First pope to have papel supremacy?

[thistle93]

Hi! Does anyone know who was the first pope to declare himself supreme or be appointed with papal supremacy, such as we see in the Roman Catholic church today? From the little research I have done it seems like their was a dramatic shift from the early church fathers concept of pope to what we see today with the Pope. Thank you!


For His Glory-
Matthew

 

[Phil D.]

Many Protestant and secular historians would say Leo the Great was the first "real" pope. If you want a fairly in-depth account, but not too advanced, I would recommend reading Schaff. Schaff is sometimes criticized for not being critical enough of the RCC, and sometimes rightly so. But on the other hand I find him more objective overall than some anti-RCC historians. (Also, you can click through the preceding and subsequent chapters of Schaff at the online link to fill out the larger topic of the early papacy.)

 

[chuckd]

Must have been around or before the Great Schism since that's the main objection the Greek Orthodox church had.

 

[Joshua]

*papal

 

[RamistThomist]

Gregory the Great (I) but he didn't actually seek power. I disagree with his worldview, but he was a fairly humble guy. Leo III (i.e., the guy who crowned Charlemagne) would be a good contender.

 

[W.C. Dean]

Gregory the Great (I) but he didn't actually seek power. I disagree with his worldview, but he was a fairly humble guy. Leo III (i.e., the guy who crowned Charlemagne) would be a good contender.

Surely you would know more, but Pope Gregory was the one to institute quite a few doctrines that were new but now are accepted Roman dogma, correct? As in, celibate priests and a few other things.

 

[JM]

Emperor Phocas made a decree claiming the Pope of Rome was the universal Bishop of the church in 606.

Phocas - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

John Gill notes; “if to this we add 1,260 the expiration of his reigns will fall in the year 1866, so that he may have upwards of a hundred and twenty years yet to continue; but of this we cannot be certain; however, the conjecture is not improbable.”

Gill might have it correct. Napoleon gave the death blow to political Rome but Rome took some time to fade away. The Pope lost secular authority in 1866.

Wikipedia: “After defeating the papal army on 18 September 1860 at the Battle of Castelfidardo, and on 30 September at Ancona, Victor Emmanuel took all the Papal territories except Latium with Rome. In 1866 he granted Pius IX the Law of Guarantees (13 May 1871) which gave the Pope the use of the Vatican but denied him sovereignty over this territory, nevertheless granting him the right to send and receive ambassadors and a budget of 3.25 million liras annually. Pius IX officially rejected this offer (encyclical Ubi nos, 15 May 1871), retaining his claim to all the conquered territory.” Interesting. Gill seems to have used the book of Revelation to actually predict the last battle Papal Rome would have resulting in it’s loss of political power.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[RamistThomist]

Surely you would know more, but Pope Gregory was the one to institute quite a few doctrines that were new but now are accepted Roman dogma, correct? As in, celibate priests and a few other things.

More accurate to say that he finalized those doctrines, as they were already being practiced. The thing is we have to avoid any hard and fast cut off line. There was no division where the church taught pure doctrine and then it started teaching Romanism. Church history, pace EO and Rome, isn't that neat.

Even if the above were true of Gregory, you still can't pin papalism on him, since he famously rejected universal supremacy in his letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[Andrew35]

*papal

I'm concerned about PayPal supremacy in online commerce.

 

[Phil D.]

Well, if all our varied answers haven't confused you enough by now, I'll try to more directly address your immediate question, "who was the first pope to declare himself supreme or be appointed with papal supremacy." The reason many historians see Leo I in this light is based on the following:

On several occasions, Leo was asked to arbitrate disputes in Gaul. One involved Hilary of Arles, who refused to recognize Leo's judicial status. Leo appealed to past practice, "And so we would have you recollect, brethren, as we do, that the Apostolic See [i.e Rome], such is the reverence in which it is held, has times out of number been referred to and consulted by the priests of your province as well as others, and in the various matters of appeal, as the old usage demanded, it has reversed or confirmed decisions: and in this way "the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace Ephesians 4:3 ” has been kept..."​

​

Feeling that the primatial rights of the bishop of Rome were threatened, Leo appealed to the civil power for support and obtained, from [Emperor] Valentinian III, a decree of 6 June 445, which recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome based on the merits of Peter, the dignity of the city, and the legislation of the First Council of Nicaea; and provided for the forcible extradition by provincial governors of any bishop who refused to answer a summons to Rome.​

​

(Henry Bettenson, Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church [Oxford: University Press, 2011], p.24)​

 

[Phil D.]

Also, in terms of the broader issue of authority, Schaff writes (and provides documentation):

But the first pope, in the proper sense of the word, is Leo I., who justly bears the title of “the Great” in the history of the Latin hierarchy. In him the idea of the Papacy, as it were, became flesh and blood. He conceived it in great energy and clearness, and carried it out with the Roman spirit of dominion, so far as the circumstances of the time at all allowed. He marks the same relative epoch in the development of the papacy, as Cyprian in the history of the episcopate. He had even a higher idea of the prerogatives of the see of Rome than Gregory the Great, who, though he reigned a hundred and fifty years later, represents rather the patriarchal idea than the papal. Leo was at the same time the first important theologian in the chair of Rome, surpassing in acuteness and depth of thought all his predecessors, and all his successors down to Gregory I. Benedict XIV. placed him (a.d. 1744) in the small class of doctores ecclesiae, or authoritative teachers of the catholic faith. He battled with the Manichaean, the Priscillianist, the Pelagian, and other heresies, and won an immortal name as the finisher of the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ.​

​

...[Leo] was animated with the unwavering conviction that the Lord himself had committed to him, as the successor of Peter, the care of the whole church. He anticipated all the dogmatical arguments by which the power of the papacy was subsequently established. He refers the petra, on which the church is built, to Peter and his confession. Though Christ himself—to sum up his views on the subject—is in the highest sense the rock and foundation, besides which no other can be laid, yet, by transfer of his authority, the Lord made Peter the rock in virtue of his great confession, and built on him the indestructible temple of his church. [etc., etc.]​

​

...Leo thus made out of a primacy of grace and of personal fitness a primacy of right and of succession. Of his person, indeed, he speaks in his sermons with great humility, but only thereby the more to exalt his official character. He tells the Romans, that the true celebration of the anniversary of his accession is, to recognize, honor, and obey, in his lowly person, Peter himself, who still cares for shepherd and flock, and whose dignity is not lacking even to his unworthy heir. Here, therefore, we already have that characteristic combination of humility and arrogance, which has stereotyped itself in the expressions: “Servant of the servants of God,” “vicar of Christ,” and even “God upon earth.” In this double consciousness of his personal unworthiness and his official exaltation, Leo annually celebrated the day of his elevation to the chair of Peter.​

 

[Charles Johnson]

Gregory I (590-604) said "Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist."
The title universal bishop was then formally claimed by Boniface III, crowned 606.

 

[Phil D.]

The title universal bishop was then formally claimed by Boniface III, crowned 606.

Schaff and others essentially characterize this as the papacy de jure, while Leo had already de facto acquired the same.

 

[ZackF]

Gregory I (590-604) said "Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist."
The title universal bishop was then formally claimed by Boniface III, crowned 606.

Read the GtG quote many times but hadn’t the Boniface III.

 

[Edward]

@thistle93

Some good arguments here, but I'll go with Pius IX and a date of July 18, 1870. First Vatican Council

Although an argument can also be made for Pius XII in 1950 as the first to claim the alleged power granted by the First Vatican Council (declaration of the assumption of Mary).

 

[Charles Johnson]

@thistle93

Some good arguments here, but I'll go with Pius IX and a date of July 18, 1870. First Vatican Council

Although an argument can also be made for Pius XII in 1950 as the first to claim the alleged power granted by the First Vatican Council (declaration of the assumption of Mary).

The distinctive feature of Vatican I was declaring the Pope infallible, not supreme. Also it's a common mistake to think that infallibility was not widely attributed to the Pope in the Roman church before 1870. 1870 was simply the first time a council affirmed the doctrine, but it had been around for centuries.

 

[Ajay]

Hi! Does anyone know who was the first pope to declare himself supreme or be appointed with papal supremacy, such as we see in the Roman Catholic church today? From the little research I have done it seems like their was a dramatic shift from the early church fathers concept of pope to what we see today with the Pope. Thank you!


For His Glory-
Matthew

According to Historians it is pope Innocent III. He is

'' Elected pope on January 8, 1198, Innocent III reformed the Roman Curia, reestablished and expanded the pope’s authority over the Papal States, worked tirelessly to launch Crusades to recover the Holy Land, combated heresy in Italy and southern France, shaped a powerful and original doctrine of papal power within the church and in secular affairs, and in 1215 presided over the fourth Lateran Council, which reformed many clerical and lay practices within the church''. Taken from Britannica

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[DTK]

Does anyone know who was the first pope to declare himself supreme or be appointed with papal supremacy, such as we see in the Roman Catholic church today?

A good case could be made that the Roman bishop Stephen (254-7) was the first to attempt to throw his weight around in his dispute with Cyprian (200-258) over the issue of rebaptism. What communications we have preserved from Stephen are only those portions cited by Cyprian. A contemporary epistle written by Firmilian of Caesarea informs us that Stephen attempted to impose the Roman tradition not only on the churches of North Africa where Cyprian was, but on the churches of Asia Minor (in the east) as well. Irenaeus informs us that previously the Roman bishop Victor threatened to cut off churches in the east over the Quartodeciman controversy. So on the other hand, a case could be made that it was a gradual development for papal primacy and/or supremacy.