Papacy1 Debate


A Debate between

Joe Gallegos(Catholic layman)

&

James White(Director of Alpha/Omega Ministries)

On the Papacy and the ancient Church

This written debate took place on a BBS echo during June of 1995


The Beginning

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Phil Porvaznik wrote:
For a complete historical debate on the Papacy get the file called PAPACY.ZIP from Joe Gallegos' BBS CorUnum. Also get FATHERS.ZIP which deals with how the Church Fathers understood Scripture.

JW:
You've been crushed on your use of those Protestant scholars half a dozen times at least, Phil. When are you going to develop a conscience?

JG:
Now there's a non-bias opinion...There's not a single debate that I know of in which James claims he has lost...

JW:
As to Joe Gallegos, hmm, you sure have been quiet on my recent dismantling of his position right here in Open Bible.

JG:
Hardly a dismantling...I thought my posts survived quite well. Nevertheless if your looking for someone who has been quiet you only look no further than yourself James. I've been waiting for a response from you on Fathers.zip for over 2 years now. Likewise, if your looking for a dismantling I refer you to Fathers.zip where I throttled/destroyed your novel thesis that the Church Fathers embraced 'sola scriptura'!

In Christ Jesus
Joe


Rhetoric

JG:
James:GodSpeed
I am not easily deflected James. In your attempt to downplay my last set of replies(as is your style) you provided a message to 'all' filled with rhetoric and little substance. You are simply not satisfied if the replies are short(such is the case when I delete your rhetoric) or long(when I maintain all of your replies)...I believe the real reason you are bothered is that I refuted you. Hence I will excise portions of your reply in order to keep the dialogue focused/terse otherwise I would end up filling the echos with another book in replying to your red-herrings and rhetoric.

Well, as with all your rebuttals in the past you simply did not answer the difficulties directly rather you put forth other issues not related to the exaggerations I brought up or you filled your rebuttals with rhetoric or strawmen arguments...Let me remind you James the exaggerations I brought up..


Introduction

a)Good possibility Peter not in Rome at all
b)Augustine equates Christ as the Rock to downplay the papacy
c)Matt 16 not used by Fathers in reference to Peter's successors
d)Nicea/Alexandria defended the Nicene faith and not Rome
e)Chalcedonian Church had no recognition of Leo's primacy

I simply did not address the areas of your rebuttal I considered not germane to the above 5 points.

As with many doctrines of the Catholic faith the 'papacy' is a doctrine that has developed...hence like the doctrines of the NT canon or doctrines of the Incarnation the testimonies found in antiquity prior to the doctrines definition range from partial indications, apparent contradictions, clear/broad witness from a particular Father, to no witness from a particular Father etc...However when we look at the entire witness of the Church prior to definition we see broad and clear witness in the support of the papacy.

Beginning with the first item you simply danced around the subject simply by pasting the paragraphs prior and after my 1 sentence quote from your book as if to resurrect your 'hair-brained' claim from the dead. Then you followed it with a quote from Vatican I not even related to the exaggeration. Now are you going address it or NOT! How in the world(ie. the real world) can you claim the there is a GOOD possibility that Peter never went to Rome at all. If your going to stand on Gal 2:7 for your support that there is a GOOD possibility that Peter NEVER went to Rome then your standing on mush!

The best Gal 2:7 can do for you is simply support the fact that Peter went to Babylon...but where in the world do you get the idea that Peter NEVER went to Rome? Where does Gal 2:7 exclude the possibility that Peter went to Rome in the face of the legion of post-apostolic testimonies in support of Peter's stay and martyrdom in Rome!

JG:
Regarding James White...he is so blinded by his zeal to refute the Catholic faith that he makes such hair-brained claims as:
'In fact, there is good possibility that Peter did not go to Rome at all.'
Answers to CC, pg 103...

JW:
"Another aspect of the Roman claims deals with Peter's supposed presence in Rome. According to the Papal claims, Peter was the bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence for this from the writings of early fathers, but surprisingly little from the Biblical text itself. If Peter was in Rome, it wasn't for long, that is for certain. He surely did not found the church there, and it was obviously well established and growing before he would have gotten there.

etc.

In fact, there is a good possibility that Peter did not go to Rome at all. Despite all the traditions associated with Rome, Peter indicates that he is writing his first epistle from Babylon. Many have identified this as simply a symbolic way of indicating Rome, but it might not be. Given that Galatians 2:7-8 indicates that Peter felt he was sent primarily to the "circumcision," that is, to the Jews, and the fact that there was a large Jewish population in Babylon itself, Peter may have gone there rather than to Rome, and the testimony of 1 Peter 5:13 could be taken literally."
(_Answers to Catholic Claims_, pp. 103-104)
Well, now, we can understand, Joe, why you wouldn't want to put my comments *in context,* since, when you see all I wrote you wouldn't be able to use such pejoratives as "hair-brained" and "blinded by his anti-Catholic zeal." Possibly, Joe, the reason that so many folks have told me that they have recognized your dishonesty is because YOU are blinded by your PRO-Catholic zeal? Ever considered that?

JG:
James you have already supplied this context in your previous answers but like the rebuttals before they fall completely short of the mark. How are you going to resurrect the claim that:
'In fact, there is a GOOD possibility that Peter did not go to Rome at all.'
ACC pg 103

When in the real world James we know:
'...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack
Harnack is calling you a blind-man!

JW:
At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Catholic Church are the perverse

etc..

JG:
A deflection! Simply defend your claim that Peter never went to Rome!

Even 'critics' of the Catholic faith affirm the obvious...Additionally, I submit a few non-Catholic historians...

JW:
You then, on the basis of a single sentence, isolated from the context, ignoring the fact that I stated more than once the traditional evidence of Peter's presence in Rome, ignoring my refutations of you in the past,

JG:
I see you didn't reconcile your laughable view of Peter not in Rome with Protestant historians and critics(the ones you deleted-but that's ok since I will be deleting much of your rhetorical/red-herring rebuttals) of the Catholic faith.

James we've been through this before and it is surprising to me that you answer the same way as the last time. That is you merely quoted yourself by supplying the rest of page 103/104 from your work in the hopes that it would resurrect your claim that Peter was never in Rome. As we all can read the context before and after the passage simply doesn't help you. All that you said is that you admit there is traditional evidence for Peter presence in Rome AND in the same breath say there is a good possibility that Peter never went to Rome. Now the historians in the room are laughing even louder! IOW you have ignored the overwhelming traditional consensus for Peter's presence in Rome in exchange for your 'hair-brained' claim. How can anyone even think you are providing a balanced view of the papacy.

Now why in the world would James White(a critic of the Catholic Church) claim that there is a good possibility that Peter never went to Rome when the facts post-Apostolic times are totally against him and the NT doesn't rule out Peter's presence in Rome? Does James have some scholarly reasons to support this 'hair-brained' theory or is it just his anti-Catholic zeal that prevents him from admitting a simple fact of history. A fact which papal critic G. Salmon writes:
"If this evidence for Peter's martyrdom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibility of the Church" pg 348-9
Again I list non-Catholic historians and critics of the Catholic faith(such as Salmon and Gore)...
"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim."
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" pg 348-9

"If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
ibid pg 349

'...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack

'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents'
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" pg 114

'That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain...'
F.F. Bruce "NT History" pg 410

'It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome' JND Kelly "The Oxford Dict. of Popes" pg 6

'The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism.'
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", pg 36

'...and quite certain that he[Peter] died there[Rome] a martyr's death in the persecution under Nero(about AD 65).'
Bishop Gore, Roman Catholic Claims, pg 93,94
Answer the questions directly...

Was Peter ever in Rome?(If not why?)

Where did Peter die?(If you don't know the answer -- where do you think he died?)

In Christ Jesus
Joe


St. Augustine & Matthew Chapter 16

JG:
James:GodSpeed

Now just to show you a couple of glaring exaggerations by Mr. White in his effort to show you a balanced view of the Fathers and the primacy o the Bishop of Rome...

....Example 1

JW:
Woops, now, William, let's hope you are using your sources well. Ev knows that Augustine interpreted Matthew 16 as referring to Christ. read his Retractiones?

JG:
Oh boy...Old myths die very hard...

However, if one examines the entire writings of St. Augustine we find him equating the:

A)Rock with Peter's successors
"Why! a faggot that is cut off from the vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape, if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the =priests even from the seat of Peter=. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: THAT IS THE ROCK which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly"
Psalmus contra Pertem Donati
JW:
Excuse me, Joe, but you are being dishonest again. You called my citation of Augustine an "old myth." Yet, you studiously avoid dealing *with the citation I gave.* That's dishonest, Joe. What did Augustine say in his Retractiones? Can you tell us? Is it an "old myth" that he identified Christ as the Rock, or is that just an old TRUTH that you WISH was a myth?

JG:
You missed the thrust of the exaggeration James. Your exaggeration of Augustine takes either one of two directions. As in your book 'Answers to Catholic Claims' you either infer that Augustine equated the Rock with Christ without providing any sense of balance by indicating that Augustine was not uniform in his interpretation of Matt 16 OR your exaggeration consists in showing that Augustine was not uniform in his interpretation of Matt 16 and therefore imply that Augustine had no clear understanding of Rome's primacy.

The first exaggeration can be demolished by papal critic Salmon:
'I ought to tell you, however that St. Augustine is not perfectly uniform in his intepretation.'
Salmon, Infallibility of the Church
This exaggeration is clear in your writings such as we find in your book(Answers to Catholic Claims). It is clear that Augustine equated Peter himself with the Rock, Christ himself as the Rock, Peter's faith as the rock, and Peter' successors with the Rock. Let's be honest and forthright about Augustine and Matt 16 next time James. I hope you add that to any upcoming revisions to your book and that you provide the balance every time you bring up Matt 16 and St. Augustine..

The second exaggeration can be demolished simply by examining the other writings of the St. Augustine. IOW, despite St. Augustine's non-uniform interpretation of Matt 16 he nevertheless affirmed Rome's primacy.

In sum, let's not make the inference or the implication that Augustine only equated the Rock with Christ or that his non-uniform understanding of Matt 16:18 somehow down plays Augustine's overall faith regarding Peter and His successors in Rome since we know from the rest of his writing Augustine speaks clearly on the primacy and authority of Rome.

JW:
I know, I know, you don't like giving contexts. It's a real bummer. It's sort of like when you cited the Arians as if it was Athanasius speaking, all to attempt to find some way to turn Athanasius into a Roman Catholic.

JG:
Boy you are still smarting(similar to the Phoenix Suns after the Houston series) from the 'throttling' you rec'd years back when I clearly demonstrated to you that Athanasius(and the rest of the Fathers) denied sola Scriptura and embraced Scripture, Tradition and Church as his rule of faith!

JW:
Your history of such misuse and misrepresentation of the Fathers is a VERY long one, Joe.

JG:
Actually the debates speak for themselves James. It is you who has long misrepresented the faith of the Fathers. After all Protestant's appeal to the early Church Fathers and to the Church of antiquity has been abandoned by most intelligent critics--hence sola scriptura! IOW if the testimony of the early Church affirmed 'sola scriptura' Protestants wouldn't have delayed in trumpeting this fact...The fact is this-those Churches that embrace the faith of the early Fathers and the early Church consider the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' as heretical.

JW:
Rather than your partial quotes, how about these words found in John Rotelle, ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine_ (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), _Sermons_, Volume 6, Sermon 229P.1., p. 327:
"Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built His Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? `You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer."
JG:
And so how does this undermine Augustine's faith regarding Peter's primacy and his successors. We can sling passages from Augustine back and forth if you wish James but this is hardly to the point. Remember the exaggeration is one of inferring that Augustine either equated only Christ with the Rock and therefore wrongly infer that Augustine had no developed ecclesiology on the primacy/authority of Rome 'or' down played Augustine's view on Peter's primacy and his successors by showing that he interpreted Matt 16:18 in various ways.

This is one of your pet peeves in trying to represent the faith of a Father. You provide a passage bite from Augustine here or there without looking at the entire faith of the same Father...It is clear that St. Augustine interpretation was not uniform on Matt 16(as you fail to affirm in your book) but when we look at the other writings of Augustine it is clear that he affirms the primacy/authority of St. Peter and his successors.

Again JND Kelly destroys your understanding of Augustine...

JW:
simply regurgitating the zillions of posts you threw out two years ago, and that without even taking the time to check them for accuracy? Oh my, that's a shame.

JG:
Actually you played the same old error as I simply provided the same old antidote.

Next time you try to downplay Augustine's view on the papacy by providing a passage that has Augustine equating this Rock with Christ at least be honest enough to your readers(as you failed in your book) to tell them that Augustine interpretation of Matt 16 was simply not uniform 'or' that even though he was all over the map on this passage he affirmed the primacy of Peter and his successors in his other writings as JND Kelly makes quite clear.

JW:
In fact, I have asked the audience [paraphrasing] "Now, if Augustine believed Matthew 16 to contain the very charter of the Church in its establishment of the Papacy, why in the world would he say that it is a matter of *freedom* as to how one interprets the passage?" Since none of my opponents have bothered to even begin to answer that question, Joe, how about YOU?

JG:
This is one of the major strawman caricatures that Protestant apologists(such as Salmon) put forth...Pinchbeck Salmons like yourself inherits the same error from Salmon that we should see a Vatican I Papacy in all of its glory being expressed by the Church of antiquity. IOW if Catholicism is true we ought to see the Papacy functioning according to the Vatican I definition and its authority recognized unmistakably in antiquity as it is now. This could hardly be said of the Fathers of the first couple of centuries regarding the cardinal doctrines of the Incarnation hammered out at Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon etc...Hence the doctrine of the papacy(as is the case with other doctrines of the Catholic Church) is dominated by the idea of development!

James no Catholic apologist I know has said that St. Augustine interpreted Matt 16:18 as the charter text in affirming the primacy of the Papacy. Augustine affirmed Rome's primacy in his writings in other ways. Many of the early Fathers based their understanding of Rome's primacy not so much on Matt 16(as St. Augustine does apply it to Rome) but on the fact of it's eminent foundation of Peter and Paul, Peter's primacy in the Bible, Rome's pre-eminent faith, and its recognition given to it by Councils and Christian consent. For example:
'Peter...on account of the PRIMACY which he bore among the disciples'
Enarratio in Psalmum cviii

'It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments and with its centre at Rome'
JND Kelly ECD pg 413

JW:
Anyway, if you were to be honest, you would have to admit the following things:

1) You confuse "primacy of the bishop of Rome" with "Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its heirarchy and sacraments and with its centre at Rome." The two do not mean the same things, though you seem to wish us to believe they do.

JG:
Hmmm Ep xliii refutes this by itself.

JW:
2) You ignore the rest of what Kelly said, especially the sections where he discussed Augustine's view of the unity of the Church. Please tell William upon what basis Augustine understands the unity of the Church, and if it is, in fact, in the person of the bishop of Rome, or if Kelly says its something else (pp. 413-416).

JG:
We are dealing only with Augustine here and JND Kelly said
'with its centre in ROME'
Sounds very Catholic to me and therefore very anti-White to me!

JW:
3) You also ignore Kelly's notes on the *specific* topic that you allegedly are addressing, which begin on page 417 under the subtitle, "The West and the Roman Primacy." That's the section where he notes that Hilary's views on Peter seemed to have no connection at all with the Roman bishop (a point I've made myself a number of times in debates).

JG:
We are discussing Augustine not Hilary...

JW:
He discusses Augustine on page 419, and if you wanted to honestly represent Kelly's words, here is where you should have come.

JG:
Finally back to Augustine.

JW:
Here you have both the acknowledgement of Augustine's high view of the "principatus" of the apostolic chair in Rome, but you also have the following:

JG:
James do you acknowledge as much as JND Kelly does regarding the primacy of the chair in Rome(or are you going to ignore all the history of Augustine as you did for Peter's presence/martyrdom)?

JW:
"At the same time there is no evidence that he was prepared to ascribe to the bishop of Rome, in his capacity as successor of St. Peter, a sovereign and infallible doctrinal magisterium.

etc...

JG:
Again you put forth the strawman caricature...trying to foist the charge that Catholics claim that a Vatican I papacy exists in all of its glory in the early Church. I never said St. Augustine expressed a Vatican I primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless Augustine did affirm many aspects of the papacy--such as the primacy and authority of Peter, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the doctrinal authority of Rome, Bishop of Rome center of Christian unity, etc...

JW:
And note well the following statement, so conspicuous by your forgetting to include it:

"The truth is that the doctrine of the Roman primacy played only a minor role in his ecclesiology, as also in his personal religious thinking."

JG:
Since you feel that Peter may never have been in Rome despite the mountain of testimony against you then I equate your use of 'minor' as meaning 'major'. I am merely showing how Protestant historians such as JND Kelly at least admits at various degrees to the primacy of Peter and His successors. Now if JND Kelly admits this much why not yourself? Could it be the same anti-Catholic zeal which blinds you to deny Peter's presence/martyrdom in Rome?

In one fell swoop St. Augustine/JND Kelly condemns Mr. White's ecclesiology and soteriology....

JW:
What a hoot! You may have some folks convinced that you are a real scholar and student of the Fathers, Joe, but here's one fellow who is on to you.

JG:
It is I who has exposed your pick and choose appeal to the Church Fathers to buttress such novel doctrines as Sola Scriptura. We will see if you agree or disagree with JND Kelly understanding that Augustine held that:

a)'Catholic Church of his day...with its CENTRE at Rome'

b)'Optatus...proceeds to explain, that the episcopal commission was first and uniquely conferred upon St. Peter,
pg 418

c) and that the other apostles and their successors participate equally in the selfsame commission. In this way the possibility of there being several 'chairs', with the DISUNITY which would inevitably result, was effectively RULED out.' pg 419

d)'For Optatus...communion with the See of Peter was a vital necessity...AUGUSTINE's attitude was not dissimilar.'


Or are you simply going to espouse only those things in JND Kelly that down plays the papacy and therefore not provide a balanced view of Augustine?
'I ought to tell you, however that St. Augustine is not perfectly uniform in his interpretation.'
Infallibility of the Church, pg 335,336


JW:
And, of course, we have more dishonesty from you, Joe, since I've never said anything else. And what is worse, if you had paid even the slightest attention to my debate against Gerry Matatics, you would well know that I CITED Salmon on the VERY SAME SUBJECT from page *337* in these words:

JG:
Then WHY for example in your book when discussing Matt 16 and St. Augustine did you ONLY provide ONE(1) single passage from Augustine where he equated Peter's profession of faith with the Rock and not mention the fact that Augustine equated this rock with Peter himself or applied Matt 16:18 to Peter's successors? Let's be honest James you were misrepresenting Augustine's faith of Matt 16...

Then goes on to say that St. Augustine also equated Peter with the Rock elsewhere...Perhaps James should take a page from a critic of the Catholic faith G. Salmon.

JW:
Perhaps you should learn to try a little honesty sometime in your representations of others, Joe.

JG:
I'm still looking in your book 'Answers to Catholic Claims' where you discuss St. Augustine and his understanding of Matt 16 for such things as:
'Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail'
Ps C. partes Don 18

'I ought to tell you, however that St. Augustine is not perfectly uniform in his intepretation.'
Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, pg 335,336

But alas I only find one passage in your book from Augustine where he equates Peter's faith with this rock. Well so much for getting balance from James White, which is understandable since he rejects the legion of history from the Fathers regarding Peter's presence and martrydom in Rome.

In Christ Jesus
Joe

....Example 2

JW:
Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as P successors.

JG:
Where did James get this beauty(just another parrot of William Webster al la J. Dollinger)?

JW:
Ah, if you can't come up with anything meaningful, just cut and paste! You took the preceding DIRECTLY from my citation of von Dollinger, and you know it, Joe!

JG:
James let's be honest here. I am probably one of the few people who is intimately familiar with your arguments critical of the papacy for the past number of years. Now in your recent replies to various people on the net I have noticed some new arguments all of sudden and it is no surprise to find that William Webster, a personal friend of yours, in his own writings offers the same arguments such as his use of Dollinger and Catholic patrologist Robert Eno...Interesting how this exact quote from beginning to end is found in your good friend Webster's article in the anthology 'Roman Catholicism' (pg 279) published 1994 and NOW included in your most recent reply ...

JW:
Oh, btw, what you call "parroting" is what most other folks, in civil and scholarly circles, call "quoting." And since I set it of by quotes, and gave the source, isolating it just so you can throw an insult at me is the height of insolence.

Let the readers decide James...

JG:
Now it is true that many of the great Fathers East/West do no make reference to the successors of the Bishop of Rome when dealing wit Matt 16; they simply speak of Peter's primacy. Why on earth should they do more?

JW:
Oh, the fact that Vatican I says that this passage has always been understood this way, the fact that you can find all sorts of Fathers who obviously DIDN'T see the bishop of Rome as the sole successor of Peter, the fact that Cyprian directly STATES this...all sorts of little troublesome things like that may have something to do with it, Joe.

JG:
A strawman caricature of Vatican I. The words such as 'in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church' are simply to be understood in the same light in which they are true of every teaching of the Catholic faith such as the NT canon or the Trinity! IOW this saying is to be understood within the context of development of doctrines.

Typically it is the Bishops of Rome that repair to Matt 16 as justification for their own jurisdiction. IOW it was correct for them to appeal to spiritual authority when defending their authority.

Oops--the price of parroting!

JW:
Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peters successors.

JG:
James even many Catholic commentaries 'today' simply speak of Peter's primacy without mentioning the extension to Peter's successors. Hence, your use of Dollinger is simply off the mark...
'For, if the order of the SUCCESSION of bishops is to be considered, ho much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'(Matt 16:18). For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement...to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Sircius, to Sircius Anastasius'
St. Augustine, Epis 53

JW:
A very nice quotation, but would you mind explaining its relevance? We've seen you engage in the most obvious misrepresentation, selective citation, and even editing of my own posts (isolating von Dollinger from the quotation of him), so it's pretty hard to take any citation as having any particular value simply on your *word,* Joe.

JG:
Nice deflection indeed. A clear refutation of your charge below al la Webster/Dollinger that:

JW:
Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peters successors.

JG:
'For, if the order of the SUCCESSION of bishops is to be considered, ho much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'(Matt 16:18). For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement...to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Sircius, to Sircius Anastasius'
St. Augustine, Epis 53

James simply admit you made a blunder...

In Christ Jesus
Joe


Innocent has Spoken

JG:
James:GodSpeed
....Example 3

JW:
One of the most often cited passages from an early Father that allegedly shows a Roman primacy is the saying of Augustine from Sermon 131, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed." I have seen this phrase used over and over again, without context, as evidence that Augustine held a modern Roman Catholic view of Papal primacy. Yet, as Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno notes,

Excuse me? You wouldn't want to substantiate that statement, would you? I am referring to the common *misuse* of the *miscitation* from Sermon 131. And again, you have to misrepresent me and go off into some other aspect just to get around what I'm actually saying. Like I've said, I've gotten used to your tactics over the years, Joe.

JG:
James your exaggeration is quite simple. You are simply downplaying the force of Sermon 131 by saying that Augustine never affirmed a modern day Papacy...No Catholic apologist I know has said this James. Again I am familiar with your strawman tactics of years past including the strawman caricature that a Vatican I definition of the papacy should be seen/recognize from the early Church in all of its glory from day 1.

You surprisingly seize on such things as his Retractations/Matt 16 or on the fact that 'Rome has spoken case is closed' is actually a paradigm to infer that St. Augustine had no firm theology or clear thought on Peter's primacy or his role in the Church or the role of the successors of Peter or the role of the Church of Rome...Augustine affirmed many aspects/elements of the primacy of the papacy such as the fact that Peter's authority lives on in the Church of Rome:
'in which the authority of the apostolic office has always stood fast'
Epis 43:7


OR recognized the authoritative and pre-eminent teaching of the Bishop of Rome(Ep 177,see below)

OR the fact that he considered union with the Bishop of Rome as essential to membership in the Catholic Church:
'In this order of succession[ie the successors of Peter] no Donatist bishop is found. But unexpectedly, they sent from Africa an ordained man, who, presiding over a few Africans in Rome, propagated the title of Mountain Men or Cutzpits.'
Ep 53


I would simply refer you to my rebuttal of this charge in papacy.zip.

JW:
Oh, now THERE's a solid, scholarly response! Yes indeed, "I cite me!" An unpublished, untrained layperson who has a zip file is supposed to be sufficient evidence, Joe? Oh my!

JG:
Simply a dodge par-excellence on your part James...

all know that the phrase 'Rome has spoken the case is closed' is a paradigm of Sermon 131...

JW:
We do? Every Roman Catholic person who cites this passage knows this is a *paraphrase* of sermon 131, not an actual citation? I first saw it years ago as a tagline from Mr. Scott Windsor of Prescott, AZ. *He* didn't know that, Joe.

JG:
No greater an error than you writing that Tertullian's 'Modesty' was the first time anyone equated the Rock with Peter. It wasn't until I pointed out your error that Tertullian preceded the Rock/Peter equation in 'Modesty' with 'De Praescriptione' by 20 years or so...In fact, Scott Windsor's anomaly wasn't a complete error as the quote is in reality a paradigm of the thoughts of Augustine on Rome's authority/primacy prior to Sermon 131...

JW:
Would you mind telling us all how *everyone* is to know that? How many folks do you know what access to the entire text of Sermon 131?

JG:
No need...'Rome is spoken case is closed' does just find in encapsulating the thoughts of Augustine...If wish to find a real error simply look at Luther's insertion of the word in the sacred text to bolster his novel idea of faith alone or your wild-haired claim that there is a good possibility that Peter may never have been in Rome at all.

The point that should be examined is this: Doe the paradigm reflect St. Augustine's faith and Sermon 131...I simply refer to the Protestant translation of the Fathers which Mr. White is using. They write regarding the paradigm 'Rome has spoken case is closed':
'But it is not found in this form, though we may ADMIT that it is an epigrammatic condensation of sentences of Augustin.'
NPNF Series 1 Vol 1, pg 21


JW:
Doesn't that look impressive, especially with that "ADMIT" there? I mean, surely you wouldn't be misrepresenting a source so easily available to everyone, would you?

JG:
Alas how are you going to refute this passage in NPNF?...Perhaps with a misdirection with such words as 'especially with that "ADMIT"' rather than addressing the statement in the NPNF directly! How did the Protestant editors(w/ no Catholic bias) come to the opinion that "Rome has spoken case is closed' is an epigrammatic condensation of the sentences of Augustine?

JW:
Alas and alack, it seems an incurable disease. Beginning on page 20 Schaff is discussing Augustine and his beliefs. The text says,
"The predicate of infallibility alone he does not plainly bring forward; he assumes a progressive correction of earlier councils by later; and in the Pelagian controversy he asserts the same independence towards pope Zosimus, which Cyprian before him had shown towards pope Stephen in the controversy on heretical baptism, with the advantage of having the right on his side, so that Zosimus found himself compelled to yield to the African church. But after the condemnation of the Pelagian errors by the Roman see (418), he declared that `the case is finished, if only the error were also finished.'"


JG:
And what does this have to do with Augustine's faith leading up to Sermon 131?

James you simply dodged the quote from the NPNF...
'But it is not found in this form, though we may ADMIT that it is an epigrammatic condensation of sentences of Augustin.'
NPNF Series 1 Vol 1, pg 21

Perhaps you can interpret for us all what was meant by these words!

JW:
I can understand why you wouldn't want to note the complete stand-down of Zosimus in the face of African opposition, nor this Pope's theological turn-around, Joe. But it is at this point that the footnote you cited is found, and, of course, taken in context, it shows for all to see how silly it was to capitalize "admit" as if that meant something:

JG:
Another deflection James...we are dealing with the fact of 'Rome has spoken case is closed', Sermon 131 and the faith of Augustine leading up to Sermon 131...

JW:
"Hence the famous word: `Roma locuta est, causa finita est,' which is often quoted as an argument for the modern Vatican dogma of papal infallibility. But it is not foun in this form, though we may admit it is an epigrammatic condensation of sentences of Augustin. The nearest approach to it is in his Sermo CXXXI (citation given)."


JG:
Thank you James...Now explain for all us what the note means. It is obvious for the writers of the NPNF admit(in contrast to you) that the words 'Rome has spoken case is close' is a paradigm of the writings of Augustine...

JW:
So, having taken the time to cite the full source yet once again, we see that you have provided us with no "example 3" at all outside of your own citation of----YOURSELF! Care to try that again, Joe?

JG:
We await your understanding of the NPNF quote ...

I don't want to fill the echos with a summary of St. Augustine, Pelagianism and Pope Innocent hence I will note a couple of points here. See papacy.zip for more details.

Nevertheless the African Church held a couple of Councils in order to deal with the Pelagian heresy. Each of these Councils thought it necessary to write to the Pope asking him for his confirmation regarding their condemnation of Pelagianism.
'This act, Lord brother, we thought right to intimate to your holy charity, in order that to the statutes of our littleness might be added the authority of the Apostolic See for the preservation of the safety of many, and the correction of the perversity of some.'
Ep 175


The African synod at Milevus did the same thing(see Ep 176). St. Augustine and some of his fellow bishops did likewise:
'For we do not pour back our little stream for the purpose of replenishing your great fountain but in the great temptation of these times...we wish it to be approved by you whether our stream, though small, flows from the same head of water as your abundant river, and to be consoled by your answer in the common participation of the same grace.'
Ep 177


Pope Innocent responds with several letters to Africa...here is one of them to Carthage...
'In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops, and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council, preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient tradition, and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigour of our religion, no less now in consulting US than before passing sentence. For you decided that it was PROPER to REFER to OUR JUDGEMENT, knowing what is DUE to the APOSTOLIC SEE, since all we who are set in THIS place, desire to follow the Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of his name is derived. Following in his steps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good. So also, you have by your sacerdotal office preserved the customs of the Fathers, and have not spurned that which they decreed by a divine and not human sentence, that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ENDED WITHOUT BEING BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS SEE, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it ALL OTHER Churches(like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one INCORRUPT HEAD), should receive what they ought to enjoin, whom they ought to wash, and whom that water, worthy of pure bodies, should avoid as defiled with uncleansable filth. I congratulate you, therefore, dearest brethren, that you have directed letters to US by our brother and fellow-bishop Julius, and that, while caring for the Churches which you rule, you also show your solicitude for the well-being of ALL, and that you ask for a DECREE that shall profit ALL the Churches of the WORLD AT ONCE.'
Pope Innocent(a rescript) to the African Bishops,Ep 181

See also Ep 182(Pope Innocent to Synod at Milevus) and Ep183(Pope Innocent to the 5 bishops of Africa)...

Precisely the answer the African bishops wished for. Either the African bishops here affirmed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in matters of doctrine or they were simply hypocritical...

In response St. Augustine summarizes his thoughts on Rome's primacy, the Pelagian heresy and his thoughts on the tremendous claims of Pope Innocents letters/replies.
'And the words of the VENERABLE BISHOP INNOCENT to the Council of Carthage...What MORE PLAIN AND CLEAR THAN THIS SENTENCE OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE?'
C. Julian 2:4:6,7

'To all of these letters he answered in the manner which was right and the duty of the bishop of the Apostolic See'
Ep 186

'when he answered that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, BY WHICH ALL DOUBT ABOUT THIS MATTER WAS REMOVED.'
C. Julian 2:3:5


Even at the end of St. Augustine life his thoughts on the Pelagian episode and Rome prior to Sermon 131 had not changed.
'Let blessed Innocent also reply, the prelate of the Roman Church, who in answering the African Episcopal Councils...Do you see what the catholic faith holds by her minister?'
Op. Imperf. 6:11

May we allow St. Augustine to speak once more:
'Do you think these Fathers, viz. Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Hilary, Ambrose are to be despised because they all belong to the Western Church, and I have mentioned no Eastern Bishop among them? What are we to do, since they are Greeks and we are Latins? I think that you ought to be satisfied with that part of the world in which our Lord willed to CROWN THE CHIEF of His Apostles with glorious martyrdom. If you had been willing to hear BLESSED INNOCENT, the president of that Church, you would have long ago disengaged your perilous youth from the nets of the Pelagians. For what could that holy man answer TO the African Councils, except what from of old the APOSTOLIC SEE and the ROMAN CHURCH with all others preservingly hold?...See what you can reply to St. Innocent, who has no other view than have those into whose council I have introduced you; with these he sits also, though after them in time, BEFORE THEM IN RANK...answer him, OR RATHER answer our Lord himself, whose words he alleges...What will you say? what can you answer? for if you should call blessed Innocent a Manichean, surely you will not dare to say it of Christ?'
C. Julian 1:4:13


On September 23rd, 417 AD St. Augustine writes:
"My brethren, be of one mind with me. Wheresoever you find such men do not hide them, have no peverse pity. Refute those who contradict, and bring to us those who resist. For already two Councils have SENT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE concerning this matter, and RESCRIPTS have COME FROM THENCE. THE CASE IS CONCLUDED; would that error would soon cease also'
Serm 131:10


It is crystal clear that for St. Augustine there was no substantive difference between 'Rome has spoken case is closed' and Sermon 131:10. 'Rescripts have come from thence' is Rome has spoken....'The case is concluded' is the same as the second part of the paradigm...IOW for St. Augustine the doctrinal question was closed since Pope Innocent had written definitively on the matter of Pelagianism.

In Christ Jesus
Joe


Rome and Arianism

JG:
James:GodSpeed
....Example 4

JW:
So far we've seen three glowing examples of misrepresentation, what shall example 4 bring us?

JG:
So far what we have seen are a number of your classic White-isms in either 1)avoiding answering the exaggerations directly or 2)by foisting the classic strawman of claiming that a Vatican I papacy should be expressed in all of its facets in the early Church by all when we all know the papacy is a doctrine(like the doctrines of the Incarnation, NT etc.) that has developed...

Your claim below...

JW:
it was not Rome that defended the Nicene faith in the years of Arian ascendancy that followed Nicea, it was Alexandria and the great Athanasius.

JG:
Not even close to expressing the truth. Again I refer you to papacy.zip for details...perhaps James forgot about Pope Julius...Nevertheless I let the Protestant historian JND Kelly destroy this myth...

JW:
Ah, I see, more self-citation! "See me for details." Sorry, that doesn't wash. Let's see if you can hack up Kelly again:

JG:
Certainly does wash! JND refutes you quite clearly...Remember you said it was NOT Rome that defended the Nicene faith post Nicea rather it was St. Athanasius/Alexandria. JND clearly affirms that Rome had a significant role in defending the faith against the Eastern Arian Heresy. Again, you speak as if Rome had no significant role in defending the Nicene post Nicea...
'The student tracing the history of the times, particularly the ARIAN(my emph), Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, CANNOT(my emph) to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fufillment of the divine plan'
JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines pg 417
JW:
Oh my, Joe strikes again! Is Kelly talking about the period of time I pointed to, specifically, the period of the Arian ascendancy after Nicea,

etc...

JG:
James your deflection is completely off the mark...You try deflect my argument merely by providing the question begging statement of 'Is Kelly talking about the period of time I pointed to' and you had the audacity of not providing a scintilla of evidence to support such a view!

JND writes clearly and concisely regarding Rome's impressive skill and persistence against such heresies as Arianism...no need to put words in JND's mouth about what period of time he may be referring to regarding the Arian crisis...He clearly writes regarding Pope Julius:
'...is CHIEFLY known for his vigorous support of Nicene orthodoxy and of its eastern champions, Athanasius of Alexandria(d. 373) and Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 376)...'
JND Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, pg 29

Hence JND Kelly continues to refute you James despite your anti-Catholic zeal which blinds you. It is clear that JND Kelly had Pope Julius(AD 337-352) in mind post-Nicea when he refers to Rome's skill and persistence during the Arian crisis...

JW:
when Athanasius was driven from his see 5 times? NO, he's not! Please, Joe, show us where, in discussing all of the Arian controversy, Kelly speaks of Rome's role in concluding the affair. Where is it, Joe? I'd

JG:
James your flinging your attack at the wrong mark...look at the top of the reply and you will find that I take issue with your remark regarding Rome's NON-role post Nicea in defending the Nicene faith..that's it...Now are you going to submit that Rome did have a role(as JND Kelly clearly affirms) regarding the defense of the Nicene faith or are you going to try to marshall some evidence that Pope Julius/Rome didn't have any significant role in defending the Nicene faith post-Nicea?

JW:
like to see some page numbers. Rome was on the "right side" during most of the Arian affair (with the exception of the brief lapse of Liberius); yet, the Arian ascendancy took place anyway. How can that be, if everyone looked to Rome for guidance? The "myth" that is being propogated here, Joe, is yours, not mine.

JG:
I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary James other than your mere assertion...

This is a common misrepresentation of Arianism and Rome. James talks as if Rome had no significant role in the 4th century and that no testimon could be drawn from the Arian episode...Again I refer you to papacy.zip which recounts the time post-Nicea and up to the Council of Sardica. However will I leave this one morsel...

JW:
In other words, "I re-cite myself." Sorry, Joe, I need a tad bit more than that, since you are up against numerous Church Historians on that one.

JG:
In other words papacy.zip refutes all your common objections. Sorry James you are well aware of my dialogue with Pedro where I clearly showed Rome's significant role in defending the Nicene faith post Nicea...

JW:
Show me a Roman bishop who had even HALF the impact on the Arian controversy that Athanasius had. Just one, Joe. That' shouldn't be too hard, should it? I mean, the universal church has ALWAYS held the belief of the Papacy, right?

JG:
James you are back peddling now...Now you are trying to deflect the force of your original exaggerration(that Rome did not defend the Nicene faith post Nicea but Athanasius did it all)by creating a new argument.

That is, you are now shifting your argument from Rome's non-role in defending the Nicene faith TO the fact that Rome didn't have half the impact as Athanasius did in defending the Nicene faith! You are adding 'degree' of impact into the equation...Not so fast...Remember your original assertion is that Rome did not defend the Nicene faith post Nicea but St. Athanasius and Alexandria did as if Rome had no role whatsoever...Are you now admitting that Rome did have some 'impact' in defending the faith despite your exaggeration above that:
James White :
'it was not Rome that defended the Nicene faith in the years of Arian ascendancy that followed Nicea, it was Alexandria and the great Athanasius'

All I have to demonstrate to you in order to rebut your exaggeration is provide testimony post-Nicea where the Pope/Rome played a significant role in defending the Nicene faith NOT if so and so Pope had as much impact as St. Athanasius...That is simply ludicrous James...Even JND Kelly affirms Pope Julius effort in defending the orthodox faith:
'...is CHIEFLY known for his vigorous support of Nicene orthodoxy and of its eastern champions, Athanasius of Alexandria(d. 373) and Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 376)...'
Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, pg 29

Even the Protestant critic T. Jalland of the Papacy affirms the significant role of Pope Julius in the Arian crisis, During his discussion of Pope Julius role during the Arian crisis he writes:
'The Roman primacy of doctrine and jurisdiction was already in the field.'
The Church and the Papacy, pg 217

JW:
That was actually 527-528, and, of course, the emphasis was your own addition. What you didn't include was:

JG:
Boy James this is not like you to nit-pick on such trifle nothings. Alas it understandable since your posts suffers miserably from any substantive reply...

JW:
Note 155 about the entire letter: "The authenticity of this letter has been sometimes questioned. See the discussion in C. J. Hefele. . . .It, like the preceding, was undoubtedly written originally in Greek. We have only the Latin translations."

JG:
This is the best reply you have for rebutting this quote? James obviously you see the clear force of this passage in affirming significant role of Pope Julius in defending the faith during the Arian crisis and a testimony to Rome's primacy...Even papal critic B.J. Kidd and T. Jalland affirms that the passage as authentic why not you James...Nevertheless Hefele includes this letter among the genuine and he discusses those letters whose authenticity are in question on pages 165ff(History_of_the_Council_of_the_Church, V2) beginning with a letter from the Synod to the Christians at Mareotis...Try again James!

Latin was the mother tongue of the West while Greek was the mother tongue of the East...around the 7th century very few were versed in the Greek whereas Latin became the dominant language. In addition, many documents we have today we only have a translation of the original and NOT the original itself...Nevertheless all you had to do is check with your volume of the NPNF Series 2 Vol 14 on the Ecumenical Councils or read in C.J. Hefele which you referred to or read in Jurgens that the acts/canons of the Council of Sardica were most likely delineated in both the Latin and Greek languages. Hence it no surprise that the letter from Sardica to Pope Julius is preserved for us in the Latin by St. Hilary while some are preserved by St. Athanasius in the Greek. Now let's deal with it! On second hand why don't you simply discount(as you did with the traditional evidence regarding Peter's presence in Rome) the fact that this letter affirms Pope Julius' primacy and simply say there is good evidence that Rome wasn't involved in the Arian crisis(like Peter was never in Rome) at all.

It is interesting to note that Pope Julius' letter(to the Eusebian faction) containing Rome's orthodoxy of the Nicene faith and of Rome's vindication of St. Athanasius has been preserved by us by St. Athanasius 'himself' as the most 'important' document of St. Athanasius defense(chapters 20-35 in Apologia Contra Arianos)!

Since St. Athanasius has preserved Pope Julius' letter he has given it his sanction. I will quote a passage of protest from Pope Julius to the Eusebian party preserved by St. Athanasius:
'Supposing, as you assert, that there was some charge against them [Athanasius & Marcellus], the case ought not to have been conducted thus, but according to ecclesiastical canon. You should have written to us all, so that justice might be determined by all. For the sufferers were bishops, and prominent churches, which the apostles themselves had governed. And why were we not written to especially about the church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom was first to write to us, and then for justice to be determined from here?'
St. Athanasius, Apologia 35
Again it is clear that the Pope had no superior bishops(even including the great See of Alexandria) and that the Council of Trye(a Council of the East) had no power to condemn bishops without appeal. Papal critic T. Jalland writes on this letter:
'For, if he had wished, he could not very well have asserted in a more equivocal fashion a primacy of jurisdiction for his see, which now emerges for the first time into the daylight of history.'
The Church and the Papacy, pg 213
In a note Jalland continues:
'It is clear from his letter(c. 35) that the Pope considered that after the Roman council had given its verdict, further discussion of the subject would be superfluous'
ibid, note 6, pg 213

In addition, there were several letters(many preserved by Athanasius himself) emanating from the Council of Sardica(written to the whole Church, to the Church at Alexandria, to the bishops of Egypt and to Pope Julius)...All of them indicate that the refusal of the Eusebian party to obey Pope Julius' summons in Rome as one of their errors...

It is infinitely clear from these few examples that your claim that Athanasius defended the Nicene faith 'and' NOT Rome has no basis in fact since St. Athanasius himself used Pope Julius/Rome for his own defense. IOW to down play, ignore or denigrate Pope Julius' efforts in defending the Nicene faith you will inevitably downplay or denigrate St. Athanasius himself!

After Nicea 'two' parties clearly emerged despite your exaggeration that St. Athanasius/Alexandria did it all and not Rome...

Despite the fact that you infer that St.Athanasius/Alexandria did it all post-Nicea and Rome did nothing in reality we have two groups emerge in the Arian crisis post-Nicea. We have Pope Julius, St. Athanasius(the champion of Orthodoxy and Nicea), and other bishops(such as Marcellus of Ancrya) VERSUS the Arian Emperor Constantius II, Eusebius, and the rest of the Arian episcopate in the East. IOW we have one party who rejected the bishops whom Pope Julius vindicated, granted communion to the heretic Arius, and in the place of the Nicene faith we have a creed where there is NO mention of the word 'homoousios'! On the other hand we have a party who embraced the Nicene faith, affirmed Pope Julius' right to over turn a previous council(such as the Council Tyre), affirmed Pope Julius' right to summon the Patriarch of Alexandria(St. Athanasius himself), and affirmed Pope Julius' right to vindicate bishops to their various Sees(such as St. Athanasius)! And you write as if the Bishop of Rome had no role in the Arian crisis post-Nicea. Which is not surprising since you believe there is a good possibility that Peter may never been in Rome at all despite the legion of post-apostolic history to the contrary! Your use of authorities James is beyond belief--why even believe Pope Julius even existed if you beleive there is a good possibility that Peter was never in Rome at all? Which side are your on James? Pope Julius/St. Athanasius or Eusebius/Arius?

I will await your evidence that Pope Julius/Rome had no significant role post-Nicea in defending/vindicating the Nicene faith...

In Christ Jesus
Joe


Leo has Spoken

JG:
James:GodSpeed

...Example 5

JW:
My second example of a common error made by Roman apologists is foun in the words of the Council of Chalcedon often quoted in Roman works "Peter has spoken through Leo!" We are told that here we have clear evidence of the belief that the early church viewed Leo as the uniqu and supreme successor of Peter. Yet, is this the case? Not at all. If we take the time to examine the issue we discover:

JG:
Wrong again James...The Council of Chalcedon in November 451 AD writes to Pope Leo:
'For if "where two or three are gathered together in His name," He has said that "there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom YOU WERE CHIEF, as the HEAD to the MEMBERS, showing your goodwill...' Chalcedon to Pope Leo, 'Repletum est Gaudio', Denzinger 149

'Peter has spoken through Leo' makes perfect sense when one examines the context in which these words were proclaimed by the bishops in the West and East.

JW:
1) Leo had written his Tome prior to the synod held in 449, but it had not caused that synod to follow Leo's position.

JG:
The synod in 449 happens to be the Robber Council(Ep 95) in Ephesus...Do you wish to align yourself with the anti-papal bishop Dioscorus and Eutchyes and a creed that embraces one nature in Christ after the Incarnation? Or embrace the side which includes Pope Leo, the pro-papal Bishop Flavian and a creed that embraces two natures after the Incarnation?

In fact, Pope Leo's Tome isn't embraced by some even to this day--simply examine the non-Chalcedonian Churches in Armenia, Egypt and Syria...

Now let me turn your attention from the events during the Council of Chalcedon to the events preceeding the Council in order to clearly show the context in which Pope Leo is introduced.

We have an aged heretic named Eutyches in Constantinople espousing a heretical doctrine against the Incarnation named monophysism. He tried to obtain support from the orthodox Church Fathers. Eutchyes was attacked for this novel doctrine by various persons. No doubt this is the reason why Eutyches appealed to the bishop of Rome(to have his doctrine sanctioned) in order to stave off the growing sentiment against his novel theology. Around 488 AD Flavian, the present bishop of Constantinople, during a synod condemned Eutyches for heresy and disposed him. Eutyches then vigorously attempted to seek support from the East and West. Writing to the bishop of Rome:
'I take refuge, therefore, with you the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions...I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to YOU right upon the faith...'
From Eutchyes to Leo, Ep 21


In reply to Eutyches we have from Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravena:
'We exhort you, honourable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith APART from the CONSENT of the Bishop of Rome.'
From Peter Chrysologus to Leo, Ep 25

IOW he refers the entire matter of doctrine,like a good Catholic, to the bishop of Rome. 'Peter has spoken through Leo' makes perfect sense.

Meanwhile the Emperor was trying to summon a synod in Ephesus in order to deal with Eutyches and his theology. Dioscorus of Alexandria was the president of the synod and therefore excluded Theodoret, an ally of Flavian. Leo appointed legates in order to represent him at the synod. The legates carried several letters including the infamous 'Tome of Leo' in order to expound the orthodox faith regarding the nature of the Incarnation. The council opened and it was clearly apparent that the private agenda of Dioscorus and Eutyches was being advanced and that those against Euthyches were being brushed aside. The Roman legates were simply ignored. The synod via the presidency of Dioscorus deposed Flavian and various others bishops. Flavian died from the melee at the synod and the legates of Rome escaped with their lives. In short, the synod got rid of every influential enemy of Eutyches as Flavian had died and other Eastern bishops such as Theodoret of Cyrus were deposed. Eutchyes was reinstated. This is the context we find Pope Leo thrusted into.

IOW it is Pope Leo to the rescue!

Here we have a Latin speaking Pope, defining the faith on the cardinal doctrine on the Incarnation to the Greek-speaking bishops of the East(where the heresy started in the first place)...

Or in the words of Papal critic T. Jalland:
'The stage was being set for an ecclesiastical struggle on a titanic scale, in which questions of far greater importance than the prerogatives of bishops, or of the precedence of sees were at stake. Amid scenes of equivocation, betrayal and tragedy, ONE FIGURE stood out like a BEACON light amongst the wreckage of the storm. We shall now see how in confusion of thought resulting from the cross-currents of imperial and ecclesiastical politics LEO, AND HE ALONE, offered to a distracted church security, order, and peace, in the recognition of the doctrinal magisterium of the ROMAN SEE.'
Life and Times of St. Leo the Great, T. Jalland, pg 253

It was clearly Pope Leo's show...

Again appeals poured into Rome including one from Flavian of Constantinople himself prior to his death and from Theodoret of Cyrus. A clear and concise theology regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is given from the East.
'When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod which is obedient to your Holiness,at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred the way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar...Therefore I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts...further to issue an authoritative instruction...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached, by the assembly of a united synod of fathers, both eastern and western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void: bring healing to this ghastly wound.'
Flavian to Leo, Jalland's St. Leo, pg 243

The deposed Eastern bishop of Cyrus, Theodoret likewise writes reflecting the minds of the Eastern bishops in support of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome:
'...hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the FIRST place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges...I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of YOUR apostolic see. I beseech and implore your holiness to succour me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you, and prove to you that my teaching follows the footsteps of the apostles.'
Theoderet, Ep 113


Eusebius of Doryleum likewise writes:
'The Apostolic Throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice...I entreat your Blessedness give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion.'


It is clear that these letters testify from the East to the unique position, authority and primacy of the See of Peter, the prince of the Apostles prior to the Council of Chalcedon...The words 'Peter has spoken through Leo' is becoming clearer and clearer...

This is simply is another misrepresentation par-excellence of Church history... The central doctrine of the incarnation as we have it define at Chalcedon simply owes it's only words of first-rate importance to Pope Leo(via his legates persistance/firmness) and the support given to them by the Emperor/commissioners against the 600 Fathers! It is simply no exaggeration that the Council began with a Letter to the Emperor by saying that God has given to the Church a champion in the faith and had prepared this Bishop(of Rome) to Victory as another Peter with the truth! In addition, it was no exaggeration when they wrote to Pope Leo himself that they were the members, he was their head!

JW:
You mean it is a misrepresentation of the Romanized-glorified view of church history, don't you, Joe? I mean, you know Meyendorff, and you know what he says about the council. Do you say he, too, is giving us just another "misrepresentation par-excellence of Church history" too? You seem to think yourself the benchmark of historical knowledge and acumen, Joe.

JG:
James let's look at the faith of Pope Leo himself and the testimony of the early saints at Chalcedon...

So there is no confusion on the faith of Pope Leo:
'Blessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whos power lives and whose authority prevails in his See...to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore...beleive that he is speaking whose representative we are'
Leo, Sermon 3:3-4
'Now, the Lord desired that the dispensing of this gift should be shared as a task by all the Apostles, but in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as it were from the head. Thus a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the divine mystery.'
Leo, Ep 10
'Pope speaking through Leo' is becoming ever more clearer...
Even critics of the papacy(such as T. Jalland) admit that papacy of Leo the Great serves a terminal point in the development of the papacy.
Now let me return to your weak attempt to downplay Pope Leo's primacy by showing the hesitation of a few bishops from Palestine/Illyrcrium. The bishops of Palestine/Illycrium simply required clarification(of 3 passages) from the Council between Pope Leo's Tome and Cyril's letter...after that they submitted...at no time did they impugn the primacy or the orthodoxy of the Bishop of Rome...It is most insightful how the bishops of Illycrium and Palestine who hesitated conducted themselves. They[bishops of Illycrium] write through Bishop Sozon of Phillipi:
'That they were inviolably devoted to the faith of the fathers of Nicea and Constantinople, and to the decrees of the first synod of Ephesus, and that they were also FULLY CONVINCED of the ORTHODOXY of the MOST HOLY FATHER and ARCHBISHOP LEO. But that which in his letter appeared to them no quite clear, and liable to be misunderstood, the papal legates had explained quite satisfactorily when they were all assembled with Anatolius, and had anathematized every one who separated the manhood of our Lord from His Godhead, and did not confess that the divine and the human attributes existed in him unmingled and unchanged and undivided. On this they had in a body signed Leo's letter and had agreed with them.'
Hefele, History_of_the_Councils_of_the_Church V3, pg 331


Similarly Bishop Anianus of Capitolas in Palestina II writes for the bishops of Palestine:
'We all hold fast by the faith of the 318 fathers of Nicea and of the 150 of Constantinople and agree with the decrees of the first Synod of Ephesus. When the letter of Leo was read to us, we gave out assent to the greatest parts of its contents. But some parts of it seemed to us to express a certain seperation of the divine and human in Christ, and we therefore hesitated to accept them. We learnt, however, from the Roman legates, that neither do they admit any such separation, but confess one and the same Lord and Son of God. We have therefore assented, and have subscribed Leo's letter.'
Hefele, History_of_the_Councils_of_the_Church V3, pg 331-332


After the synod concluded they sent Pope Leo the Acts and an enclosing letter...In this letter the Bishops of the Council affirmed that Pope Leo saved the faith,
'You are set as an interpreter to ALL of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that faith...'
Chalcedon to Leo Ep 98

IOW All of the Fathers at Chalcedon were in accord with one another and Pope Leo via his legates had presided as the head over it's member. Dioscorsus as you know had trampled down the vine of the Lord like a wild beast and,
'Besides all this he extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, WE REFER TO YOUR HOLINESS...'
Chalcedon to Leo Ep 98

A couple of points, 1)Pope Leo is the official interpreter of the faith of St. Peter and 2) that the reference to the 'custody of the vine' given to Pope Leo by the 'the Saviour' is a clear testimony that the Pope's authority and primacy is given to him by the original grant to St. Peter!

Then the Fathers continue on to discuss canon 28. The Fathers simply point out in approving the new rights of Constantinople what has long been customary. In the hopes of gaining Pope's Leo approval they affirm that Rome's 'Apostolic ray' beams as far as Constantinople.
'you have often extended your apostolic radiance of yours even to the Church of Constantinople'
Chalcedon to Leo Ep 98

IOW Rome's care extends to Constantinople. The letter continues to say that if the legates had resisted the decisions and reserved it to the Pope it was in order to attribute disciplinary and the doctrinal issues to Pope Leo himself. As children heed their parents as heads in authority the fathers of Chalcedon likewise write:
'...knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents. We therefore beg you to honour our decision by your assent, and as WE have yielded agreement to the HEAD in noble things, so may the HEAD also fufill what is fitting for the children'
Chalcedon to Leo Ep 98

Shortly thereafter the Emperor Marcian and Bishop of Constantinople Anatolius both wrote to Pope Leo asking him to accept the canon. It clear that his confirmation of this canon was reserved to Pope Leo himself.
'As for those things which the universal council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favour of the church of Constantinople,let your holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so the whole force and confirmation of the acts was RESERVED for the authority of your blessedness. Therefore let your holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.'
Anatolius(Bishop of Constantinople) to Pope Leo, Ep 132

Anatolius instantly 'obeyed' and that insertion of canon 28 was not of his doing but the clergy of Constantinople! Nevertheless the whole confirmation of the acts/canons of Chalcedon was reserved to Pope Leo himself(even though the course of things in Constantinople went on as before since the system had been in place long ago).

JW:
Care to show us the relevance of this, Joe, and what it has to do with what I said?

JG:
If you were at least remotely familiar with the history of Chalcedon you would have realized that Leo's rejection of canon 28 caused such a confusion in the Church as to the validity of Chalcedon all-together that the Emperor himself asked Pope Leo to publish a letter affirming the doctrinal content of Chalcedon(which of course wouldn't make sense if either East or West didn't affirm a primacy and Petrine authority in the Bishop of Rome as your exaggeration infers).
'I have willingly complied, therefore, with what the most clement emperor thought necessary by sending a letter(Ep 114) to all brothers who were present at the Council of Chalcedon to show thereby that the decisions taken by our holy brothers concerning the tenets of the faith were pleasing to me. My doing so was naturally on account of those who want the decisions of the council to appear weak and dubious, as an occasion for cloaking their own perfidy, on the grounds that the decisions were not ratified by assenting opinion of mine; whereas...I did dispatch a letter'
Leo, Ep 117

It is no wonder James that you make such exaggerations regarding Pope Leo as if the Church at this time didn't affirm his primacy in discipline and authority in both the West and East when in your article 'The Trinity, the Definition of CHALCEDON, and Oneness Theology' Pope Leo wasn't even referred to by name one(1) single time. Again it is only your anti-Catholic zeal which blinds your scholarship.

Again it is no exaggeration when the Council in its letter to the Emperor affirmed that God had sent a champion in the faith and prepared him for victory as another Peter...
'God has given the Synod a champion against every error, in the person of the Roman bishop,who, like the fiery Peter, wishes to lead every one to God.'
Hefele, History_of_the_Councils_of_the_Church V3, pg 118

Similarly it is no exaggeration when the Council in its letter to his Holiness, Pope Leo that they were the members and Pope Leo the head...
'Besides all this he extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, WE REFER TO YOUR HOLINESS..you have often extended your apostolic radiance of yours even to the Church of Constantinople...knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents. We therefore beg you to honour our decision by your assent, and as WE have yeilded agreement to the HEAD in noble things, so may the HEAD also fufill what is fitting for the children'
Chalcedon to Leo, Ep 98

Hence it is infinitely clear that when the Council affirmed that Peter spoke through Leo that the Fathers affirmed Leo's primacy in doctrine(eg. Leo's Tome/dyophysitism and confirmation of Chalcedon) as well as in jurisdiction(eg. the deposition of various bishops including the Patriarch of Alexandria and nullifying the Robber council in Ephesus)...

In summary, you Mr. White are in a sad position. When you make your appeal to Church history to support your novel themes you find yourself bound hand and foot in discussing them. For example, you are forced to admit that there is early church evidence for the stay/martyrdom of Peter in Rome; but you are forced by your anti-Catholic zeal to find something wrong with this testimony in order to maintain your agenda. The same can be said for your novel exaggerations above regarding St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, and Pope Leo...Your exaggerations led us through the Arian Crisis with Athanasius and Pope Julius, through the Pelagian episode with the Augustine and Pope Innocent and finally through another Christological controversy with Pope Leo and Chalcedon...

I will leave you with JND Kelly as he summarizes my replies:
'The student tracing the history of the times, particularly the ARIAN, Donatist, PELAGIAN and CHRISTOLOGICAL controversies, CANNOT to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fufillment of the divine plan'
JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines pg 417

Sounds like JND Kelly(who has no Catholic bias) is providing some balance in his examination of the early Church--Now how about you James?

In Christ Jesus
Joe

12th Sunday in
Ordinary Time


This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.