Mark Bonocore dispenses with some faulty assumption regarding Nicea and the Papacy. His opponent is represented below in blue.
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 1. 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 ...(Matt 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" Matt 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 (Matt 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.
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
June 10, 2005