Early Church Contradictions to Papal Primacy

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

“‘We desire to love all men,’ meekly replied the venerable Briton; ‘and what we do for you, we will do for him also whom you call the pope. But he is not entitled to call himself the father of fathers, and the only submission we can render him is that which we owe to every Christian.’”

-The Briton reply to Augustine of Canterbury (7^th Century), as found in J.H. Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, trans. Dr. H. White, Vol. V (Rapidan, VA: Harland Publications, reprinted 1846 London edition), pp. 684.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to the claims of Vatican I, there are many examples of major leaders in the early church defying the decrees of the bishop of Rome. The following article will list a few examples of this.

Easter: Polycrates vs. Victor

In the late 2^nd century, Victor, the bishop of Rome, threatened to cut off communion with the Eastern churches because they celebrated Easter on a different day than that of the Western churches. The Eastern churches, represented by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, defied the bishop of Rome. Both sides claimed that apostolic tradition was on their side. Eusebius records this:

“For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover.It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.”

-Eusebius, Church History 5.23.1

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P3363_1568793

The bishops of the East did not give in, and they wrote a letter to Victor:

“But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

“We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.””

-Eusebius, Church History 5.24.1-2

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P3363_1568793

The entire Eastern church defied the bishop of Rome and continued in their practice.

Cyprian and Firmilian vs. Stephen

In the mid-third century, a controversy arose whether heretical baptism was valid. Cyprian, like his fellow African, Tertullian, said that it was not valid and claimed apostolic tradition for his practice. Stephen, the bishop of Rome, on the other hand, said that heretics should not be re-baptized and also claimed apostolic tradition for his beliefs. Cyprian records that Stephen claimed apostolic tradition for his practice:

“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles…” (emphasis mine)

-Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.6

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-99.htm#P6387_2042966

Cyprian goes on to say that Stephen’s apostolic tradition is false and that the rest of the churches of the world agree with his (i.e. Cyprian) ‘apostolic’ tradition:

“…any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence, it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.” (emphasis mine)

-Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.6

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-99.htm#P6387_2042966

Cyprian records a letter from Firmilian, bishop of Cappadocia, which sides with him:

“But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?-unless most ancient custom in any respect avail the Jews, upon the advent of Christ, that is, the Truth, in remaining in their old usage, and forsaking the new way of truth. And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles. Nor do we remember that this at any time began among us, since it has always been observed here, that we knew none but one Church of God, and accounted no baptism holy except that of the holy Church.” (emphasis mine)

-Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Letter LXXIV.19

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-99.htm#P6387_2042966

Eusebius records the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Sixtus I about Stephen:

“‘He therefore had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus, and all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and the neighboring nations, saying that he would not commune with them for this same cause; namely, that they re-baptized heretics. But consider the importance of the matter. For truly in the largest synods of the bishops, as I learn, decrees have been passed on this subject, that those coming over from heresies should be instructed, and then should be washed and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure leaven. And I wrote entreating him concerning all these things.’” (emphasis mine)

-Eusebius, Church History 7.7.4-5

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-12.htm#P4241_2002100

Cyprian, the North African Church, Firmilian, Dionysius of Alexandria, and the Eastern Church refused to obey the decrees of the bishop ofRome. In 256 A.D., Cyprian assembled the Seventh Council of Carthage, and the eighty-seven bishops declared:

“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.” (emphasis mine)

-Cyprian, 7^th Council of Carthage

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm#P9402_2932994

William Webster gives us the context of what was said by Cyprian:

“What is so significant about this opposition is that it was made in the context of Stephen applying Matthew 16:18 to himself as Peter’s successor, and claiming to be the bishop of bishops in the church and therefore due implicit obedience to his judgments. This demand, and the interpretation of Scripture upon which it was based, were soundly and unanimously repudiated by the bishops.”

- William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pp.59-60.

The Spanish Bishops, the Pope, and Cyprian

William Webster gives us the history behind this one:

“In the middle of the third century Cyprian wrote a letter (254 A.D.) to the bishops of the Spanish Church. They had deposed two unworthy bishops who had subsequently appealed to the bishop of Rome. He then reversed the judgment and demanded that the individuals be reinstated. Cyprian openly defied the bishop of Rome’s ruling by advising the Spanish bishops to disregard this order and adhere to their original decision.”

-William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), p.59.

Roman Catholicism Index

Click here for Part 2

Eternal Life

Early Church

Contradictions to

Papal Primacy

(Part 1)