User:Vassyana/FAC

Sample reliable sources covering my concerns at the RCC FAC.

Baker and Landers

Baker, Robert A. & Landers, John M. A Summary of Christian History. B&H Publishing (2005). ISBN 0805432884.

“ Between 325 and 451, the foundations for the Roman Catholic Church were laid. Four worldwide councils provided an arena where the Roman bishop was able to exert growing authority. Arguing on the same grounds that has proved effective against the Gnostics, the Roman bishops said that their tradition of succession to the apostle Peter endowed them with continuing authority. They quoted Scripture texts to prove that Peter had such authority. When doctrinally wrong, and even when snubbed by an ecumenical council, the Roman bishop showed his tremendous prestige and sagacity by shifting his position or standing firm, as circumstances warranted. Through it all the bishop of Rome maintained his powerful place. Recognition by imperial and ecclesiastical authorities of Bishop Leo's pretensions to primacy, based on the Petrine tradition, provides grounds for believing that Leo was the first of the Roman Catholic popes. ” — p 84.

Duffy

Duffy, Eamon. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press (2002). ISBN 0300091656.

“ The visionary treatise The Shepard of Hermas, written in Rome early in the second century, speaks always collectively of the 'rulers of the Church', or the 'elders that preside over the Church', and once again the author makes no attempt to distinguish between bishops and elders. [The text goes on to say that Clement was presented not as a Bishop of Rome, but as an "elder" in the role of a church secretary responsible for writing other communities.]

Everything we know about the church in Rome during its first hundred years confirms this general picture. The Christians of the city were thought of by themselves and others as a single church, as Paul's letter to the Romans makes clear. The social reality behind this single identity, however, was not one congregation, but a loose constellation of churches based in private houses or, as time went on and the community grew, meeting in rented halls in markets and public baths. It was without any single dominant ruling officer, its elders or leaders sharing responsibility, but distributing tasks, like that of foreign correspondent.

” — pp 10-11.

“ Christianity all over the Roman world in the first and second centuries was in a state of violent creative ferment. What would come to be seen as mainstream orthodoxy coexisted alongside versions of the Gospel which would soon come to seem outrageously deviant, 'heretical'. But the outre and the orthodox were not always easy to distinguish at first sight, and the early Christian community in Rome had more than its fair share of competing versions of the Gospel. ” — p 12.

Kling

Kling, David William. The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times. Oxford University Press (2004). ISBN 0195130081.

“ By the end of the second century, what conclusions can be reached regarding Rome's ecclesiastical authority? From the sources discuss here, Rome is considered a significant, if not in some way unique, center of the Christian faith -- and yet without a claim to primacy. ” — p 64.

“ We encounter the Petrine text as proof for the prominence of the Bishop of Rome used for the first time in the context of a bitter exchange between Cyprian and Pope Stephen. [The text outlines the opposing positions.] Firmilian, the Greek bishop from Caesarea, sided with Cyprian and attacked Stephen for his "appalling discourtesy" and "insulting arrogance," calling him one "who vaunts tha the has succeeded to the occupancy of the chair of Peter". No letter from Stephen survives, but Firmilian referred to Stephen as "a man who finds the location of his bishopric such a source of pride, who keeps insisting that he occupies the succession to Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid". Ironically, the context of this first appeal of a Roman Bishop to Peter's authority is one where the clais is denied. Cyprian and Firmilian defended the rule of the mono-episcopate, but rejected the extension of that rule beyond a local or regional setting. Stephen's claims fell on deaf ears. ” — p 66.

This topic is covered in greater detail through pages 64 through 71 of the book. It is also touched upon in other areas of the book, such as on page 81 where in discussing the Petrine proof text it notes that previous to the opposition of the Protestant movement that Catholic theologians and Church Fathers had commonly interpreted the text to refer to the faith of all believers.

Bromiley

Barrett, David B., Bromiley, Geoffrey William & Fahlbusch, Erwin. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (1999). ISBN 0802824153.

“ In the early church Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) argued that only the bishop has the power of the keys for the forgiveness of sins (Penitence 1.2). He saw in bishops the successors of Peter for whose primacy he found a basis in Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:32 and John 21:15-17. Jerome (d. 420) advocated the relating of this primacy only to the bishop fo Rome, an idea promoted by Leo I (440-61) In practice, however, others continued to exercise the power of the keys of Matt. 16:19: bishops, priests, even monks at times. ” — p 116.

“ At the same time, however, Leo's claim to universal authority at the Council of Chalcedon was rejected, for the council granted the patriach of Constaniople virtually complete equality with his Roman colleague (can. 28). Leo confirmed the results of the council (excepting, of course, can. 28) with appropriate delay (not until March 453). ” — p 243.

Schimmelpfennig

Schimmelpfennig, Bernhard. The Papacy. James Sievert, translator. Columbia University Press (1992). ISBN 0231075154.

“ The four Eastern patriarchates also believed in the ministry and death of Peter in Rome and in the apostolic succession of the Roman bishops. But this meant for these four that the Roman bishops merely had a higher rank, not a higher authority in doctrine and dogma. They considered themselves the highest authority in their own spheres. The turning to Rome for support by the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria in conflicts with the Easts does not change this fact since, in emergencies, they also sought help from other communities, such as Carthage and Milan, that had a lot of influence in their territories. Therefore, it is wrong to read into the phraseology of such written petitions a general recognition of Rome's primacy. ” — p 49.

“ Just how limited the popes' sphere of influence was beginning in the late fifth century is shown in what is left of their correspondence. Because the letters were often responses to questions, we not only get an idea of Rome's interests, but also the area in which bishops and other office holders found it necessary or purposeful to turn to the Roman bishop. And, in contrast to the geographic expanse of the correspondence of, for example, Innocent I or Leo I, the correspondence of Gelasius I was astonishingly limited. He addressed most of his letters to bishops suburbicarian Italy, with clerics in Illyricum forming the next largest group. Letters to Constantinople (emperor or patriarch), Syria, North Africa or South Gaul were few in number, while there are none at all to Northern Italy, Spain, Egypt or the Franks. This range of letter writing was reduced even more under his successors. Except for suburbicarian Italy, other regions were given more consideration only by certain popes: Provence under Symmachus, Illyricum and Constaninople under Hormisdas. ” — p 50.