The concept of papal supremacy is unbiblical. We know this because the Bible, specifically the New Testament, never mention it in the very first place. The Bible – the highest and ultimate authority for Christians – only teach bishops and deacons.
Some Catholics (members of the physical church) would say that "some things need to be redefined". Wait, what? As I have said, papal supremacy does not exist in the 1st century CE. You cannot add or change what is written in the Sacred Scriptures. Moses once said to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 4:2, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." Moses here was acting as Yahweh's mouthpiece passing on God's own instruction to the Israelites. Okay, remove the Israelites from the picture – the truth of the message remains universal. It's because the same warning is given by Paul the apostle in Galatians 1:8-9, no one should change the original message of Jesus Christ – not even apostles or angels. Correspondingly, Yahweh does not want anyone to add or change His teachings!
Early Chuch fathers, too, does not mention the term "Pope", as seen in 1 Clement 42 (95 CE), Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.1 (110 CE) and Against Heresies 3.3.1 (180 CE).
Clement of Rome stated in his Letters to the Corinthians, ch.42:
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
Here you see that Clement said the successors of the apostles were called "bishops".
Another one: Ignatius of Antioch, also said in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch.8:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
Here you see that Ignatius said "let man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop." He never said Pope!
Last and most importantly, Irenaeus of Lyons in his Against Heresies, bk.3, ch.3, no.1:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Here you see that Irenaeus of Lyons stated that the bishops were the successors of the apostles.
Though the 3rd century Christians already have been using the term “pope”, it does not pertain to the "papal supremacy". The term “pope” comes from the Latin word “papa” which means “father”. As we are told in the New Testament, the apostle of Jesus Christ has appointed bishops to be the leader of the physical churches. So, when they say “pope”, it actually means “bishop” at that time. The 3rd century Christians have been using the term “pope” to address all bishops in both East and West Rome (bishop of Alexandria, bishop of Antioch, bishop of Rome).
In the early 4th century CE, Emperor Constantine called for a bishops meeting – this refers to the First Council of Nicaea.
This is supported by Life of Constantine written around 337-339 CE by Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop of Caesarea himself who attended the meeting in June 19, 325 at Nicaea in Bithynia. It is written in Life of Constantine, bk.3, ch.6:
Then as if to bring a divine array against this enemy, he convoked a general council, and invited the speedy attendance of bishops from all quarters, in letters expressive of the honorable estimation in which he held them. Nor was this merely the issuing of a bare command but the emperor's good will contributed much to its being carried into effect: for he allowed some the use of the public means of conveyance, while he afforded to others an ample supply of horses for their transport. The place, too, selected for the synod, the city Nicæa in Bithynia (named from Victory), was appropriate to the occasion.
Another one: Ecclesiastical History written around 439 BCE by Socrates of Constantinople, a 5th century Christian church historian. It is written in Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, bk. 1, ch.8:
When, therefore, the emperor beheld the Church agitated on account of both of these causes, he convoked a General Council, summoning all the bishops by letter to meet him at Nicæa in Bithynia. Accordingly the bishops assembled out of the various provinces and cities; respecting whom Eusebius Pamphilus thus writes, word for word, in his third book of the life of Constantine:
This is supported by Chonicon Paschale, a Byzantine chronicle written in original Greek around 630 CE in Constantinople. It recorded history from the creation of the world to 628 CE, using the Easter calendar to organize events. Chonicon Paschale was first translated into English by Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby in 1989. In page 12 under 325 CE, it is written:
In year 295 from the Ascension to heaven of the Lord and year 20 of the reign of Constantine the pious, the same celebrated emperor, supremely entrusted by God with piety, in the [p.525] present year 20 of his reign, on day 19 in the month Daisius [June] prepared for a synod of 318 holy fathers to take place in Nicaea and for the symbol of the blameless faith to be defined. Wherefore, God the Lord of the universe also made him victorious over all by the prayers of the holy and blessed fathers who were assembled in the same synod.
Not to get lost – the Council of Nicaea never mention that there is a "Pope" as a universal head of the Church of God.
Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) affirms regional authority of bishops over their respective jurisdictions alone, not universal authority of one bishop over all. It is written:
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.
If the Pope – as a universal leader of the Church – were truly part of the original teachings of the apostles or the early Church Fathers in the 1st to 4th century CE, then why is he completely absent from the canons and creed of the First Council of Nicaea — the most important council of the early Church?
It was only the late 4th century CE when Damasus I started to claim that the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter the apostle.
Damasus I assume that Peter and Paul preached and died in Rome. Therefore, the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter the apostle. That said, he issued a Damasian Decree declaring that the Roman See is first in authority – citing Matthew 16:18-19 as the reason. It is written:
After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have thought necessary to say what, although the universal catholic church diffused throughout the world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: 'You are Peter,' he said, 'and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven'.
By the 6th century CE, the title “pope” started to become associated with the bishop of Rome in the Western Church, especially under Pope Gregory I (r. 590–604), but not yet formalized and exclusive.
Then, in the 7th century, the Western Church increasingly associated the title “pope” specifically with the Bishop of Rome, but formal exclusivity still hadn't happened yet.
It was in the 11th century CE when pope authority was formalized by Gregory VII. He issued a document called the Dictatus Papae in 1075 CE, which stated the Papal Supremacy. From that point on, the title “pope” became exclusive to the bishop of Rome.
References:
1. Life of Constantine by Eusebius of Caesarea
No comments:
Post a Comment