Reddit mentions of The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451

Two books that, as a Protestant, gave me genuine pause were On the Roman Pontiff by St. Robert Bellarmine (written in 1581... Bellarmine knocked nearly every anti-papal argument I inherited from the Reformed tradition out of the ballpark, he did it over 430 years ago, and somehow I had never heard of him in all my reading on Catholicism from the Reformed perspective), and The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortesque.

I had been introduced to Orthodoxy through Hank Hannegraaff and Jay Dyer, both of whom were heavily anti-Catholic. I didn't view the Catholic Tradition as having much of anything to offer, I was just trying to understand the EOC. In the process of researching sola Scriptura, I came across Called to Communion and found myself faced with formidable arguments for Catholicism I had never been introduced to! Since then, it's been a process of studying all sides.

It wasn't apologetics so much as just reading the earliest Christians while I was studying at a Protestant seminary (on my own, of course - they would never have read the Fathers so closely). The place of Rome in the early Church was pretty obvious to me such that Orthodoxy was never an option. Books that help prove this point are:

Chapman, John. Studies on the Early Papacy

Fortescue, Adrian. The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451

Rivington, Luke. Roman Primacy, A.D. 430-451

Scott, S. Herbert. The Eastern Churches and the Papacy

I also read a bunch of modern Catholic theologians and I'd be happy to suggest sources. But my conversion took years. It was something I spent all my free time thinking about for about 3 years.

I think Lutheranism is highly problematic. Luther's philosophical and theological starting points - rooted in nominalism - tend to lead to pretty disastrous theological positions. And the Reformers did reach out to the Orthodox. The Orthodox turned them down. They saw that they were preaching novelties, just as the Catholics saw.

Jay Dyer is a Protestant turned Catholic turned Orthodox turned SSPX turned Orthodox... I've seen him on Twitter being called out on certain points by serious Catholics and he just blocks them, that is when he's not shitposting... not arguing in good faith.

Listen, you're going to need to read...

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Papacy-Synod-Chalcedon-451/dp/1586171763

https://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=057Q3P8G8BYR2CDNDPNV

https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Early-Papacy-John-Chapman/dp/1475044909

Check out Erick Ybarra's stuff too, he even has some long form interviews on Youtube Jay Dyer prefers to debate people he knows he can beat in live interviews...

https://erickybarra.org/2018/02/11/does-the-filioque-subordinate-the-holy-spirit-to-creation/

Chapman, John. Studies on the Early Papacy

Fortescue, Adrian. The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451

Rivington, Luke. Roman Primacy, A.D. 430-451

Scott, S. Herbert. The Eastern Churches and the Papacy


You should also read the article by Brian Daley, SJ titled "Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of 'Primacy of Honour'" The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Oct. 1993): 529-553.

As evidence against the heretics that the true Apostolic faith was preserved in the legitimate succession of the Catholic (Orthodox) bishops, Irenaeus gives as an instance the succession of the bishops of Rome down to his own day. And he adds, "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should [agree] with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority". (The proper translation of the bracketed word, "agree", is disputed by some.)

I don't know that any among the Orthodox deny that, or question whether, the Bishop or Rome is Peter's legitimate successor. And it was to Peter (and Peter alone among the Apostolic college) that the keys of the kingdom were given. Peter alone was tasked by our Lord with strengthening his brethren, with feeding his sheep, and tending his lambs.

Ambrose writes, "Where Peter is, there is the Church".

It isn't a matter of primacy so much as agreement in doctrine and, through that agreement (or because of it), communion at one altar, sharing one loaf, one body of Christ.

One objection from the Orthodox to Irenaeus's words is that Rome was preeminent with respect to being located at the seat of Imperial authority. But I don't know of any good theological reason why a Patriarchate should be considered greater or lesser (more or less preeminent) on account of its proximity to the Emperor. Nor why Irenaeus should say Rome was preeminent for that reason.

Much of what I would have to say on the subject of Roman preeminence comes from the writings of Adrian Fortescue:

The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451

The Orthodox Eastern Church

The Lesser Eastern Churches

Trigger warning -- I think (from my perspective) that Fr. Fortescue is fair and, as far as I can tell, is faithful to the facts. But he is Catholic, and his motivation is to show how the Orthodox arguments against papal authority (i.e. jurisdiction) are false, etc. He isn't politically correct.

I would be very interested, if someone else (Orthodox) read these books, if they found anything factually in error, if they could relate those errors to me.

Read this.

Currently in the middle of reading Fr. Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. It has been a good read so far on understanding the papacy in general.

I also got His Broken Body. I heard it gives a good understanding of the schism between East and West, albeit from an Orthodox perspective. Not exactly what you may be looking for, but may contribute as well.

I definitely recommend Fortescue’s The Early Papacy for a great overview of the Catholic position on the Papacy and its support from the Fathers, etc.

>No... It isn't.
>Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
>Pope in Italian Translation means "Father". Additionally, it is usual custom to address the priest as "father".

Please.

>Transubstantiation: Pagan practice of cannibalism disguised through Communion. There is no literal meaning or physical transformation of the bread and wine/juice. It is supposed to be figurative.

Your accusation of cannibalism is the same that Pliny the Younger made of the early Christians in the earliest known surviving pagan reference to Christianity. Whenever I hear this, I am reminded of the continuity of the Church's teachings and the misconceptions of her opponents.

>Papacy: Peter was never considered a Pope or even remotely close to anything like the Papal Senate. He was merely a figurehead during the early church. Decisions were made in consensus to Scripture. Not Papal vote.

Are you aware that "scripture" was not fully formed? There was no New Testament to refer to. What they had in addition to scripture was the sacred traditions of the Apostles and the authority of the Church. Try reading this book if you want to know what the historic papacy was like.

>Salvation: (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9) Reading these segments, you would realize that rituals and practices does not guarantee salvation, but faith and faith alone. Works are the fruits of said salvation, but not a means to that salvation. Else the concept of Christ's death on Cross is moot. Catholicism is clinging to legalism... Not faith.

>Many of its practices, including idolizing Saints throughout history, just reminds me of Pagan Rome, when they worshiped and prayed to demi-gods and gods. It was a political gambit simply because of the fact that Christianity, the ORIGINAL Christianity, could not be stamped out by force. Thus, they adopted the practices of the original Christians, and then, because by then many of the Apostles were gone (because it was by now, A.D. 500) and therefore no one except a few isolated groups to oppose them... And thus they reigned as the supreme "Christian" entity. But then again, there was also Orthodox who also lay claim to original "Christianity" (when in reality its just a copy of Catholicism) and then the Coptic Christians of Egypt also lay claim to that same argument (though they ALSO are a copy of Catholicism).

Catholics do not idolize the Saints nor think that it is rituals that guarantee salvation. You seem to have severe misunderstandings of the Church. Try educating yourself before making such accusations.

Sure. The first thing I did was read the primary sources and pretty much in chronological order. I began with the Apostolic Fathers (Michael Holmes has this edition with Greek and English). I then read some 2nd century stuff, especially Irenaeus. Cyprian, Tertullian, etc, were all important. The fourth century took me forever to read through. I probably stayed in the 4th century for a year.

For secondary literature, I'd recommend, in no particular order:

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition

J.N.D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines

Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Chadwick is my doctoral grandfather, so to speak)

Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon

Benedicta Ward's translation of The Sayings of the Desert Fathers

Less to do with Church history, but filling in some intellectual gaps:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion

Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (This may shock people that I recommend it, but I do like the nouvelle théologie every now and again)

I also welcome /u/koine_lingua to offer some of his own recommendations to give some balance if he'd like.

1 There's heaps but a good example is Pope St. Celestine's deputization of St. Cyril (easterner) so he could judge Nestorius in his place. Check out Fortescue's The Early Papacy (pdf link) and Dom John Chapman's Studies on the Early Papacy for good discussions of the early papacy.

2 Strictly, no. You could make an argument that it was not prudent from a fraternal POV for Rome to follow certain other western churches and add it to the creed. You could definitely also make the arugment that Photius and Michael Cerularius (important Patriarchs of Constantinople) made their big fusses about it for political reasons rather than out of noble love for orthodoxy. Either way the filioque is true and it was legitimate for Rome to add it to the creed.

3/4 I don't think these questions are really relevant to the religious question but we definitely don't think it was "necessary" to sack Constantinople, just like EOs wouldn't think the Massacre of the Latins was necessary (I hope).

5 I actually don't know that much about this topic, sorry.

6 Yes, it bothers some but not all, especially now that many Catholics are not even familiar with the old liturgy (I prefer the old rite even though I'm a young guy and a convert). There has always been groups that have been opposed to the new liturgy and remained attached to the old rite, though. See Marcel Lefebvre , the Ottaviani Intervention, the Una Voce International Federation, etc. as examples. Thanks to Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum I'm hoping the usus antiquior will become increasingly popular as time goes on, enough so that perhaps eventually the Novus Ordo will become unnecessary.

7 I don't really know. Honestly, I converted after the scandals had already hit their hardest.

I recommend reading The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Fr Fortesque. It is a fantastic historical account of how the papacy was regarded in the earliest years of the church, by accounts of those who lived in those times. The year 451 and the Synod of Chalcedon were chosen arbitrarily, due to the arguments of those he debated in the Anglican church who insisted that the church became corrupt after that synod and the papacy did not exist until after 451 AD. He proves very definitively that this is not the case. Give it a read!

Even in the New Testament (Acts), Paul understands he has to convince Peter of things, not the other way around.

Early Church writers speak highly of Bishops, esp. the Bishop of Rome as having a prime place. And at various moments but particularly Chalcedon, the Bishop of Rome exercises authority above the council.

They didn't miss. Ex Cathedra isn't some magic phrase where you can say "I declare Ex Cathedra!" (Much like Michael Scott declaring Bankruptcy in the office). Ex Cathedra is more or less the rubric in which a statement can be declared infallible.

Considering that during the 1800s many people challenged the role of the Pope once again, and it seems as though the early church believed a lot of the same things that Vatican I said about the Pope (I have a great book recommendation for the early church and the Pope, it is The Early Papacy - By Adrian Fortescue). Consider that these councils tend to happen not as a way of saying "Here is a new belief" but "Here is a belief that most people have always believed but now people are challenging it, so we're gonna come confirm it real quick and make all of our beliefs on it super clear."

So until then the rules for papal infallibility may not have been strictly defined, and since it was historically not needing such a definition people may have been less concerned about it, but appeared to follow the dogma albeit not in a developed way.

A good book to read initially on this subject would be Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. If you have access to a university library, Brian Daley, SJ, has an article on this in JTS from 1993 on the meaning of 'primacy of honor.' It shows that when the Council of Constantinople affirms the Roman Pontiff's "primacy", it was actually jurisdictional, not simply honorific.