The Pope: a biblical understanding

A self-proclaimed Evangelist, with a degree in biblical studies, challenged me with an ultimatum! I must “choose between the Catholic Church or the Bible as my teaching authority”? He claimed my “Christianity depended upon it”. He explained the Catholic Church “incorrectly interprets the scriptures” to support their un-biblical teachings. He wanted me to free myself of the my Catholic bias and accept scripture the correct way. He offered to teach me how to understand scripture.

My journey has involved many discussions with non-Catholics on issues in which they believe the Catholic Church teach in error. Some, like this Evangelist, have made bold statements about what the Catholic Church teaches. My initial response always is amazement at the claims made by non-Catholics on what the Church teaches. Again, the Evangelist told me, if I “remained a Catholic [I] must believe the teachings of the Pope carry as much weight as the Bible” and followed up with his earlier ultimatum.

My decision could not be voiced at the time of his challenge. I held tightly to the words of Rene Descartes and would not "judge anything that I do not clearly and distinctly understand".

My lack of knowledge of the official teachings of the Catholic Church forced me to fall silent at the time of the Evangelist pressure to leave the Church . However, after years of study, I pray my response will give glory to Jesus, my Lord and God!

The Catholic Church states the “teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on” (DEI VERBUM, 10). Many may find objections with this simple statement because of the ease we find statements that seem to disagree.

The Church dates herself to the time of the Apostles; which gives us about 2,000 years of history to study. I have found this to be more work then the average person is willing to invest. However, the need “to give an explanation” for the reason for my hope (1 Peter 3:15) has urged me to undergo the task. I continually “work out [my] salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12) because my faith is a priority.

I claim the Evangelist's ultimatum was incomplete. He neglected to elaborate on the teachings of the Bible, by-way of his own interpretations. I asked myself, do I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or an Evangelist with a four-year degree in biblical studies? Both agree, Holy Scripture has authority! Yet both have different understandings of what scripture teaches.

Who is right? I needed to make a choice! Do I trust the Catholic Church to rightly interpret the Bible or do I trust an another who also claims to know the correct understanding of the Scripture? Both claims demand a response!

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
– (Acts 8:30-31)

Holy Scripture suggests someone is needed to help explain what is written. Philip, a member of the Church, was sent by the Holy Spirit to explain Scripture to the eunuch. Peter teaches that letters from Paul “contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16) and “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). The Bible cautions Christians not to jump towards any persons own interpretation.

I can dismiss, as my guide, any personal understandings of Scripture, regardless of the education a person has achieved. This does not imply they are wrong, but cautions me not to look towards them as the final word on the matter. I will look for the person in which the Holy Spirit will send.

Who then do I look towards as the final word to rightly understand Holy Scripture? The Catholic Church claims to have the final word towards “Biblical Truth” on matters of faith and morals. Does Scripture support this claim?

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector
– (Matthew 18:17)

God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth
– (1 Timothy 3:15)

Scripture supports a view that the Church has the final word on matters of faith and morals (Matthew 18:17). It also agrees that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The question must be; is the Catholic Church the same Church that has been instructed to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything [Jesus] Commanded” (Matthew 28:18-20)?

The Catholic Church claims to be the Church commission by Jesus that will be guided by “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit” who “will teach…all things and will remind” them “of everything” Jesus spoke (John 14:26). They support this view with an unbroken list of succession of leaders from the time of Peter.

Is succession important for authority within the Church, or does the authority of the church pass on to individual Christians as they come to a personal relationship with Christ?

The commission to baptize the world and teach all that Jesus taught was delivered to the eleven original disciples (Matthew 28:18-20), they are the first building blocks of the church.

Paul received his commission from a member of the Church, Ananias, who placed “his hands on Saul” (Acts 9:17) and brought him into fellowship with the Church.

Carefully observe that Paul did not receive this authority directly from the Holy Spirit, but through the structure of the church that Jesus promised to guide with the Holy Spirit until the end of time.

He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do."
– (Acts 9:15-6)

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit
– (Acts 9:17)

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off
– (Acts 13:2-3)

Immediately Paul started to proclaim “Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20) when Ananias welcomed him into the Church. However, it was not until the Church received a calling from the Holy Spirit to set apart Saul for his mission, when he began to teach with the authority of the Church (Acts 13:2-3).

Many passages in the New Testament support the church as the authority for a Christian, but how does this truth apply to us today?

The Catholic Church claims the authority of the Christian Church, that started in a little room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:13), is passed to us today through a long line of continued succession. They supported this claim as being started and nourished by two of the “most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2-3 [A.D. 189]).

History and current observations of Christian practice supports this claim. However is the teaching of succession of authority, biblical?

In those days Peter stood up among the believers…“it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us…to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles
– (Acts 1:15-26)

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing…the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and…choose seven men from among [them] who are known…They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
–(Acts 6:1-6)

Yes, it is biblical! The first such evidence in the New Testament that supports succession of authority is in the Book of Acts. It is clear from Scripture that the laying of hands is the means of passing authority from Church members. Without this act how can one be sure a person is speaking in the name and authority of the Church?

Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas… I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain… James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews
– (Galatians 2:1-10)

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
– (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

The early Christians in the New Testament had the same problem as we do today. “We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said” (Acts 15:24). Scripture, once again suggests authorization from the Church is needed to teach the Faith. Paul agreed and urged Timothy not to “be hasty in the laying on of hands” (1 Timothy 5:22).

Succession is important for the simple fact that it is biblical, therefore a valid reason to look into the claims of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII Online Edition offers a list of 266 Popes from Peter to Pope Benedict XVI. However, Irenaeus of Lyons, in AD 189, confronted Heresy with a list of succession that supports the teaching office of the Bishop of Rome;

it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches...tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric...To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most
abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth
– (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2-3 [A.D. 189])

The succession of the Catholic Church is supported throughout time, biblically and historically. It is not a new teaching, but of ancient origin. Yet, the Catholic Church holds another claim that is closely related to succession of authority. Peter is the head Sheppard among the Apostles and by virtue of his position his successors hold the same position and authority.

The famous proclamation of Peter (Matthew 16:17-19) and Jesus (John 21:15-17) will unfold the biblical understanding of Peter as holding an office of authority among the other Apostles. The most used verse to support this understanding is Matthew 16:17-19.

Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven'
– (Matthew 16:17-19)

Commentaries that go to great length to explain the reason why Matthew 16:17-19 does not support the office of the Pope and the Primacy of Peter does the reader no justice. By virtue of a commentary, we, the reader, should get an educational view of what the verse teaches, not what it does not teach. Unfortunately, I have seen several popular commentaries that argue against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary provides an example:

Peter answers in the name of all the rest, they all consenting to it, and concurring in it…So that this is far from being a proof of such primacy and superiority of Peter above the rest of the apostles, as the church of Rome ascribes to him…not the perpetual dictator or speaker of the house, only chairman upon this occasion.
– (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, Matthew 16:13-20)

The verse in question does not directly or indirectly show “all consenting to” Peters confession as Henry’s Commentary teaches. We also know it is not Peter who “answers in the name of all” because Jesus only directs his comments to Peter alone (singular) and not to the group. I believe Henry’s comments on this verse is put forward to diminish an already, long established, understanding that Peter is the rock and he alone is given multiple blessing by Jesus.

The reply of Jesus is the interesting portion. The first words from Jesus; “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:17), gives Peter a direct blessing by revealing the blessing that was given to him by the father.

Jesus singles out Peter and talks only to Peter in his reply. Jesus then says; “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”. The name changing of Simon to Peter is very important and must not be dismissed. For Jewish names have meaning and when a name is changed by God himself, this would indicate a calling for a particular purpose and it would be understood as another blessing. Simon’s name is changed to Peter, a Greek name that equals “a rock or a stone” (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon). Before we understand why Jesus who is the Rock changes Simon’s name to Peter, we need to remind ourselves that the Bible is one of the best ways to help us understand Holy Scripture. Name changing has been an important declaration by God throughout Scripture.

No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations
– (Genesis 17:5)

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed
– (Genesis 32:28)

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church
– (Matthew 16:18)

The comparisons of these verses should be apparent. However, because of the importance, a closer look is needed.

God, in the Old Testament, declared two important name changes in his plan of redemption and immediately elaborated their meaning. Abram will now be called Abraham which means “father of a multitude” or “chief of multitude” (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon). Jacob will be Israel meaning “he shall be a prince of God” (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon).

Likewise, Jesus in the New Testament changes Simon to Peter then immediately elaborates the meaning of his new name. Jesus will build his Church on Peter. How can Peter be the “rock” if we know from Holy Scripture that Jesus is the true Rock? Peter is the “rock” because Jesus has allowed him to be the “rock”.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Jesus is the giver of all things and everything about us comes from the Lord. Jesus declares that we “are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14). What does he mean we are the light? Does not Scripture clearly teach us Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12)? Yes, however Scripture also teaches that we are the light because Jesus, the true light, gives us his light. We do not reflect his light but we shine our own light that he freely gave (Matthew 5:16).

In the same way, Peter is the rock while Jesus is the true Rock. Peter did not earn this gift but it was freely given to him by Jesus, just as we did not earn the gift of being the light of the world.

The next important statement is the part about the keys. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This is a Blessing! If God wants to give you something it must be a blessing! Now let us understand the word “keys”. The Bible to help us once again in our inquiry. The words “keys” or “key” is mentioned ten times in the entire Bible depending on what version you have. The word usage is a bit different in a few of the verses. It is used to describe a person opening a door. It also describes the importance of God. However, the similarities in Matthew are the important verses we will search.

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open
– (Isaiah 22:22)

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
– (Matthew 16:19)

'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this
– (Revelation 3:7)

I hold the keys to death and the netherworld
–(Revelation 1:18)

The word “key” or “keys” involve authority! Jesus gave Peter (singular) the keys alone. No other place does Jesus give keys to any other person. The duplication of words in Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19 and Revelation 3:7 are too similar to ignore. A first century Jewish man would automatically know of the similarities of the words of Jesus and Isaiah 22:22.

He would also understand his words as passing authority onto Peter as God in the Old Testament gave the keys to Eliakim, placing him as “master of the palace” (Isaiah 22:15), second in authority next to King David. The Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:17-19 supports the authority of Peter as the “rock” and the head Sheppard of the Apostles. Yet they use other verses to support the Biblical teaching of the Pope.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' (Jesus) said to him, 'Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.' He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, 'Follow me'
–(John 21:15-17)

Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.– (Luke 22:31-32)

In John 21, Jesus heals the pain Peter carries due to his three fold denial of the Lord. Jesus affirms Peter as Head Sheppard when he commands Peter to “[f]eed [his] sheep” and “[t]end [his] sheep”. The last command of Jesus in John 21 was for Peter to “follow” him (John 21:15-17).

Peter is empowered by Jesus to serve the flock as the Lord served the flock. Jesus prayed for Peter (singular) that his “faith will not fail” and when he “turned back” to the Lord he was commanded to “strengthen [his] brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).

The Catholic Church supports the office of the Pope through scripture. It is true Scripture does not state plainly that Peter is the first Pope. Yet it gives strong evidence that Peter had the authority to lead the flock (the Church) and to lead the other Apostles (leaders of the Church).

Scripture also supports the understanding of succession of authority. Jesus tells his disciples that “[w]hoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church not because I believe they have better answers than other Christian communities. No, I believe Jesus established his authority with people, the Church, and they passed their authority to “reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:1-2).

I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church because it is biblical.
________________

Appendix A

Did the Bishop of Rome originally have only "primacy of honor?"
By David Jensen

Sunday, September 18, 2005

I've heard the claim that the Catholic Church did not begin until much later in the history of Christianity. When this supposed "later" occurred often varies, depending upon the subjective view of the antagonist. Yet, the claim goes something like this:

The original Church taught that authority was vested in a college of bishops, each one being equal in authority. The Church in Rome was run by a group of presbyter-bishops until the mid-second century. The Bishop of Rome had nothing more than primacy of honor, being the "first among equals." There was no such thing in the early church as the Bishop of Rome having jurisdictional authority over the other bishops.

Let's compare this claim to the evidence of history...St. Ignatius (AD 50-110) wrote:

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father"
(Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force"
(ibid., 3:1)

This coming from a guy who learned his Christianity directly from St. John the Apostle. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch from AD 70 until his martyrdom in Rome (ca. AD 110), presiding as Bishop in the place where they were first called Christians. Only the Catholic Church treats the "presidency" of the Bishop of Rome to be a matter of both honor and jurisdiction, to such an extent that what the Church of Rome enjoined in their instructions should remain in force.

According to non-Catholic Eastern Orthodox authors:

"Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of 'church-with-priority' at the end of the first century."
(THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992, page 124)

"... the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches [cf. 1 Clement, AD 80]. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument."
(ibid, page 125-126)

"Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius [AD 110] uses the phrase 'which presides' in two passages. ... The term 'which presides' [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the 'first place' at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church...[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the 'first place.' So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord....In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome."
(ibid, page 126-127)

St. Irenaeus, writing between AD 175 and 190 provides the earliest extant list of popes from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 5:6). Another extant list, called the Liberian Catalogue (AD 354) provides a list of popes from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details. The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus, save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged, all of which are likely to be copyist errors. Another witness is from Eusebius, from his "History" and his "Chronicle." Eusebius' Eastern list of popes is identical with the Western list of pops by Hippolytus, except that in the East the name of Linus' successor seems to have been given as Anecletus, but in the original Western list as Cletus. The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, (2) Linus, (3) Anencletus [Cletus], (4) Clement, (5) Evarestus, (6) Alexander, (7) Sixtus, (8) Telesophorus, (9) Hyginus, (10) Pius, (11) Anicetus, (12) Soter, (13) Eleutherius, (14) Victor, (15) Zephyrinus, (16) Callistus (17) Urban, (18) Pontian (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 152).We learn from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:22) that in the middle of the second century Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christian, visited Rome and that he drew up a list of bishops as far as Anicetus, the then pope. Eusebius does not quote his catalogue, but scholars see ground for holding that we possess it in a passage of Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6), in which the bishops as far as Anicetus are enumerated. This list of Hegesippus, drawn up less than a century after the martyrdom of St. Peter, was he believes, the foundation alike of the Eusebian and Hippolytan catalogues (Clement of Rome I, 325 so.). This view has been accepted by many scholars, both Catholic and non-Catholic. [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII, "Chronological Lists of Popes"]

Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes says, "The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years." Kelly lists the papacy from Peter to John Paul II. During the time of the Arian controversy in the fourth century, Kelly had this to say about the papacy:

"Since its occupant [ie. the pope] 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)

Thus, many non-Catholics admit that the evidence of history shows the Catholic papacy started in the first century, but they theorize that it must have only originally had a primacy of honor, not that of jurisdiction. I find this thesis lacking historical support, however. Observe...Eastern Father, St. Athanasius, called the Council of Sardica: "the great Council" (Defense Against the Arians, 1) and "the Holy Synod" (Letter to the People of Antioch, 5). Take note of what that council, which St. Athanasius was a member, in fact affirmed in a letter to the Pope Julius (AD 342):

"So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their HEAD, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle" (Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius, as cited by prominent historian James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, The See of Peter (New York:Columbia, 1927), pp.527-528.)

Now, I'm a military man, and I know what "report to" and "head" means. It's not something merely "of honor" but clearly means both honor and jurisdiction. Just in case that isn't evidence enough, there's more ...Just like St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), we find later on in St. Irenaeus' works (AD 189) what the "presidency" of the Church of Rome means to orthodox Christians of the second century:

"we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

If "honor" includes "all the faithful in the whole world" must agree with the Church in Rome, then that sounds particularly Catholic, no? Who still insists upon this second century assertion to this day? The Catholic Church. ccording to Eastern Orthodox scholarship:

"Irenaeus [AD 189] insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in the Tradition of the Apostles, which every local church has preserved. So we must suppose he thought that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Roman Church more fully than in others, or, at least, in a more
manifest way."
(THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992)

According to St. Cyprian of Carthage (AD 251):

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). .. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"
(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church"
(Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with
the Catholic Church"
(ibid., 55[52]:1).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source"
(ibid., 59:14).

From Eastern Orthodox scholarship:

"according to [Cyprian's] doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church....According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne-par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]."
(THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992, page 98-99)

According the St. Cyprian, the PRINCIPAL Church is at Rome, and it is from that Church that the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its source. It is clear that holding fast to the chair of Peter defines, for St. Cyprian, whether one is truly in the Church. A contemporary of St. Athanasius, Optatus (AD 367) wrote the following:

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat ... in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one."
(Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3)

I'm seeing a definite Catholic theme here. Now comes the most explicit evidence of jurisdictional authority, from the Ecumencial Council of Chalcedon (accepted by Eastern Orthodox):

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness."
(Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3)

Hmmmm... it seems the primacy of the See of Peter included the juridical authority to strip the Patriarch of Alexandria of his episcopate. There's more...From the letter to Pope Leo from the Bishops of Chalcedon:

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 Pope Leo, Ep 98)

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness(ibid).

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.
(ibid)

Notice that the Eastern and Western Bishops of Chalcedon are asking for Pope Leo's ratification of their councilar decisions, yielding their agreement to the "HEAD" of the Church. Note that they consider themselves "CHILDREN" to Pope Leo. Also note that they assert that Pope Leo had been charged with "CUSTODY OF THE VINE BY THE SAVIOR" and not by political gain or the mere consent of the other bishops. These claims agree with Catholicism. Pope Leo undoubtedly had singular juridical authority to either ratify or to reject the councilar decisions. No other bishop was asked to ratify the councilar decision, because no other bishop had been charged with "custody of the vine by the Savior." So, what did Pope Leo do? There were 28 canons decided upon at Chalcedon. Pope Leo ratified all of them except canon 28, which attempted to elevate Constantinople with wording that was contrary to Catholic teaching. Pope Leo exercised his VERY REAL juridical authority and rejected canon 28. Subsequently, Anatolius, the Bishop of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Leo, and apologetically stated,

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople [ie. canon 28], 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 of
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 that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.
(Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132, on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)

The evidence of history is clear. Pope Leo had juridical authority to veto that which an Ecumenical Council of Bishops agreed to. Only the Bishop of Rome has ever exercised this clear jurisdictional authority in the history of Christianity. Did Pope Leo "preside" only in honor or did he have real authority to either ratify or reject councilar decisions? It seems clear the latter is true, contrary to the opinion of later revisionists. Why did Pope Leo have this authority? The bishops of both East and West at Chalcedon in the fifth century asserted as the Catholic Church asserts today: the pope has been charged with the custody of the Vine by the Savior.

God bless, Dave

http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/