Did the pre-Nicene Fathers support a papacy?

[Joshster]

According to Irenaeus they didnt. A source I would like to copy and paste from,

http://catechumens-tale.blogspot.com...supremacy.html


Did Irenaeus support papal supremacy?

While browsing through Wikipedia (out of mere boredom, I assure you) I came across this entry under Pope:

Later in the second century AD, there were further manifestations of Roman authority over other churches. In 189 AD, assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in Irenaeus of Lyons's Against Heresies (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree...and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

• Edited by a Moderator •


I conclude with my own words that it had to of been more recognized that the bishop of rome had primacy rather than supremacy over the christian world.

Moderated By: Kelp

Please review our rules on copyrighted material, ok?

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[One Bad Pig]

Joshster,

I'm not sure what you mean by you concluding sentence. Could you expand that a bit and clarify?

[Joshster]

I got a copyright notice, too much text. Basically its from an article with certain quotations from Iraneus that support more that the bishop of rome has primacy instead of supremacy in the early church.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah, I'm interested in what you mean by "primacy".

[FreezBee]

I got a copyright notice, too much text. Basically its from an article with certain quotations from Iraneus that support more that the bishop of rome has primacy instead of supremacy in the early church.

Irenaeus claimed that the apostolic succession was the primary guardian against heresy (that is, each bishop teaching the next bishop, what he had himself been taught thereby establishing an unbroken tradition back to Jesus). Each church presumably had such a succession (the first bishop of a new church being ordained by a bishop of an already established church).

Since Iraneus could only list the complete succession for the bishops of Rome (note: I doubt the reality of Irenaeus' list, but that's not of relevance for this discussion), and therefore, in cases of dispute, all other churches should have recourse to the bishop of Rome to settle the issue.

See e.g. this page for details.

That is, according to Irenaeus, the bishop of Rome should not have supremacy among all bishops, but primacy in the sense that it was known that the bishops of Rome constituted a complete succession.

fwiw - FreezBee

[One Bad Pig]

Irenaeus claimed that the apostolic succession was the primary guardian against heresy (that is, each bishop teaching the next bishop, what he had himself been taught thereby establishing an unbroken tradition back to Jesus). Each church presumably had such a succession (the first bishop of a new church being ordained by a bishop of an already established church).

Since Iraneus could only list the complete succession for the bishops of Rome (note: I doubt the reality of Irenaeus' list, but that's not of relevance for this discussion), and therefore, in cases of dispute, all other churches should have recourse to the bishop of Rome to settle the issue.

See e.g. this page for details.

I don't think this is a fair representation of Irenaeus, or of your source (which, I must say, is rather one-sided in its presentation).

That is, according to Irenaeus, the bishop of Rome should not have supremacy among all bishops, but primacy in the sense that it was known that the bishops of Rome constituted a complete succession.

fwiw - FreezBee

The primacy of Rome was one of honor/prestige as the capital and place of martyrdom of Peter and Paul, not one of complete succession (though it had that).

[FreezBee]

I don't think this is a fair representation of Irenaeus, or of your source (which, I must say, is rather one-sided in its presentation).

Ok, then I invite you to give your own representation.

The primacy of Rome was one of honor/prestige as the capital and place of martyrdom of Peter and Paul, ...

Could you please supply a reference for this?

... not one of complete succession (though it had that).

Well, it had, according to Irenaeus. However, if the church in Rome really was founded by Peter and Paul, then the following makes little sense:

Romans 1:11-15

11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15 That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

© source where applicable

Doesn't this excerpt give the impression that Paul had never been in Rome (as of the time of writing Romans)?


- FreezBee

[One Bad Pig]

Ok, then I invite you to give your own representation.

The site states:

It was not in his power to find proof of this in each local church, so he confines himself to one set of bishops only, and enumerates the bishops of Rome

,
while you said,

Iraneus could only list the complete succession for the bishops of Rome

-which is not the same thing. There were many bishops in his time. Rather than going to the trouble of going around to every bishop to get his succession, he took the primary one as representative. That's a far cry from saying he could only list that one; as a bishop himself, there's no reason to think that he could not have supplied his own succession. The site's representation only gives the points that the Orthodox generally concede, omitting points that would be given in response. I don't really have the time to dig up much, but even Roman Catholics will concede that there have been "anti-popes" that sullied the position. Irenaeus was very early, but Pope Honorius wasn't much later than him, and he stepped down and was subsequently denounced as a heretic.

Could you please supply a reference for this?

In general, the seat of government has been accorded a primacy of honor in the East, from Jerusalem in the beginning, shifting to Rome as the Church became less affiliated with the Jews after AD 70, and subsequently to Constantinople after the Great Schism (though Constantinople already had been accorded the number two slot as the Eastern Roman capital). It's pretty much universally held (by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants) that Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome in the late 60's AD. I'll try to dig up a link or two for you; this is from memory.

Well, it had, according to Irenaeus.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying here. I don't dispute that Rome had apostolic succession.

However, if the church in Rome really was founded by Peter and Paul, then the following makes little sense:

Romans 1:11-15

11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15 That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

© source where applicable

Doesn't this excerpt give the impression that Paul had never been in Rome (as of the time of writing Romans)?


- FreezBee

I didn't say that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome (and I don't know anyone who would say that), but that they ended their ministry through martyrdom there. Paul had not yet been to Rome when he wrote his epistle to the Romans, but he was there by c. AD 62 according to Acts.

[Joshster]

Basically all it means is that he has control of his jurisdiction (rome) not the whole church, this is still seen in the Orthodox today.

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, thanks.