|
Catholic writer
Steven O’Reilly Demonstrates Yet Again the Utter Circularity of Rome’s Use of
Patristic Sources: A Response to an Article in the February, 2000 This Rock Magazine.
It is the constant
theme of the modern resurgence in Roman Catholic apologetics: take the teaching of the
Magisterium as the final word, and do to the early Fathers whatever you need to so as to
substantiate the dogmatic teachings of Rome. It
is pleasant to read Roman scholars who have come to recognize that the early Church was
not Roman in nature. But Roman Catholic
apologists have not caught on to the facts of the matter: they continue to function on the
basis of pure anachronism, reading back into patristic writings concepts and ideas that
were not a part of the theology and belief of the early Church.
Examples abound, but
the most recent issue of This Rock magazine,
from Catholic Answers, provides us with a
glowing example of this kind of eisegetical interpretation of historical materials. Catholic writer Steven O’Reilly joins the
growing group of writers repeating, endlessly, the chant provided by the Magisterium
regarding papal primacy. In an article that
again shows the propensity of Catholic apologists to engage in Gail
Riplinger-like
behavior (i.e., to play games with the names of those they are reviewing), we are informed
that my brief discussion of the patristic interpretation of John 21:15-17 is in fact
“An Attempt to Whitewash Peter’s Primacy.”
It seems This Rock really loves my
last name (the reader may wish to review the refutation of a previous article, “The
White Man’s Burden.” To do so, click here). I cannot
help but note in passing the irony of the fact that we have had a standing challenge to
Karl Keating and Catholic Answers to debate
right there in San Diego (their headquarters) that has gone unanswered for quite some time
now. It seems they prefer one-sided
presentations to the type where both sides get equal time.
This new article from Catholic Answers focuses upon a page and a half of
my book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, which,
interestingly enough, has never been reviewed by any Roman Catholic apologetics journal. I should be thankful, however, that 1) the book
has finally been mentioned, four years after its release, and 2) Mr. O’Reilly does
not engage in the same kind of ad-hominem writing that has marked previous articles in This Rock and Envoy magazines.
The section reviewed
begins with the citation of John 21:15-17, and then reads as follows:
Cyril of Alexandria
demonstrates that the earliest, and most logical, understanding of this passage is that
held by Protestants, not Roman Catholics. In commenting on this passage he said,
If anyone
asks for what cause he asked Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what
he means by “Feed my lambs,” and the like, we answer that St. Peter, with the
other disciples, had been already chosen to the Apostleship, but because meanwhile Peter
had fallen (for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord), he now heals him that was
sick, and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the
former with the latter, and compensating the fault with the correction.
Here we have the gracious
Lord restoring the Apostle who, in his brash impetuosity, had promised to follow Him even
to death, and yet had denied Him three times. The three-fold question of Peter, followed
by the command to feed or shepherd Christ’s sheep, is restorative in nature. Nothing
in the passage would even begin to suggest to us that this means that the other Apostles
were not likewise commissioned to feed and pastor Christ’s flock on an equal basis
with Simon Peter. There is no indication that only
Peter is told to shepherd God’s flock. Indeed, if such were the case, Paul seems to
have been ignorant of this, for he instructed the Ephesians elders in Acts 20:28 to “Be
on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you
overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Paul does not say, “As Peter is the chief
shepherd, you act as undershepherds of the flock of God.” No, again, the only way that such an understanding
can be found is if we take a much later development and read it back into the texts, as
our Roman Catholic friends are forced to do. This passage in no way sets Peter apart as
the prince of the Apostles. Instead, it shows that he was in need of special pastoral care
on the part of Christ.
A footnote is attached
to the quote of Cyril which reads:
As cited by George Salmon,
The Infallibility of the Church, pp. 345-346.
B.C. Butler [The Church and Infallibility: A Reply
to the Abridged “Salmon” (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1954), pp. 190-191)] can
only point to another reference in Cyril (Migne, Patrologię
Gręę, lxxii, 424) that refers not to John 21, but Matthew 16, which says the Lord
appointed Peter “shepherd.”
Of
course He did: just as He appointed the rest of the Apostles.
This is the material
ostensibly under review. Unfortunately, the
article makes no pretense to fair review of the material: it begins, and ends, with the
assertion of Roman dogmatic interpretation. No
attempt is made to provide a positive defense of that dogmatic interpretation: it is
assumed, never proven. In fact, that is the
problem with all Roman attempts at exegesis: they cannot meaningfully engage the text due
to the over-riding consideration of Rome’s dogmatic teachings. The proposed meaning of the text does not come from the text but from Rome’s theology. It is
placed onto the text eisegetically. O’Reilly begins his article with the
assertion of what John 21 means: no attempt is made, whatsoever, to actually address the
passage on any level: grammatically,
lexically, syntactically, contextually, or in any other way. He begins,
In John’s gospel Jesus—addressing
himself specifically to Peter—charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend
my sheep,” and “feed my sheep.”
“Tending”
and “feeding” are metaphors for governing and teaching, a clear indication that
Christ intended Peter to govern and teach his “sheep,” i.e., the whole Church. Peter, and through him his successors, the bishops
of Rome, are granted a universal primacy over the Church.
Nothing in the rest of
the article provides us with any basis upon which to accept these claims. This is merely the repetition of the claims of
Vatican I, yet, it becomes obvious that this is where O’Reilly begins and therefore,
not surprisingly, ends as well. The fact that
this involves circular reasoning does not seem to find a place in the consciousness of the
defender of Roman claims, but to the person seeking meaningful biblical and historical
argumentation, it is a clear indication of the fallacy of the Roman position. We are not told why “tending” and
“feeding” are metaphors for governing and teaching in the Papal sense. We are not told why, in light of the context, and
the preponderance of the interpretation of the early church (even admitted by O’Reilly),
these words do not simply indicate the restoration of Peter to the position of apostle and
leader in the Church, along with the rest of the Apostles.
We are not told why shepherding sheep must mean shepherding all sheep everywhere. No passage, anywhere in Scripture, makes reference
to Peter’s “successors,” nor to the bishop of Rome (nor could it: there was
no single bishop in Rome until long after the last of the Apostles had died). The fact that O’Reilly can find in this
passage such momentous conclusions proves that something other than the text is in view.
As we review the
article, I will ask a few questions: 1) Did
Cyril say what I said he said? 2) Is Cyril’s
interpretation (that John 21:15-17 is restorative in nature) the earliest we find in the
patristic writings? 3) Do we find other
fathers, earlier than Cyril, applying this passage as modern Rome does? 4) What
is the general viewpoint of the fathers who do address this passage? With which interpretation is it consistent? By keeping these things in view, we will discover
that this article in fact demonstrates that my assertion was correct: despite all the
other issues raised by O’Reilly, in the end, it is confirmed that Cyril did write
these words and that in fact the majority of early Fathers agreed.
Indistinguishable?
Twice in his article O’Reilly
is not perfectly accurate in his statement of the Protestant view regarding Peter
expressed in my writings. In the introduction
to the article it is said that I attempt “to show that Peter’s role was
indistinguishable from that of the other apostles.”
And later he writes, “White claims that Peter’s role is
indistinguishable from the other apostles, saying John 21:15-17 does not establish that
‘only Peter was told to shepherd God’s flock.’” It is true that as far as apostleship is
concerned, there is no exaltation of Peter to a position of primacy above his fellows. But surely his role is “distinguishable.” Peter is the first to preach the gospel to
Gentiles, and takes the lead in many of the initial works of the church. He is the apostle to the Jews, just as Paul is the
apostle to the Gentiles. So it is not the
Protestant claim that Peter’s ministry is not special or unique: the claim is that he
is not given a primacy, made a Pope, with absolute jurisdictional authority over even the
other apostles.
The Ephesian Elders
The first point of
disagreement raised by O’Reilly has to do with my comments on Acts 20 and Paul’s
charge to the Ephesian elders. He argues that
this does not mean that Paul was not aware of the “Petrine primacy” since the
shepherding referred to in Acts 20 is limited in scope.
The Ephesian elders were bishops only in the Ephesian church. Peter, it is claimed, was shepherd over all. However, O’Reilly assumes the existence of the Petrine primacy. He makes no effort to prove his point. He writes,
The Lord, on the other hand, in addressing Peter
neither implies nor places any such limitations upon the jurisdiction of his office. Peter is to feed and shepherd—teach and
govern—the Lord’s flock “among which” the Lord placed him—that
is, the whole flock, the universal Church.
This is classic
circular argumentation. If Christ chose to
place Peter in a position of apostleship where He ministered to only a portion of the
Church, would this not involve feeding and shepherding the sheep? Of course. So,
upon what basis do we assume, as O’Reilly does, that these words, which make no
reference to an office, make no reference to successors, and make no reference to power,
jurisdiction, or the church, mean that Jesus is here making Peter a singular, distinctive
leader of the universal Church? The only
source of such an interpretation is Rome’s own claims for herself: the text says
nothing in support of O’Reilly’s conclusion.
But, let’s accept
the argument for a moment and see where it leads. If
the limitation of the sphere of the Ephesians elders is relevant, then it follows that the
following would be relevant as well:
(for He who
effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship
to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles) (Galatians 2:8)
Peter’s
apostleship was specifically to the “circumcised”? Such is the statement of the text. By the time of Paul’s meeting with Peter the
role Peter had exercised in opening the door of the gospel had been reduced. God chose Paul, not Peter, to be the Apostle to
the Gentiles. One could easily argue that
since the Gentile mission was significantly
larger and more central to the future of the Church than the Jewish, that this would
“clearly” indicate a supremacy of Paul, not Peter, but such would involve the
same kind of eisegetical interpretation rampant in Roman Catholic writings. The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the New
Testament do we see this “universal authority” of Peter outside of the universal authority held by all apostles
of Christ in the primitive Church. The
Ephesian elders ruled in the Church in Ephesus, not as underlings of Peter in Rome, but as
appointed by the Apostle Paul so to carry out those duties.
When the apostles were no longer on earth, the eldership functioned as the
New Testament indicated: as the office that gives direction and guidance to the local
assemblies, which was the order of the Church ordained by the Apostles. This primitive form continued side-by-side with
the episcopal form in the earliest years, even prevailing at Rome until the fifth decade
of the second century.
Cyril on Papal
Primacy
O’Reilly
continues his review by noting that “it is true Cyril stresses the restorative nature
of the passage in question.” This is at
the very least encouraging: a recognition of the truthfulness of my assertion. But our author is quick to assert that “it
does not follow that Cyril’s statement is incompatible with the Catholic
understanding.” I quickly point out that
the assertion I made is that Cyril 1) does not see in the text the establishment of Peter
in a position of primacy, as modern Rome asserts, and 2) that this is the earliest
interpretation found amongst the Fathers: the Roman
interpretation is the later (much later) development.
O’Reilly never provides a single
counter-citation showing an earlier pro-Roman interpretation of the passage at hand, which
seems, in and of itself, to prove my point. Instead,
he attempts to say that Cyril must have understood the passage in a way commensurate with
Rome since, elsewhere, he makes statements O’Reilly interprets as being consistent
with Roman claims. No attempt is made to
provide any quotations from Cyril about John 21. Instead, a lengthy discussion is introduced that
attempts to say that Cyril believed that the bishop of Rome was the sole successor of
Peter, which, evidently, means that he must have understood John 21 as modern Roman
Catholics do even if we have no evidence in his own
writings that he did so. This end-run,
while most interesting, only shows the desperation of the Roman apologist who refuses to
admit that in fact the earliest interpretations found in tradition do not present
the very belief they must read into all ancient patristic literature: the belief in
Roman supremacy.
The evidence presented
that Cyril would have held to the Roman concept of Papal primacy consists of three points:
1) that elsewhere Cyril speaks of Peter being appointed “shepherd.” O’Reilly assumes this means chief
shepherd of the Church universal; 2) That in speaking of Matthew 16 Cyril teaches that
Christ set Peter as shepherd over the Church (no reference is given); and 3) that Cyril
referred the case of Nestorius to Pope Celestine and acted as representative of the bishop
of Rome at the Council of Ephesus. However,
even if all of these things proved that Cyril viewed Peter as having a primacy over Paul
and the other apostles, and that this primacy was passed on to the bishop of Rome alone
(and no attempt is made to prove this from the data cited), it would not follow that Cyril
viewed John 21:15-17 as establishing Peter as the chief shepherd of the flock. But, even here, the Roman apologist is in a
difficult position. In response I note:
1) Yes, Peter was appointed shepherd of the flock of
God. As I have noted, it is the burden of the
Roman controversialist to prove that it is the “universal faith” of the Church,
found in the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers, that this means Peter is a
Pope, the chief shepherd, the pastor of all Christians in a way utterly unlike Paul or
John. What is sure is that even if Cyril
believed this (and saying Peter is shepherd does not, without invoking the most obvious
form of special pleading, mean this), he did not see John 21:15-17 teaching it.
2) It is interesting to note the selective use of
patristic sources that, of necessity, marks Roman Catholic controversialists. While the Protestant is free to allow the Fathers
to be themselves, recognizing that each ancient writer was closer or farther from biblical
truth, depending on their learning, their historical context, etc., the Roman Catholic is
forced to place each writer in a preconceived mold, often resulting in great
contradiction. We will see this below in the
citation of John Chrysostom. Here we find
Cyril’s position being only partially presented.
The same Cyril, commenting on Luke 9:43-45 in Homily 53, said,
When the blessed Peter had been counted worthy of
a grace thus glorious and wonderful, being in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, he
made a correct and faultless confession of faith in Him, saying, Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God. And what was the reward of which he was thought worthy? It was to
hear Christ say, Blessed art thou, Simeon, son of Jonah; for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it to thee, but My Father in heaven. And he further received surpassing honors;
for he was entrusted by Him with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the confession of
his faith was made the firm foundation for the Church. For thou, He says, art a stone; and
upon this stone I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not overpower it. Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, Homily 53,
trans. R. Payne Smith (Studion Publishers, Inc., 1983), p. 232.
Are we to believe that
an ancient writer who saw Matthew 16 being fulfilled in the confession of Peter (in
opposition to the dogmatic interpretation of Rome that sees this being fulfilled in Peter
himself) was actually intent upon believing that the bishop of Rome was the sole successor
of Peter, the vicar of Christ on earth? It
seems it is being suggested that a man who interpreted both John 21 and Matthew 16 contrary
to Rome’s modern view still, in spite of this, held to the Roman view! We can see here how a precommitment to Roman
supremacy determines the outcome of any study of patristic sources, facts and logic
notwithstanding.
3) The final argument is based upon Cyril’s
alliance with Celestine regarding the Nestorian situation.
But anyone familiar with Cyril’s personal behavior well knows this is
not much of an argument. As Schaff notes:
He was the most zealous and the most influential
champion of the anti-Nestorian orthodoxy at the third ecumenical council, and scrupled at
no measures to annihilate his antagonist. Besides
the weapons of theological learning and acumen, he allowed himself also the use of wilful
misrepresentation, artifice, violence, instigation of people and monks at Constantinople,
and repeated bribery of imperial officers, even of the emperor’s sister
Pulcheria. By his bribes he loaded the church property at
Alexandria with debt, though he left considerable wealth even to his kindred, and adjured
his successor, the worthless Dioscurus, with the most solemn religious ceremonies, not to
disturb his heirs. (Schaff, History of the
Christian Church, III:944).
Pointing to flowery
and exalted language used by such a person in the prosecution of a cause that saw him use
violence and bribery to execute is hardly an argument that will carry much weight with
anyone familiar with the historical context. Cyril
was not above lauding anyone who would support him, nor above beating senseless anyone who
opposed him. But, of course, none of this is
relevant to the actual topic at hand: the fact remains, despite all the dust thrown in the
air in the attempt to obscure it, that Cyril’s understanding of John 21 is non-Papal,
and does represent the earliest and most widely taken view.
Proto-Protestants?
Before looking at the
next section we must lament the seemingly unavoidable straw-man argumentation that marks
everything Catholic Answers does. Without
any reason or basis, O’Reilly writes, “Further, it was Cyril, whom White
attempts to conscript to his cause as if the Alexandrine patriarch was a proto-Protestant….” Just as Envoy magazine falsely accused me
of turning the church leaders at Nicea into Baptists (see my article at
http://www.equip.org/free/DN-206.htm and my response to the Envoy article in the CRI
Journal volume 21, number 4), so too This Rock cannot abide the fact that a
Protestant can quote the early Fathers against their own position. In reality, it is the Roman apologist who must
turn all the early Fathers into Roman Catholics: I can simply allow them to be what they
were. I don’t have to turn them into
Protestants or anything else: by just letting them speak for themselves it becomes obvious
that such things as the modern Papal interpretation of John 21:15-17 was not the
view of the early Church.
Cyril of Jerusalem
Next Mr. O’Reilly
attempts to enlist the aid of Cyril of Jerusalem. He
does so in this context:
White claims ancient Christian commentators “did
not find the constitution of the Church in these [biblical] passages, as later claimed by
Rome.” However, this is simply not the
case. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386), in the
same breath that he speaks of Peter’s three denials, calls Peter “the chiefest
and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19).
So does it follow that
the early Church did see the very constitution of the Church in Matthew 16 and John
21? Surely such is a huge leap. Let’s look first at what Cyril of Jerusalem
actually said in Catechetical Lectures 2:19:
What then? When
Nabuchodonosor, after having done such deeds, had made confession, did God give him pardon
and the kingdom, and when thou repentest shall He not give thee the remission of sins, and
the kingdom of heaven, if thou live a worthy life? The
LORD is loving unto man,
and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Let
no man therefore despair of his own salvation. Peter,
the chiefest and foremost of the Apostles, denied the Lord thrice before a little main:
but he repented himself, and wept bitterly. Now
weeping shews the repentance of the heart: and therefore he not only received forgiveness
for his denial, but also held his Apostolic dignity unforfeited.
What a difference
context makes! We note just a few things: 1)
the passage is about the need for repentance. It
is not about the church, offices in the church, or the interpretation of John 21,
specifically. 2) Peter is brought forward as a tremendous example
because of his position as apostle. 3) If there is any reference to John 21 here, it is
obviously in reference to the very viewpoint Cyril of Alexandria presented, for Cyril of
Jerusalem speaks of Peter’s receiving forgiveness and also holding “his
Apostolic dignity unforfeited”! This
would support the restorative interpretation presented by Cyril of Alexandria, not the
exaltation interpretation of modern Rome. The
very fact that a passage that presents Peter as an example of restorative repentance
has to be pressed into use in this manner shows how utterly desperate the Roman Catholic
apologist is to find substantiation for his anachronistic interpretation of patristic
sources.
But again we find no
basis for saying that the early Church saw in these passages the constitution of the
entire Church. Where is the constant
discussion of these passages from Ignatius forward, if, indeed, these are the passages
upon which the very Church herself is founded? They
do not exist. Therefore, the assertion
stands unchallenged.
John Chrysostom
O’Reilly comes
closest to providing a meaningful counter-citation in Chrysostom’s interpretation (Commentary
on St. John’s Gospel, 88). The mixed
view Chrysostom provides, including both the restorative view as well as an assertion that
Peter is here given a “chief authority” is almost supportive of the Roman
viewpoint. Unfortunately for O’Reilly,
Chrysostom is no friend to the exalted claims of the Roman papacy. Even if Chrysostom were to believe Peter was a
Pope, it does not follow that he would believe the bishops of Rome were Peter’s sole
successors. Indeed, it is well known that he
did not believe any such thing. For even
though he saw an element of authority in the restoration of Peter, he likewise did not see
Matthew 16 (the key Papal passage) in the way Rome does today. There are numerous passages that could be cited,
but the clearest is:
Upon this rock.
He did not say ‘upon Peter’ for it is not upon the man, but upon
his own faith that the church is built. And
what is this faith? ‘You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.’”
(In
Pentecosten, Migne 52.806.75-807.1)
Vatican I described
such a view as “perverse,” but as the student of history knows, it was a
well-attested position in ancient times, far better attested than any view
commensurate with Rome’s. Still, the
citation of Chrysostom is O’Reilly’s best work: and it shows again that 1) Cyril’s
view preceded Chrysostom’s, and 2) the restorative emphasis was found even when a
special privilege was seen in the passage. Interestingly,
this did not lead Chrysostom to believe the bishop of Rome was his superior, nor did it
lead him to view Matthew 16 as Rome does, nor Luke 22:31-32.
Augustine
It does not seem that
any discussion of ancient theology can be pursued without invoking the great name of
Augustine. But surely by now Roman
controversialists should be aware that Augustine is no friend of their cause. Unless it is assumed that their audience will not
check things out for themselves, the citation of Augustine is devastating to Roman
pretensions on this topic. Only a glancing
(and a-contextual) citation is provided, that being the famous passage in Augustine’s
anti-Manichaen work. It is admitted,
thankfully, that even Augustine gives the restorative interpretation of the passage
(supporting my own position). The quotation
is given, unfortunately, to make it look like the words cited are relevant to John 21 when
they are not. Augustine stands firmly in the
non-Papal class in his interpretation of the key Papal texts, including Matthew 16, John
21, and Luke 22. And should anyone think he
held a view of the bishop of Rome as the universal head of the Church with infallible
teaching authority, I suggest a brief review of the reaction of Augustine and the North
African Churches to the silly restoration of Pelagius by the incompetent bishop of Rome
Zosimus is in order.
Quoting Rome in
Support of Rome
Following the failed
attempt to find any relevant citations on John 21 that precede Cyril, and having hopefully
lost the reader in the large number of issues raised since the original thesis was
introduced, citations from Roman pontiffs made in the service of their own aggrandizement
are adduced. What is incredible is the fact
that the statement of the Council of Florence (written eleven hundred years after Cyril)
is quoted as if relevant to the issue at hand! Anyone
slightly familiar with the history of this “council” and its utter rejection by
Orthodoxy can only find its citation further evidence of the bankruptcy of the position
being defended. See Schaff’s History
(VI: 179-185) for details.
O’Reilly’s
Conclusion
After a few pages of
disjointed and often irrelevant citations, our author concludes,
Clearly, the constitution of the Church, contrary
to White’s objections, has been seen in such verses down through the centuries since
the time of Christ.
Obviously, this is a
statement of faith, words of wishful thinking, not the conclusion of any meaningful
argument. The earliest materials presented
come from the period of the fourth century (not the time of Christ); they skip past entire
centuries where not a word in support of Papal pretensions is to be found; and we have
seen that the materials that were presented were based upon either avoiding the real issue
(the historic interpretation of the key papal passages, especially John 21) or by
inserting anachronistic interpretations into passages far too feeble to bear the load. Yet, the Roman apologist can offer such piece-meal
material and then conclude, “See, I have proven my case. Everyone has always agreed with me.” Such wishful thinking is obvious to the person
approaching the topic with any semblance of fairness.
O’Reilly continues:
We have the plain words of Scripture that Jesus
bestowed to Peter universal jurisdiction over the Church.
The Greek and Latin Fathers understood the verses in question in the sense
of and Catholic teaching (sic).
It almost takes ones
breath away to realize that our writer is being perfectly serious here. Though not a shred of evidence has been offered to
support these grand sweeping claims, yet they are actually seen in the mind of the person
submitted to Roman supremacy as having been established.
From the very start this has been the assertion of the article: the opening
paragraph begins with this assumption, and here we have the very same concept appearing in
the conclusion. Unbiased persons recognize
this as circular reasoning. The faithful son
of Rome thinks it is valid argumentation.
So what have we seen? First, every statement cited from The Roman
Catholic Controversy has been verified. No
earlier or more pervasive understanding of John 21:15-17 has been presented. Therefore, the entire article is a study in how to
not respond to meaningful Protestant argumentation.
Next, we have been offered no foundation upon which to accept the very first
assertion of the article: that John 21 speaks of a universal teaching office given to
Peter and then through Peter to his successors. No
attempt has been made to show how it is that the passage can speak to both the
restoration of Peter from his fall as well as the establishment in him of an
infallible and perpetual teaching office. While
the article attempts to say that the early church did see in these passages the very
constitution of the Church, no evidence has been provided outside of disjointed citations
that bear no direct relationship to the interpretation of the passage. The self-serving claims of Popes, and the humorous
example of the “ecumenical” council of Florence is all that our writer has
mustered, and these come from long after the time of Cyril of Alexandria. Such amounts to saying, “The modern Roman
position is true because modern Rome says so.”
But
then again, when one thinks about it, that is all Rome has to say in any case. And that is why knowledgeable Protestants reject
Rome’s claims, and invite all men everywhere to likewise reject such pretensions and
stand for the freedom of the Christian faith.
|
