Papalism

by Edward Denny

 

In the year 1870, the Roman Catholic Church at the Vatican Council I officially decreed the dogmas of papal jurisdiction and infallibility. These particular dogmas were decreed by the Council to be the essential aspect of the Divine Constitution of the Church established by Jesus Christ, and were thereby defined to be de fide, meaning they are dogmas necessary to be believed and submitted to if one is to experience saving faith. In 1896, Pope Leo XIII. wrote his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, as a positive affirmation and defense of Vatican I through an appeal to Scripture, the Church Fathers, Church Councils and general history of the Church.

Anglican scholar, Edward Denny, then determined to write a response to the Encyclical and thereby indirectly also to Vatican I. The result is the present work, Papalism, which was initially published in 1912. It is arguably one of the most scholarly, thorough and well documented refutations of the biblical and historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy ever written. This document is comprised of 25 chapters in addition to extensive notes dealing with a vast array of biblical and historical issues related to the development of the papacy.

A pdf copy of Papalism can be accessed here.

A pdf copy of the English text of Satis Cognitum and the decrees of Vatican I can be found here.

The subject matter covered in the document includes the following:

CHAPTER I

THE SUPREME AUTHORITY FOUNDED BY CHRIST IN HIS CHURCH

Section I. The Encyclical Satis Cognitum

Section II. The nature of the Church

Section Ill. Did Christ appoint a Visible Head of the Church here on earth?

Section IV. To whom did Christ commit the Supreme Authority in His church?

Section V. The Episcopate the continuation of the Apostolate


CHAPTER II

WAS ST. PETER APPOINTED BY CHRIST TO BE ‘THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH’?

Section VI.  The Papalist interpretation of the words, ‘Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church’

Section VII. The Patristic interpretation of the words, ‘Thou art  Peter, and upon this Rock I Will build My Church‘

Section VIII. The first appearance of the germ of the Papalist interpretation of the words ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church,’

Section IX. What is the true interpretation of the words, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church’?

Section X. St. Pacian’s alleged witness to the Papalist interpretation of the words, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church’,

Section XI. St. Cyril of Alexandria’s alleged witness to tile Papalist interpretation of the words ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My Church,’

Section XII. The Conclusion to be drawn from the evidence,


CHAPTER III

THE PAPALIST DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREMACY OF PETER OVER THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

Section XIII. Of the nature of the ‘Primacy’ alleged to have been section conferred

by Christ on St. Peter,

Section XIV. Origen on ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’

Section XV. ‘The Gift of the Keys,’

Section XVI. The Injunction ‘Feed My Lambs, Feed My Sheep,’

Section XVII. The Injunction, ‘Confirm thy Brethren,’ St. Luke xxii. 32,

(a) The Papalist interpretation of the text,

(b) The Patristic interpretation of the text,

(c) The Scriptural testimony against the Papalist interpretation of the text,

(d) The history of the Papalist interpretation of the text,


CHAPTER IV

ON THE TITLES BESTOWED UPON ST. PETER

SectionXVIII. The title ‘The Rock”

Section XIX. The title ‘The Keybearer,’

Section XX. The title ‘Pastor,’

Section XXI. On the titles given by St. Chrysostom to St. Peter,

Section XXII. The teaching Of St. Chrysostom as to the position of St. Peter,

Section XXIII. On two statements made by St. Leo and St. Gregory as to the position of St. Peter,


CHAPTER V

  1. LEO THE GREAT AND THE ‘PAPAL PRETENSIONS’

Section XXIV. The alleged Supremacy jure divino of the Bishop of Rome over the Church,

Section XXV. The historical position of St. Leo the Great,

Section XXVI. The Edict of Valentinian III.,

Section XXVII. St. Leo and St. Hilary of Arles,

Section XXVIII. St. Leo’s pretensions not admitted in the East,


CHAPTER VI

THE INFLUENCE OF FORGERIES ON THE ‘PAPAL PRETENSIONS’

Section XXIX. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,

Section XXX. Forged passages attributed to the Greek Fathers,


CHAPTER VII

THE ‘TESTIMONY’ OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE AND OF THE FOURTH COUNCIL OF THE LATERAN AS TO PAPALISM

Section XXXI. The circumstances of the convocation of the Council  of Florence,

Section XXXII. The proceedings of the Council,

Section XXXIII. The Council rejected by the Easterns,

Section XXXIV. The Decretum Unionis,

Section XXXV. The Fourth Lateran Council, A.D. 1215,


CHAPTER VIII

THE WITNESS OF THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA, A.D. 325, AS TO PAPALISM

Section XXXVI. Why does not the Satis Cognitum cite ‘the testimony’ of the formal Acts of the early Œcumenical Councils?

Section XXXVII. By whom were the Œcumenical Councils convoked,

Section XXXVIII. Œcumenical Councils incompatible with Papalism,

Section XXXIX. On the Presidency of the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325,

Section XL. Canon IV.,

Section XLI. Canon V.,

Section XLII. Canon VI.,


CHAPTER IX

THE WITNESS OF THE SARDICAN CANONS AS TO PAPALISM

Section XLIII. The text of the three Canons on trials of Bishops,

Section XLIV. The meaning of the ‘Sardican Canons,’

Section XLV. The ‘Privilege’ a ‘grant’ and not a ‘right’ inherent in the Roman See,

Section XLVI. Are the ‘Sardican Canons’ genuine?


CHAPTER X

THE WITNESS OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 381, AS TO PAPALISM

Section XLVII. The convocation of the Council,

Section XLVIII. The Presidency of the Council,

Section XLIX. The case of Maximus the ‘Cynic,’

Section L. Canon II.,

Section LI. Canon III.,


CHAPTER XI

THE WITNESS OF THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, A.D. 431 AS TO PAPALISM

Section LII. Cyril, Celestine, and Nestorius, 166

Section LIII. The convocation of the Council, 170

Section LIV. The Presidency of the Council, 171

Section LV. The case of Nestorius, 173

Section LVI. The ‘Eighth Canon,’ 179


CHAPTER XII

THE WITNESS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, A.D. 451 AS TO PAPALISM

Section LVII. The convocation of the Council,

Section LVIII. The Presidency of the Council,

Section LIX. The case of Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria,

Section LX. The case of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,

Section LXI. Canon I.,

Section LXII. Canon IX.,

Section LXIII. Canon XVII.,

Section LXIV. Canon XXVIII.,

Section LXV. The Fathers of Clialcedon and ‘The Tome’ of St. Leo,


CHAPTER XIII

THE ALLEGED ROMAN EPISCOPATE OF ST. PETER

Section LXVI. The Papalist meaning of the expression ‘the legitimate successors of St. Peter,’

Section LXVII. Who founded the See of Rome?

Section LXVIII. Was St. Peter Bishop of Rome?


CHAPTER XIV

‘THE TESTIMONY’ OF ST. IRENAEUS

Section LXIX, ‘The lrenaean Passage’,

Section LXX. St. Polycarp and AnicetLIS, Bishop of Rome,

Section LXXI. St. Irenaeus and St. Victor, Bishop of Rome,

Section LXXII. The citation by the Vatican Council of ‘the Irenaean Passage’,


CHAPTER XV

’THE TESTIMONY’ OF ST. CYPRIAN

Section LXXIII. The Root and Womb of the Catholic Church,

Section LXXIV. Petri cathedra, ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est,

Section LXXV. The way in which ‘communion with the Catholic Church’ is maintained,

Section LXXVI. St. Cyprian and the case of Basilides and Martial,

Section LXXVII. St. Cyprian and the controversy as to Rebaptism,


CHAPTER XVI

THE TESTIMONY’ OF ST. JEROME

Section LXXVIII. St. Jerome and St. Damasus,

Section LXXIX. St. Jerome and the position of the Apostolate,


CHAPTER XVII

‘THE TESTIMONY’ OF ST. AUGUSTINE

Section LXXX. The Principatus Apostolicae Cathedrae,

Section LXXXI. St. Augustine and the Donatists,

Section LXXXII. St. Augustine on ‘The Unity of the Church’,

Section LXXXIII. St. Augustine and the case of Apiarius,

Section LXXXIV. Did St. Augustine make agreement with the Roman Church the test of being a Catholic?

Section LXXXV. St. Augustine and Pope Zosimus,

Section LXXXVI. St. Augustine and the authority of a General Council,


CHAPTER XVIII

‘THE TESTIMONY’ OF THE EASTERNS—PART I

Section LXXXVII. ‘The testimony’ of Maximus the Abbot,

Section LXXXVIII. ‘The testimony’ of St. Basil,

Section LXXXIX. ‘The testimony’ of St. Chrysostom,

Section XC. ‘The testimony’ of St. Cyril of Alexandria,


CHAPTER XIX

‘THE TESTIMONY’ OF THE EASTERNS—PART II

Section XCI. Alleged ‘Appeals’ of Easterns to Rome,

Section XCII. The ‘Appeal’ of St. Athanasius,

Section XCIII. The ‘Appeal’of St. Chrysostom,

Section XCIV. The ‘Appeal’ of Flavian of Constantinople,

Section XCV. The ‘Appeal’ of Theodoret,


CHAPTER XX

‘THE TESTIMONY’ OF THE EASTERNS—PART III

Section XCVI. ‘The Pontifical Legate Philip’s’ assertion at the Council of Ephesus,

Section XCVII. ‘The pronouncement of the Council of Chalcedon and the voice of the Third Council of Constantinople,’

Section XCVIII. The Formula of Horinisdas,

Section XCIX. Liberius and Arianism,

Section C. Zosimus and Pelagianism,

Section CI. Honorius and Monothelitism,

Section CII. How was the Formula of Hormisdas accepted by the Easterns?

Section CIII. The Confession of Michael Palaeologus,

Section CIV. Conclusion as to ‘the testimony’ of the Easterns,


CHAPTER XXI

THE MASTER’ OF ‘THE EPISCOPAL COLLEGE’

Section CV. ‘The power of the Bishops’ according to the Satis Cognitum,

Section CVI. The relations alleged to exist jure divino between the Bishops and the ‘Roman Pontiffs,’

Section CVII. Were any powers conferred on Peter apart from the Apostles?

Section CVIII. Did the Apostles receive their Apostolic powers through Peter?

Section CIX. Do Bishops ‘separated from Peter and his successors’ lose all jurisdiction?

Section CX. Did St. Cyprian make St. Peter and his successors the centre of unity?

Section CXI. Did St. Optatus of Milevis make St. Peter and his successors the centre of unity?

Section CXII. ‘Subjection and obedience to Peter’ the test of being ‘in communion with Peter,’

Section CXIII. ‘The subjection to the Roman Pontiffs of the Bishops collectively as well as individually’,


CHAPTER XXII

GENERAL COUNCILS AND ‘THE MASTER’ OF ‘THE EPISCOPAL COLLEGE’

Section CXIV. The testimony of the first four Œcumenical Councils,

Section CXV. The statement of Hadrian, P. II., with reference to the judgments of the Roman Pontiff,

Section CXVI. The ‘judgments’ of the Roman Pontiff not admitted to be decisive,

Section CXVII. The witness of the case of Acacius against Hadrian’s allegation,

Section CXVIII. The witness of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, A.D. 869, against Hadrian’s allegation,

Section CXIX. Have sentences been passed upon the Roman Bishops? The case of Vigilius, P.,

Section CXX. The Bishops of the ‘Italian Diocese’ and the conduct of Vigilius,

Section CXXI. Have sentences been pronounced on the Roman Bishop? The case of Honorius,

Section CXXII. The statement of Pope Nicholas I. concerning the authority of ‘the Apostolic See’,


CHAPTER XXIII

THE EPISCOPAL COLLEGE SUPERIOR TO THE BISHOP OF ROME

Section CXXIII. The testimony of the Reforming Synods of the West in the fifteenth century,

Section CXXIV. The witness of the Council of Pisa, A.D. 1409,

Section CXXV. The witness of the Council of Constance, A.D. 1414,

Section CXXVI. The witness of the Council of Basle, A.D. 1431,

Section CXXVII. Conclusion from the evidence afforded by the Councils of Pisa, Constance and Basle,

Section CXXVIII. Is ‘Papal confirmation’ of the Decrees of an Œcumenical Council necessary?,

Section CXXIX. Did the First Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, receive ‘Papal confirmation’?

Section CXXX. Did the First Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, receive ‘Papal confirmation’?

Section CXXXI. Did the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, receive ‘Papal confirmation’?

Section CXXXII. Did the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, receive ’Papal confirmation’?

Section CXXXIII. Did the Second Council of Constantinople, A.D. 553, receive ‘Papal confirmation‘?

Section CXXXIV. Did the Third Council of Constantinople A.D. 680, receive ‘Papal confirmation’?

Section CXXXV. Did the Second Council of Nicaea, A.D. 787, receive ‘Papal confirmation’?

Section CXXXVI. The evidence of the ‘subscriptions’ of the Bishops to the Acts of a Council,

Section CXXXVII. The meaning of the confirmation of the Decrees of a Council,

Section CXXXVIII. The papalist argument sought to be based on the rejection by the Roman Bishops of the decrees of certain Councils examined,

section CXXXIX. Why the Church rejected the Council of Ephesus,  A.D. 449,

Section CXL. Why the Church rejected the Cound of Ariminum, A.D. 359,

Section CXLI. Why the Church rejected the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 754,

Section CXLII. The position of Canon xxviii. of the Council of Chalcedon,

Section CXLIII. Pope Gelasius on the authority of the First See,

Section CXLIV. Value of Papalist assertion as to the relation of the Roman Pontiffs to Councils,

Section CXLV. Value of the Papalist appeal to Holy Writ as showing the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff over the Episcopal College,

Section CXLVI. Papalism asserted to be the belief of the Church in every age,


CHAPTER XXIV

THE PAPALIST CONCEPTION OF THE POSITION OF THE BISHOPS

Section CXLVII. The power of the Bishops ‘limited’ and ‘dependent,’

Section CXLVIII. The power of the Roman Bishops ‘supreme,’ ‘universal’ and ‘independent,’

Section CXLIX. The teaching of St. Thomas as to the relative positions of the Bishops and the Pope,

Section CL. The teaching of Pope Innocent III. as to the relative positions of the Bishops and the Pope,

Section CLI. The Bishops according to Papalism ‘Vicars’ of the Roman Pontiff,

Section CLII. The actual position of the ‘Roman Pontiff’ that of ‘Universal Bishop,’

Section CLIII. The actual position of the Bishops in the Church according to Papalism,


CHAPTER XXV

CONCLUSION

Section CLIV. The Papalist claims recapitulated,

Section CLV. Result of the investigation as to the validity of the Papalist claims,

Section CLVI. Papalism of necessity must be rejected by Catholics,


NOTES

Note 1. On St. Cyprian and the authority of Councils,

“ 2. On ‘Decretals,’

“ 3. On St. Peter and the conversion of Cornelius,

“ 4. On a statement by St. Optatus on ‘The Gift of the Keys,’

“ 5. On Tertullian’s interpretation of ‘The Gift of the Keys,’

“ 6. Some of the Forged Decretals cited by Melchior Cano,

“ 7. On the letter of Pelagius, P. II., to the Bishops of Istria,

“ 8. On the ’old text’ of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts,

“ 9. On the genuineness of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts,

“ 10. On Valentinian’s statement as to the ‘Primacy of the Apostolic See,’

“ 11. On the Vicariate of Arles,

“ 12. On the Donation of Constantine,

“ 13. The spurious character of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals admitted by Roman Catholics,

“ 14. Forgeries in the interests of Papalism,

“ 15. On the influence exercised by the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals in England at the beginning of the sixteenth century,

“ 16. On the subjects discussed at the Council of Florence,

“ 17. Isidore and Bessarion after the Council of Florence,

“ 18. On the Gallicans and the Florentine Council,

“ 19. On the phrase Sacro approbante Concilio used at the Vatican Council,

“ 20. On the meaning of the word proevdroi~ in Eusebius, Vita Constant. iii. c. 12,

“ 21. On the phrase ‘by the grace of God and of the Apostolic See,’

“ 22. On the title ‘Pope,’

“ 23. On the title ‘Patriarch,’

“ 24. On the extent of the ‘Roman Patriarchate,’

“ 25. On the Council in Trullo and the ‘Sardican Canons,’

“ 26. On the interpolation in the Synodal Letter of the Council of Sardica,

“ 27. On the position of the Bishops of Thessalonica,

“ 28. Why St. Meletius presided over the Council of Constantinople,

“ 29. On the distinction between invalid and irregular Ordinations,

“ 30. On the forged passages attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria, etc.,

“ 31. On the statement with reference to St. Cyril of Alexandria in the Synodal letter of the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, to the Emperor,

“ 32. St. Basil on Western pride,

“ 33. On the convocation of the Latrocinium,

“ 33B. On the ‘Legates’ of the Middle Ages,

“ 34. On the title deutevra suvnodo~ as applied to the Ephesine Synod at the Latrocinium,

“ 35. Innocent, P. IlI., on the dignity of the See of Constantinople,

“ 36. On the position held by the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople in the thirteenth century,

“ 37. On the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians,

“ 38. On St. Ignatius’ statement as to the position of the Church of Rome,

“ 39. On Funk’s allegation as to tile reason why every Church must ‘resort to’ the Roman Church (St. Irenaeus III., iii. 2),

“ 40. On Tertullian’s expression Pontifex Maximus,

“ 41. At what date did Milan become a Metropolitical See?

“ 42. What St. Ambrose meant by agreement with the Catholic Bishops, that is, with the Roman Church.,

“ 43. On the ‘interpolations’ in the treatise De Unitate Ecclesiae Catholicae of St. Cyprian,

“ 44. On the tract De Aleatoribus,

“ 45. On St. Augustine’s statement Securus judicat Orbis terrarum,

“ 46. On the case of Marcion,

“ 47. On the meaning of Canon XVII. of the Sixteenth Council of Carthage, A.D. 418,

“ 48. On P. Innocent I’s method of advancing his pretensions in the West,

“ 49. On two passages from St. Augustine sometimes cited in support of Papalism,

“ 50. On the position of Theophilus of Alexandria,

“ 51. On the case of Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Rome,

“ 52. On Sozomen’s statement with reference to St. Julius, P. and St. Athanasius,

“ 53. On the case of Paul of Samosata,

“ 54. on the ‘Appeal’ of Eusebius of Dorylaeum,

“ 55. on Theodoret’s letter to St. Leo the Great,

“ 56, On Pope Vitalian and the Typus,

“ 57. On the identical treatment of Pope Agatho’s letter and Macarius by the Sixth Synod,

“ 58. On St. Augustine’s statement with reference to the acquittal by Zosimus of Coelestius and Pelagius,

“ 59. On the Seventh Synod and Pope Hadrian’s letter to the Emperor,

“ 60. On Baronius and the condemnation of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Synod,

“ 61. On the way in which a Council attains Œcumenical authority,

“ 62. On the Quinquennial Faculties required by Roman Catholic Bishops,

“ 63. On the Pallium,

“ 64. On the foundation of the Church of the English,