/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Here's another quote o found from pope innocent the first: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k9L2UaDJLGkC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=we+approve+your+action+in+following+the+principle+of+the+fathers+pope+innocent&source=bl&ots=aB_Fxc7Wu9&sig=ACfU3U16v6lSYUNdcvzSiJiDZiBYvzqpZQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1wcL-obrjAhWVuHEKHWPbAy8Q6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=we%20approve%20your%20action%20in%20following%20the%20principle%20of%20the%20fathers%20pope%20innocent&f=false

Also, the person who wrote this book is an Anglican.

>>821338

>>811075

>>821338

Thanks man, although I'm no Christian it does seem like if someone chooses a denomination based on history Catholicism seems like the best bet otherwise I think the reformed Christian sect would be the next best thing. I'm hoping this will spark a discussion and a Eastern orthodox could come in here and tell us his understanding of these texts.

>>821332

The context surrounding that letter is that Jerome was in Antioch during the backdrop of the Meletian Schism, to cut a long story short, during the time there were two who claimed to be the Patriarch of Antioch, and this caused a schism. Jerome is asking Pope Damasus who he should communicate with, this is fitting because Jerome was baptised into Christianity at the age of 13-19 at Rome, and in the same letter calls himself a "Roman Christian".

>>821350

How does this change from what he said? He says rome is Peter and the rock that the church is built from. He seems to see rome as the foundation of the whole church and I assume, and I hope you'd agree that this wouldn't be a stretch to say, that if rome ever fell then the foundation of the church also falls.

Also, this comment here from innocent the first seems to also indicate the same >>821334

>>821375

> He says rome is Peter and the rock that the church is built from

"The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built…For the Church was founded upon a rock…upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Mt. 16.18)" (Migne's Patrologia Latina, Volume 26, Column 51)

>He seems to see rome as the foundation of the whole church

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles" (St. Jerome, Epistle 146 to Evangelus, <https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXLVI.html>)

>that if rome ever fell then the foundation of the church also falls.

Jerome commended Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, for writing a Synodical letter against Pope Victor. Pope Victor cut ties with several Eastern Churches due to a disagreement over the date of Easter.

Jerome quotes from the Synodical letter by Polycrates in his book:

"We therefore celebrate the day according to usage, inviolably, neither adding anything to nor taking anything from it, for in Asia lie the remains of the greatest saints of those who shall rise again on the day of the Lord, when he shall come in majesty from heaven and shall quicken all the saints, I mean Philip one of the twelve apostles who sleeps at Hierapolis and his two daughters who were virgins until their death and another daughter of his who died at Ephesus full of the Holy Spirit. And John too, who lay on Our Lord’s breast and was his high priest carrying the golden frontlet on his forehead, both martyr and doctor, fell asleep at Ephesus… These all observed the day of the passover on the fourteenth of the month, in nowise departing from the evangelical tradition and following the ecclesiastical canon. I also, Polycrates, the least of all your servants, according to the doctrine of my relatives which I also have followed (for there were seven of my relatives bishops indeed and I the eighth) have always celebrated the passover when the Jewish people celebrated the putting away of the leaven. And so brethren being sixty-five years old in the Lord and instructed by many brethren from all parts of the world, and having searched all the Scriptures, I will not fear those who threaten us, for my predecessors said “It is fitting to obey God rather than men.” (St. Jerome, The Lives of Illustrious Men, <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.v.iii.xlvii.html>)

Jerome here praises a man for defying the express orders of the Pope, instead of condemning him.

Also take notice how the Meletian Schism went on to the year 415, 31 years after Pope St. Damasus died. Now if Damasus was alerted to this dispute regarding the rightful patriarch of Antioch, then he could have sent a letter to Jerome and to the disputing parties, and as supreme head of the Church end the schism by identifying the true Patriarch. Yet he did no such thing for 9 years, and when he did identify a man named Paulinus as the legitimate patriarch (in one of his letters to him) the schism did not end. In fact the successor to Paulinus' rival, Flavian, became bishop and ended the schism.

>>821334

Pope Innocent could have been speaking in hyperbolic, and even if he did profess Papal supremacy, a Pope claiming universal dominion is nothing new, the question is rather did the other churches profess that.

Wake me up when you find a church father saying that

>The pope is infallible

>The pope is the ruler of all christians

>The pope can have a personal army

>The pope is holding all the good deeds of the Saints in some box

>You can pay your way into heaven by buying some of the above good deeds

>The pope can modify the Apostle's Creed whenever he feels like it

>The pope can be a secular ruler

>The pope can lie to get more secular power (Donation of Constantine)

>The pope can brainwash illiterate peasants to fight for him in some holy war and when they get too much power, he can accuse them for heresy and burn them alive

>>821420

Why are you people such liars? Not only do your links not work, if you read what you are citing your quotes are wildly out of context.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

>"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles."

The letter says nothing of the sort you are trying to imply with your quote taken out of context. Ironically he even mentions one leader so that there may be no occasion for schism (a thing he repeats elsewhere about Peter's authority over the whole Church). How delicious.

>But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

As for the Illustrious Man quote, it's weird you cut that quote up to make it look like St. Jerome is writing that himself. He is quoting Polycrates and the very last line you cut off (literally the last sentence) is him saying he is citing the quote to show how much of a genius and command of scripture the man had. As if he is somehow sticking it to the Pope (you also left out the best part: they changed their custom to match Romes, so unless you want to argue that they just changed their entire church tradition just to be nice to a Pope, you can't explain it any other way than the Pope had some kind of authority). This would be like arguing because bishops arguing with the pope in say, the 19th century, that clearly is evidence the Catholic Church doesn't believe in the Pope's authority over the whole Church.

Even funnier the entire document (writing about important men in Church history up to that point) constantly references the Bishop of Rome as succeeding Peter. With it professing in no uncertain terms that Peter an Paul both died at Rome (something non-Catholics weirdly try to deny, constantly).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

As for the OP:

>>821332

You actually should just read that entire letter, and then even the next one has more of the same:

>The untiring foe follows me closely, and the assaults that I suffer in the desert are severer than ever. For the Arian frenzy raves, and the powers of the world support it. The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. The influence of the monks is of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime keep crying: "He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001016.htm

There is this problem that orthos run into where they try to craft this narrative that Rome was claiming to be the head from the very start (indeed we even see indirect references to this by St. Clement and references in St. Ignatius), and they were wrong for this. But if this is the case, then the schism didn't happen in the second millennia, there were essentially two different religions from the very start. Their argument doesn't even pass the smell test, since using this as an explanation for why all these Church Fathers constantly affirm that Peter is the head of the whole Church, the Bishop of Rome is his successor, and he exercises the same authority, is to just assert they were all some sort of serial flatterers who spoke in exaggerated terms because the great saints were also sycophantic.

It's absolute madness.

Have a bonus writing:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C2

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim, each for himself, separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedras would already be a schismatic and a sinner.

(St. Optatus)

>>821420

>>821440

>>821441

Thanks for your responses. I can tell you know a bit about this I was wondering if you knew why tertullian, despite believing in and even defending apostolic succession, still became a montanist which, as far as I know, do not have any apostolic succession.

Also, how would you interpret irenaeus when he says all churches must agree with rome.

>>821440

>>821440

>Why are you people such liars?

There is no need to be insulting

>Not only do your links not work,

That is a mistake, caused by the “>” at the end, and I thank you for pointing that.

Here are the corrected links:

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXLVI.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.v.iii.xlvii.html

>The letter says nothing of the sort you are trying to imply with your quote taken out of context. Ironically he even mentions one leader so that there may be no occasion for schism (a thing he repeats elsewhere about Peter's authority over the whole Church). How delicious.

<But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.

Jerome, in a letter to a man named Rusticus, further elaborates on this concept, of having “one leader so that there may be no occasion for schism”

Even dumb animals and wild herds follow leaders of their own. Bees have princes, and cranes fly after one of their number in the shape of a Y. There is but one emperor and each province has but one judge. Rome was founded by two brothers, but, as it could not have two kings at once, was inaugurated by an act of fratricide. So too Esau and Jacob strove in Rebekah's womb (Genesis 25:22). Each church has a single bishop, a single archpresbyter, a single archdeacon; and every ecclesiastical order is subjected to its own rulers. A ship has but one pilot, a house but one master, and the largest army moves at the command of one man (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001125.htm)

“Each church has a single bishop, a single archpresybter, a single archdeacon,” Jerome doesn’t declare that the bishop of Rome is the leader of the church, but rather that there are several churches with a single leader.

>As for the Illustrious Man quote, it's weird you cut that quote up to make it look like St. Jerome is writing that himself

You seem to misinterpret what I said, or rather I wasn’t clear enough, I said: "Jerome quotes from the Synodical letter by Polycrates in his book:"

I in no way assert that Jerome said that, Polycrates said it, Jerome decides to quote it verbatim however.

>Even funnier the entire document (writing about important men in Church history up to that point) constantly references the Bishop of Rome as succeeding Peter

Jerome Writes:

“Clement… the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus”

And also:

“He [Hegesippus] says that he went to Rome in the time of Anicetus, the tenth bishop after Peter”

Yet Jerome also writes:

“Ignatius, third bishop of the church of Antioch after Peter the apostle”

He says that the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Antioch are the successors of Peter, not Rome individually.

>>821628

He is speaking about Peter, after he has made his confession, that being that Jesus is the Christ.

The three need not be mutually exclusive.

>>821648

Where did I say "These are totally unrelated"?