Early Church Contradictions to Papal Primacy 2

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

North Africans vs. Pope Zosimus

Again, William Webster:

“A presbyter called Apiarius had been deposed by a bishop who was a friend of Augustine. Apiarius appealed to Rome over the authority of the North African Church to seek a reversal of their decision. Zosimus sided with Apiarius and judged that he should be reinstated. But the North African resolutely refused to submit to the decision of the bishop ofRome. Zosimus appealed to the canons of the Sardican Synod of 342 A.D. as the basis for his authority, mistakenly thinking they were part of the canons of Nicea…When it was finally determined that they were not from Nicea, the North Africans rejected these canons as giving the bishop of Rome any authority to interfere in the sphere of their jurisdiction. Significantly, in 424 A.D. at a synod at Carthage, the Church then passed a number of decrees forbidding all appeals in Church controversies to other sees apart from their own, especially the See of Rome.”

-William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), p.58.

The Council of Chalcedon vs. Pope Leo I

At the Council of Chalcedon, the fourth ecumenical council, a canon was proposed that would make the bishop of Constantinople on a near equal footing with that of the Pope of Rome. The 28^th canon of the council read in part:

“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 (isa presbeia) 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…”

-The Council of Chalcedon, Canon XXVIII

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-105.htm#P4958_1022711

First, it should be noted that the only reason that the See of Rome was given the highest honor was because it was the capital city, not because of any alleged Petrine Primacy. Because of the impending fall of the Western Roman Empire, the bishop of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, Constantinople, was elevated to nearly the same level in honor as that of the Pope. However, Pope Leo I opposed this canon with all of his authority:

“But the bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicaea in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter's authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.” (emphasis mine)

-Leo I, Letters of Pope Leo I, Letter CV.3

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-105.htm#P1873_438004

In spite of the Pope’s attempts to annul the 28^th canon, the church ignored Leo, accepted the 28^th canon, and made Constantinople an apostolic see (i.e. a Patriarchate). Leo even admits this in one of his letters (Letter CXVI).

Pope Gregory the Great and the Denial of Primacy

After the Western Empire had fallen, in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, claimed the title of Universal Bishop now that he was the bishop of the capital of the East. William Webster comments:

“…Gregory [the Great] attacked John for claiming for himself the title of Universal Bishop of the entire Church because Constantinople was the capital city of the present empire. His anger was not because the prerogatives which supposedly belonged exclusively to Rome were being stolen by an imposter, but because, according to Gregory, such a title was an innovation, an expression of diabolical pride which promoted disunity and should have no place in the Church. Gregory repudiated the idea that any bishop could be the supreme ruler in the Church, and explicitly stated that all the present bishops were equal.”

-William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), p.61.

Gregory considered the title, Universal Bishop, a title that later popes have taken upon themselves, to be a precursor of Antichrist (emphasis mine):

“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.”

-Gregory I, Register of the Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book 7, Epistle 33

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-234.htm#P6254_2176652

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

Despite all of this, Roman Catholic apologists continue in their a-contextual citations of the early fathers. One misrepresentation that stands out is the use of Augustine’s Sermon 131. Many Roman Catholics quote Augustine saying, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” However, Augustine never said that. Here is what Augustine really said:

“…for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts [reports] have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.”

-Augustine, Sermon 131.10

In context, Augustine is giving a sermon on John 6 that responds to the claims of Pelagianism. James White comments:

“The topic is not the bishop of Rome nor the authority of Rome. It is obvious, beyond question, that Augustine’s point is that Pelagianism is a refuted error. It is not refuted because the bishop of Rome has refuted it. It is refuted because it is opposed to Scripture. Two councils have concluded this, and the bishop of Rome has agreed. From Augustine’s position, the error has been exposed and refuted. If only those who are in error would come to know the truth! Augustine exhorts his hearers to teach the gainsayers, and pray that they may be dissuaded from their errors.”

-James White, http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html

As noted many times before, passages like this are frequently misused by Roman apologists. William Webster has done a fine job of documenting this:

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

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

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/webster/

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/99.htm (Jan. 30, Feb. 6)

Some helpful online reading can be found here:

http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html

http://aomin.org/Whitewash1.html

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/nopapacy.htm

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials.htm