Constantinople, asking him to repent of using the title “universal bishop.” He asked John,
What will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isaiah 14:13)?
“But,” Roman Catholics will say, “Gregory is merely condemning the false use of the title by John, not the title in general.” But Gregory clearly reserves that title for Christ alone, even denying himself as bishop of Rome the title. He went on to say,
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.
Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.
Gregory’s words are clear and his reaction speaks plainly. But if that weren’t clear enough, writing to the Emperor defending his letter to John, he said (Book VII, Letter 33),
Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.
If Gregory reacted so vehemently against this title, what would he say about the many other titles and powers later ascribed to the pope throughout history? What would Gregory think of Unam Sanctam or Vatican I? Keep in mind, we’re now into the 7th century and still Rome’s current view of the papacy is not anywhere close to “universal,” “unanimous,” or “constant.” Even a brief survey of early church history demonstrates that, in fact, Rome’s claim that the papacy is “in accordance with the ancient and constant faith” is simply untrue. Next week, we’ll be looking at Matthew 16 and seeing if Rome’s biblical exegesis holds up.
Webster, William. The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock. Christian Resources, 1996. Pgs. 200-206.
--. The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. Banner of Truth Trust, 1995. Pg. 65.
James White. “Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example (Sermon 131).” Alpha and Omega Ministries, 11 April 2000, https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/catholic-legends-get-started-example/.
It’s also worth noting that Innocent and Zosimus contradicted each other and that Zosimus contradicted himself. Nevertheless, from the canons of Vatican I, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, chapter IV, “And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: [Luke 22:32].”
Article by A.C. Join us on MeWe, Telegram, Gab, or feel free to: