Thoughts on Roman Arguments on Church Fathers & Bishops of Rome

The church father Gregory of Naziunzus stated:

"...he was (to make my story short) entrusted with the chief rule over the people, in other words, the charge of the whole world." (NPNF2: Vol. VII, Oration 21, On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, §7).

Now, if Gregory of Nazianzus said this about the Bishop of Rome, Catholic apologists would use this to support the belief that he held to the papacy. However, Gregory said this about the Alexandrian Bishop Athanasius, the great Trinitarian defender, not the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, the early church father Athanasius himself stated:

"...he is the pride of the Church, fighting for the truth, and instructing those who have need, they should not resist such an one, but rather accept his good conscience." (Translation from Thomas William Allies, The Church of England Cleared from the Charge of Schism (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848), pp. 32-33).

Again, if this was said about the Bishop of Rome we would never hear the end of it from Catholic apologists. However, Athanasius made this comment about the early church father Basil, not about the Bishop of Rome. Moreover, Basil himself made this remark:

"...what part is more vital to the Churches throughout the world than Antioch? Only let Antioch be restored to harmony, and nothing will stand in the way of her supplying, as a healthy head, soundness to all the body." (NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters, Letter 66 -- To Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, §1).

Had this been said about Rome by this father, it would be used to support the absolute primacy of Rome and the papacy. However, this was said about Antioch not the see of Rome. Hence, we can see how easy it would be to abuse these kinds of quotations when referring to the See of Roman or the Roman Bishop. And hence, one must be very careful since such language was common. (credit to: Turretinfan, Challenging Your Rome-Colored Glasses - Set Aside Your Anachronism, @ aomin.org)

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Roman Catholicism
• papacy debate
• james white
• robert zins
• william webster
• apologetics
• protestantism
• reformed thelogy
• reformation
• justification
• mary debate
• romanism

[Mkvine]

Keith, how are you bro? I have a question, you said that this language was "common" among the Church Fathers. For the sake of argument, lets say that the Bishop of Rome was not considered higher than the other Patriarchal Sees like Antioch, Jerusalem, etc. Would that mean that you are conceding to the fact that the early Church believed in the authority of the Bishops/Patriarchs over the body of believers? It seems to me that this only demonstrates the authoritative nature of the Church.

[KeithTruth]

@Mkvine I am good, how are you? If that were the case I would agree with Calvin who said "The power of the church…resides partly in individual bishops, and partly in councils, either provincial or general…" A proper understanding of sola scriptura shows there is no conflict there.

[Mkvine]

@KeithTruth

Hey keith, I'm doing well by God's Grace alone. I understand that "sola scriptura" as expounded by Keith Mathison allows for the authority of Councils and Tradition, but it says that the only final infallible authority is Scripture. Correct me if I'm wrong, btw. However, if you look at the history of the Church, these Fathers held to the view that Councils can dogmatically *bind* the faithful and if not adhering to that, people would be anathematized.

[KeithTruth]

@Mkvine Yes just like we affirm that someone who rejects Nicaea 1, because its creed is rooted in Scriptural/Gospel truth, is bound to it and anathematizes themself if they reject it. As the 1689 LBC notes: "All people throughout the world who profess the faith of the Gospel and obedience to Christ on its terms, and who do not destroy their profession by any errors which contradict or overthrow Gospel fundamentals, or by unholy behaviour, are visible saints and may be regarded as such."

[Onetruthrgv]

Check out theologica37 response

[KeithTruth]

@Onetruthrgv I'll be responding to that guy later on today.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat

The passage I referred to earlier is Matthew 23:1-3. Jesus tells the people that the scribes and Pharisees sit in the "Chair of Moses:" therefore follow whatever they tell you to do - but don't follow what they actually do themselves, because they don't act according to their own words.

In other words, even though they are personally bad people and hypocritical, their authority is still legitimate authority and must be obeyed.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat

Since I can't pm you, I'll stay on here. I've already explained that Catholics do not claim the Pope is necessarily going to be personally holy. What they claim is that the position of authority he holds is a legitimate authority established by Jesus Christ himself. This claim may or may not be true, but the point is scandals in the Church or personal failings of a Pope are not relevant to papal authority of infallibility.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat I'm actually going to continue this conversation in the context of personal messages.

As far as this what you have just said, please refer back to my most recent comments. They have already addressed your arguments, which do not in anyway injure the Catholic claim.

[Licmycat]

@MilesVitae Yeah, the man was just a man who did NOT have the faith and trust in GOD to protect him. But as they go along to protect the princes of darkness they cover up and protect pedophiles. How sickening, I smell satan here. I know how they are too well.

[MilesVitae]

@MilesVitae For instance, Jesus tells the people in Matthew to listen to what the rabbis tell them, because the rabbis sit in the "Chair of Moses," that is to say they have the teaching authority among the Jewish people - but he tells them not to follow what the rabbis do.

The point is, they have legitimate authority even though they are personally bad people.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat I can't say why God allowed John Paul II to be shot - God allows many evil things to happen. After all, he allowed every faithful Apostle except John to be martyred.

Faith in God doesn't demand us to do away with basic prudence - we don't keep doors unlocked at night, go into bad parts of town, etc. just because we have faith in God.

But even if John Paul did have weak faith, that is his personal failing. People with God-given authority are still able to be personally weak people.

[Licmycat]

@MilesVitae Remember the pope that got shot? And then had a bullet proof shield for his car? Not a great example of faith in GOD. Why did GOD let him get shot?

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat The devout Catholics I know who are familiar with the teachings of the Church have a personal, prayer relationship with God, BECAUSE of and not merely in spite of their Catholic faith.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat Your impression of Catholicism is mistaken. Catholicism teaches that Christ has established a Church with a visible structure, visible authorities, and visible ministers of the Sacraments. This is in no way implies Catholics are not called to have a personal relationship with God. On the contrary, the Church calls all people to just such a relationship, through prayer, the sacraments, learning of the truth, and virtue.

[MilesVitae]

@Licmycat Although your comment is several months old, I would like to respond.

Papal infallibility means nothing of the sort that you've been informed it does. The dogma of papal infallibility does not assert that the Pope is personally "perfect" or sinless.

According to the dogma of papal infallibility, the Pope, as the divinely established visible head of the Church, is preserved from teaching error when, acting as Pope, h definitively teaches the whole Church on a matter of faith or morals.