Church Fathers criticizing the Bishop of Rome

[SebastianClinciuJJ]

This post is addressed to the “Church Fathers Encyclopedia” guys:

Can someone post some references or qoutes from the Church Fathers where they criticize the Bishop of Rome?

I know of some Church Fathers that spoke very highly of the Church of Rome (for example Irenaeus). Of course, this does not prove the case of Romanists.

References to Patrologia Latina would be fine too.

Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor]

I remember reading about how Cyprian opposed Pope Stephen. When I find the material, I will post it here.

 

[SebastianClinciuJJ]

I remember reading about how Cyprian opposed Pope Stephen. When I find the material, I will post it here.

I heard of that event. And one from Irenaeus too, when he rebuked the attitude of the Bishop of Rome regarding the Quartodeciman Controversy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You might consider this as a starting point:

https://archive.org/details/papalismtreatise00denn/page/n5

 

[DTK]

Edward Denny's work, Papalism, as recommended by Patrick above, is a MUST read on this subject. Bear in mind that the eastern church NEVER believed in or held to any form of papal primacy, much less any notion of papal infallibility. Basil of Caesarea pointed out repeatedly the arrogance of the Roman bishop, as well as Rome's indifference to and ignorance of affairs/controversies in the eastern church. One does well to remember that the first four so-called ecumenical councils took place in the EAST.

Here are some examples of Basil's criticism of the Roman bishop...

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379) commenting on the proposed trip of his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, to Rome: I cannot understand how it is that no one has told you that the road to Rome is wholly impracticable in winter, the country between Constantinople and out’ own regions being full of enemies. If the route by sea must be taken, the season will be favorable; if indeed my God-beloved brother Gregory consents to the voyage and to the commission concerning these matters. For my own part, I do not know who can go with him, and am aware that he is quite inexperienced in ecclesiastical affairs. With a man of kindly character he may get on very well, and be treated with respect, but what possible good could accrue to the cause by communication between a man [the Roman bishop] proud and exalted, and therefore quite unable to hear those who preach the truth to him from a lower standpoint, and a man like my brother, to whom anything like mean servility is unknown? NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters, Letter 215, To the Presbyter Dorotheus.
The translation that Edward Denny offers on the latter part of this citation is, “I know not what advantage could arise to the whole Church from the intercourse of such a person [read here the bishop of Rome], who has no mean adulation in his nature, with one high and lifted up sitting on I know not how lofty a seat, and not able to catch the voice of those who tell him the truth on the ground.” See Edward Denny, Papalism (London: Rivingtons, 1912), p. 636, §1217.

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379): As soon as I got home, after contracting a severe illness from the bad weather and my anxieties. I straightway received a letter from the East to tell me that Paulinus had had certain letters from the West addressed to him, in acknowledgment of a sort of higher claim; and that the Antiochene rebels were vastly elated by them, and were next preparing a form of creed, and offering to make its terms a condition of union with our Church. Besides all this it was reported to me that they had seduced to their faction that most excellent man Terentius. I wrote to him at once as forcibly as I could to induce him to pause; and I tried to point out their disingenuousness. NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters, Letter 216, To Meletius, the Bishop of Antioch.
Again, the translation that Edward Denny offers is, “After I returned...I received immediately letters from the East stating that Paulinus’ friends had certain letters from the West conceived as if they were the credentials of a sovereign power—ἀρχῆς—and that his partisans were proud of it, and exulted in these letters, moreover, were putting forth their faith, and on these terms were ready to join with the Church that stands by us.” See Edward Denny, Papalism (London: Rivingtons, 1912), p. 636, §1217.

In the extended portions of the letter above and the one below, you will notice that there was a controversy over who was the rightful bishop of Antioch - you had 3 different men claiming to be the rightful bishop. The Roman bishop threw his support behind Paulinus, but Basil of Caesarea and others in the east favored Meletius. As an aside, it was Meletius who baptized John Chrysostom and ordained him as a deacon. Moreover it was Meletius who presided over the 3rd ecumenical council of Constantinople until he died suddenly during that assembly and had to be replaced. So Rome's backing of Paulinus meant nothing to the church of the east.

Basil of Caesarea to Count Terentius (AD. 329-379):
1. When I heard that your excellency had again been compelled to take part in public affairs, I was straightway distressed (for the truth must be told) at the thought of how contrary to your mind it must be that you after once giving up the anxieties of official life, and allowing yourself leisure for the care of your sold, should again be forced back into your old career. But then I bethought me that peradventure the Lord has ordained that your lordship should again appear in public from this wish to grant the boon of one alleviation for the countless pains which now beset the Church in our part of the world. I am, moreover, cheered by the thought that I am about to meet your excellency once again before I depart this life.
2. But a further rumor has reached me that you are in Antioch, and are transacting the business in hand with the chief authorities. And, besides this, I have heard that the brethren who are of the party of Paulinus are entering on some discussion with your excellency on the subject of union with us; and by “us” I mean those who are supporters of the blessed man of God, Meletius. I hear, moreover, that the Paulinians are carrying about a letter of the Westerns, assigning to them the episcopate of the Church in Antioch, but speaking under a false impression of Meletius, the admirable bishop of the true Church of God. I am not astonished at this. They are totally ignorant of what is going on here; the others, though they might be supposed to know, give an account to them in which party is put before truth; and it is only what one might expect that they should either be ignorant of the truth, or should even endeavor to conceal the reasons which led the blessed Bishop Athanasius to write to Paulinus. But your excellency has on the spot those who are able to tell you accurately what passed between the bishops in the reign of Jovian, and from them I beseech you to get information. I accuse no one; I pray that I may have love to all, and “ especially unto them who are of the household of faith;” and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favor, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints.
3. Consider well, my excellent friend, that the falsifiers of the truth, who have introduced the Arian schism as an innovation on the sound faith of the Fathers, advance no other reason for refusing to accept the pious opinion of the Fathers than the meaning of the homoousion which they hold in their wickedness, and to the slander of the whole faith, alleging our contention to be that the Son is consubstantial in hypostasis. If we give them any opportunity by our being carried away by men who propound these sentiments and their like, rather from simplicity than from malevolence, there is nothing to prevent our giving them an unanswerable ground of argument against ourselves and confirming the heresy of those whose one end is in all their utterances about the Church, not so much to establish their own position as to calumniate mine. What more serious calumny could there be? What better calculated to disturb the faith of the majority than that some of us could be shewn to assert that there is one hypostasis of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? We distinctly lay down that there is a difference of Persons; but this statement was anticipated by Sabellius, who affirms that God is one by hypostasis, but is described by Scripture in different Persons, according to the requirements of each individual case; sometimes under the name of Father, when there is occasion for this Person; sometimes under the name of Son when there is a descent to human interests or any of the operations of the oeconomy; and sometimes under the Person of Spirit when the occasion demands such phraseology. If, then, any among us are shewn to assert that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in substance, while we maintain the three perfect Persons, how shall we escape giving clear and incontrovertible proof of the truth of what is being asserted about us?
4. The non-identity of hypostasis and ousia is, I take it, suggested even by our western brethren, where, from a suspicion of the inadequacy of their own language, they have given the word ousia in the Greek, to the end that any possible difference of meaning might be preserved in the clear and unconfounded distinction of terms. If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named. Nevertheless, there is one point which I should like to have pressed on your excellency, that you and all who like you care for the truth, and honor the combatant in the cause of true religion, ought to wait for the lead to be taken in bringing about this union and peace by the foremost authorities in the Church, whom I count as pillars and foundations of the truth and of the Church, and reverence all the more because they have been sent away for punishment, and have been exiled far from home. Keep yourself, I implore you, clear of prejudice, that in you, whom God has given me as a staff and support in all things, I may be able to find rest. NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters, Letter 214, To Count Terentius.

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379) on western pride: Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier than ever. If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus, when they quarreled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy. Apart from the common document, I should like to have written to their Coryphaeus [i.e. the Roman bishop]— nothing, indeed, about ecclesiastical affairs except gently to suggest that they know nothing of what is going on here, and will not accept the only means whereby they might learn it. I would say, generally, that they ought not to press hard on men who are crushed by trials. They must not take dignity for pride. Sin only avails to produce enmity against God. NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters, Letter 239, To Eusebius, the Bishop of Samosata.

Basil was always criticizing the Roman bishop on account of both his arrogance and his ignorance. Elsewhere in his works Basil of Caesarea informs us of his view that Christ alone is head of the church...again he never accepted any notion of papal primacy.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Now you are the body of Christ and members of member’—that is, the one and only true Head which is Christ exercises dominion over and unites the members, each with the other, unto harmonious accord. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1950), p. 41.
Greek text: τῆς μιᾶς καὶ μόνης ἀληθῶς κεφαλῆς. De Judicio Dei, §3, PG 31:660.