A photo of doctrinal dragoons below. Given their history, a scary breed if they get power.
The modest position--again, modest, most modest--position of Rome in antiquity, not its exalted pretensions for last 1500-1600 years comes under review. Calvin provides an analysis of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.The Roman Bishop had no—repeat no—primacy and supremacy at these councils. A place of honour but not universal jurisdiction was noted in the Nicene Council.[1]
Vitius and Vincentus represented Rome at Nicaea. The fourth place was given to them. Why relegated to the fourth place? Sozomen in Ecclesiastical History lists the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria ahead of Rome. From within the perspective of history and the respective jurisdictions, this is not difficult to see.
A commendable footnote occurs from a Roman scholar, J.R. Palanque:
“By the will of the prince, and perhaps through the weakness of the pontiff, the Roman church remained outside the events of Christendom; his legates sat indeed in the great councils, at Arles in 314 and later at Nicaea, but without playing a noteworthy part, much less a decisive role.” J.R. Palanque, The Church in the Christian Roman Empire, tr. E.C. Messenger, 30.
And given Athanasius’ leadership of the time, although but a mere deacon, was he not the de facto leader? An Easterner? In fact, the only known presiding officer was Hosius, bishop of Cordova, alongside of Constantine. Hosius was the leading signatory, not Roman representatives. Where’s the supremacy? Furthermore, where are the Papist answers?
Some lessons learned. (1) Rome has painted itself into a corner and, intellectually and in terms of the history and arguments, has no way out. (2) The Roman apologists keep getting and looker weaker with the passing of every day. For this scribe, with every passing year, my loathing of this jurisdiction justly and lawfully grows. (3) Psalm 44—press the facts by the Spirit's might upon deceived Romanists. (4) Press the facts on the Rome-wardizers like Paul Hewitt, SSC, and other FIF-Rome lovers. Let this also include the man on automatic "puffing," Virtue.
Rome did not preside at the first council of Ephesus. Where's the jurisdictional supremacy?
Rome did not preside at the second council of Ephesus. Discorus, Patriarch of Alexandria presided. Where's the jurisdictional supremacy?
For the first council of Chalcedon, Leo the Emperor asked Rome to preside, given the anafractuousness of Eastern bishops and to ensure a distant, objective, grave and moderate voice. The presupposition to this action is not Roman supremacy or universal episcopacy, but the view of a jurisdiction distant, uninvolved and far off from the centre of Christian action, thought, and jurisdiction.
To this very day, the Eastern Orthodox will not yield to Roman claims of supremacy.
The fifth council of Chalcedon. Rome did not preside. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople presided. No supremacy here.
At a council of Aquiliea, in Italy itself, the bishop of Milan presided, Ambrose. Through the prestige of Ambrose and his influence with the emperor, Milan was more illustrious than Rome. Where's the supremacy?
As the English Reformer, John Philpott, after centuries of drunken Roman arrogance, put it: “Rome once was an apostolic see; otherwise it is now of no more force, than if the Turk at Antioch and at Jerusalem should boast of the apostolic sees, because the apostles once did abide there, and founded the church of Christ.”[2]
This appears to be the standard fare that we've encountered with all Reformation writings: no hesitancy to call Rome an Anti-Christ. Constantly usurping the Law,Prophets, and Apostles to their own advantage, without warrant, and with unabated contumacy. This was the object of John Henry Newman's love, Antichrist.
Another lesson learned. (1) We can rely on no Reformed Seminaries in the U.S. to call Rome “Anti-Christ.” And these are the best of the best. (2) The broad-based evangelicals have no sense of it or history. And if they did, they have no courage. They sell magazines, conferences, TV programs, and themselves, not biblical exegesis.(3) U.S. Anglicans are out of the question. CANTAUR is a dead dinosaur. Duncan needs about five years off to study somewhere. (3) Confessional Lutherans can be trusted on this point, e.g. the Smalcald Articles.
To be continued.
[1] Calvin, 1118.
[2] Philpott, The Writings and Examinations of John Philpott (Parker Society series), 118.
No comments:
Post a Comment