Came across your
site, and OH brother! So I see Mr. Bonocore is putting together
some sort of treatise about the dynastic succession of those men
parading around in religious costumes. I wonder greatly how he is
going to deal with the Council of Nicea (one of your infallible
councils I presume?). Under no circumstances whatsoever, did they
recognize any universal, romish papal jurisdiction as Vatican 1
demanded we adhere to at the cost of our souls.
"Let the
ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that
the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these,
since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.
Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the
churches retain their privileges."
The import of
these words are crystal clear! The Bishop of Rome is seen
as having jurisdiction in his own territory, which plainly, is
not WORLDWIDE, contra the statements at Vatican I. It is
irrefutably geographically LIMITED, as were the others. It is
simply breathtaking that Bonocore, and of course all Catholics in
general, simply ignore the logic of Luke 22:24 which closes the
door on the bombastic claims of the papacy.
It's SO
simple, but you refuse to let the words of Scripture breathe for
themselves, but instead STRANGLE them to concoct a
papacy at any cost.
"And
there arose also a dispute among them as to which of them was
regarded to be greatest."
Surely, if the
disciples had understood the words of Christ to Peter in Matt 16
as he, the fisherman being the foundation of the church, no
such argument could have even arisen…but since it did, they
certainly did not have even the faintest idea of Pete's alleged
"universal headship"…and furthermore, if petrine
primacy were really in the mind of Christ in Matt 16, we should
then naturally hear the Lord rebuking the diciples here and
reminding them that He had already chosen Pete as head of the
church. But the silence is deafening! Below is something I
found Mr. White has said about Mr. B
GOOD DAY!
http://aomin.org/Presbyters.html
Well, I'm sorry to strongly
disagree with you, but you are clearly the victim of a modernist,
revisionist reading of Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea. 4th and
5th Century Christians simply did not interpret it in the
modernist way that you do; and to show you why this is so, I am
attaching an article by historian James F. Loughlin which
presents Canon 6 in its proper historical and linguistic context.
See attached Word document. I would hope that you consider his
analysis carefully and reasonably. For, as I'm sure you will
agree, we must interpret the decrees of the Councils in light of
contemporary historical circumstances, not in order to suit our
preconceived notions, whether for the Roman Papacy or against it.
In essense, and as Loughlin points out, Canon 6 of Nicaea does
not give the Bishop of Rome authority on par with that of the
Bishop of Alexandria (the baseless, modernist interpretation),
but rather (understood in its proper context) merely recognizes
the primacy of Alexandria over Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis
(the Gaza strip) BECAUSE the Bishop of Rome recognizes that
Alexandria holds patriarchal primacy in these regions. So, far
from denying the universal primacy of Rome, Canon 6 of Nicaea
actually illustrates it.
Indeed, in addition to the
material presented by Mr. Loughlin, I would direct you to other
contemporary evidence which shows us how Canon 6 of Nicaea must
be read. For example, we have the epistle of Pope Julius I to the
Arians at the imperial court of Constantinople, in which he
disputes St. Athanasius' unjust deposition from his see of
Alexandria, saying…
"It behoved you to write
to us (Rome) that thus what is just might be decreed for all.
For they who suffered were bishops, and the churches that
suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in
person. And why were we (Rome) not written to concerning the
Church, especially Alexandria? Or are they (the Arians)
ignorant that this has been the custom first to write to us,
and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If
therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there
(Alexandria), it was benefitting to write to this church
(Rome). (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)
And, in the following year, this
organic custom (the Apostolic tradition by which Rome was always
consulted before a bishop was deposed) was made a matter of
imperial law by the Council of Sardica (A.D. 342) – a council
presided over by both St. Athanasius of Alexandria and by Osius
of Corduba, who chair the Council of Nicaea itself! And, Canon 3
of Sardica clearly states:
"If any bishop looses the
judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and
still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in
order that the case may be judged anew…let us honor the
memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given
the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it
seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgement
may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring
province."
Notice that Sardica invokes the
authority of the Apostle Peter in regard to the Bishop of Rome;
for it was from Peter that the Tradition began; and it was this
same Petrine authority which is implicitly referred to in Canon 6
of Nicaea – namely, that the regional authority of Alexandria is
to be recognized by all since the Bishop of Rome (Peter's own
successor) recognizes Alexandria's authority in these places.
What's more, we have the
contemporary decree of Pope St. Damasus in A.D. 382, in which he
responds to the Council of Constantinople I (381-32), the sister
Council of Nicaea, which completed and reaffirmed what we today
call the Nicene Creed; and in this response to the Council,
Damasus defends the Traditional primacy of Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch (in that order primacy) – the very thing which Canon 6
of Nicaea makes reference to. He writes…
"Although all the
Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise
but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy
Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the
conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the
primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who
says: "You are Peter …(Matthew 16:18-19)." In
addition to this, there is also the companionship of the
vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along
with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero,
equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman church to
Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their
venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the
others of all the cities of the world. The first see,
therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman
church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything
like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated
on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an
Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where
he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious
martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged
to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he
came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was
first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus #
3, 382 A.D.)
This statement was of course
accepted and embraced by the East, and no one ever disputed it.
Rather, despite the designs of Constantinople for Eastern
primacy, Alexandria continued to be the primate in the East well
into the 500's A.D. and beyond. This, again, gives us the proper
context of Canon 6 of Nicaea. The modernist interpretation cannot
stand and is held only by the most zealous of anti-Papists. As
for your reference to Luke 22:24, and your claim that this must
nullify any primacy given to Peter in Matt 16:18-19, I would
direct you to the following verses (Luke 22:25-26), where Jesus
gives His response, saying…
"Rather, let the greatest
among you be as the least, and the leader as the servant [of
all]."
The mere fact that Jesus says this
clearly shows that there WAS and IS a "greatest" among
them – that there WAS and IS a leader. But, that leader is not
to be like a secular ruler, but is to make himself the servant of
all. This, of course, is why the Popes of Rome have always held
the title "Servus Servorum Dei" – "The Servant of
the Servants of God." This is how a Pope is SUPPOSED to
behave; and when a Pope does not behave in this way (at least in
terms of the essentials), he dishonors the Petrine ministry that
Christ created: the Papacy.
Now, coming, as you clearly are,
from an American, Evangelical Protestant perspective, you of
course fail to appreciate the historical progression of the
Church and what took place viz. the Papacy once Constantine
adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire
(the secular West) – a process by which the Church went from a
persecuted, underground society (the Church as it is depicted in
Scripture) to a Church which, at first, was the "state
cult" of an Empire, and then, after the fall of the Western
Empire in A.D. 476, found itself as the only institution which
could hold civilization itself together! Because of this
transition, and especially due to the various heresy battles in
the Eastern Church (b/t A.D. 320-A.D. 787), the Roman Papacy was
actually forced to become more "secular" and political
in its outward activities – behaving as a true institutional
authority (a "secular prince") rather than as the
"servant of all" called for by Christ and as advocated
by Peter himself in 1 Peter 5:1-4. For, 1 Peter 5:1-4 is how most
Popes operated in the early days, when the church of Rome was
more of a "final court of appeal" than an agressive,
hands-on authority.
But, again, it became necessary
for Rome to become more agressive in response to the interference
of numerous heretical Eastern Emperors, and then in response to
the warlike and other social violations of medieval Germanic
kings. And this is what created the distasteful image of
"the Papacy" as you and most other Protestants see it
today. However, a mature Christian knows that the Church is
called to be "in the world but not of it," and so it is
possible for the ministry of Peter (the Papacy) to operate both
as the unifying shepherd of Christians (the Papacy as Christ
created it: John 21:15-19) and as a guardian of civilization (the
additional ministry which the Papacy found itself responsible for
via the historical experience of the Church). In other words,
being an institutional authority (a dimension which came with the
legalization of Christianity and its "peace tready"
with the secular world) does not prevent a holy Pope from being
"the servant of all", just as an American president or
other public official can be a servant of all. So, I would submit
that your problem is not with the Papacy itself (the ministry
that Christ created), but with a certain style of Papacy that you
do not approve of; namely, the authoritarian approach of certain
medieval Popes. But, this hardly applies to the modern Papacy,
which has not operated via that style of authority for at least
100 years.
As for the Apostles not
"understanding" Matthew 16:18-19, if you read the Gospels,
it is pretty darn clear that the Apostles understood hardly
anything that Christ had to say! So, it is not surprising that
they did not properly understand the commission of Peter at
Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:18-19) until after the Lord's
Resurrection and Ascension. In this, I would suggest that Peter
himself probably assumed that Matt 16 gave him importance in a
secular sense (making him the "big boss" rather than
the chief servant of all), and also James and John, who were the
Lord's own relatives through Salome (a relative of Jesus' mom)
thought that their blood connection to Jesus gave them some
importance over Peter (see Mark 10:35-41). But, what cannot be
disputed is that, from the time of the Ascension on, Peter is
clearly in control of the Church and its ultimate earthly leader.
This shows that he was the one who Jesus was speaking about in
Luke 22:25-26, as Luke 22:31-32 also clearly illustrates.
So, Jesus had no problem with
leadership. Rather, for Christ, leadership is to be held and
exhibited in a particular way. A mature Christian can appreciate
this; and so I hope that you can appreciate it too.
Also, in regard to Mr. White's
silliness (per http://aomin.org/Presbyters.html), I responded to
him and set him straight on these issues over two years ago. I
believe my response is on the Catholic Legate site itself. But,
if you can't find it, please let me know and I'll email it to you
as well.
