Church Fathers & Papal Infallibility

Posted on March 14, 2017

Here is a list of citations from Church Fathers from both East and West which speak either
implicitly or plainly of the doctrine of Papal infallibility. The key hints are the note of promise
and permanency from Jesus Christ to Peter, and then from Peter to the Roman episcopate. Also,
of special note here is the amount of saints who are today venerated by the Eastern Orthodox,
or perhaps the high-Church Anglican tradition. And lastly, this *is not* an attempt to prove
Papal infallibility, since more study would have to be done in order to show that. Rather, this is
merely to inspire readers to look more into the characters of the Patristics and their historical
contexts. Happy reading!

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 130-202)

“But since it would be very long in a volume of this sort to give the successions of all the
churches, we will point to that of the exceedingly great and ancient church which was founded
and established at Rome by the most glorious apostles Peter and Paul. By its tradition and by its
faith announced to men, which has been transmitted to us by the succession of bishops, we
confound all those who in any way, by caprice or vain glory, or by blindness and perversity of
will, gather where they ought not….For to this [Roman] church…on account of its more
powerful principality (propter potentiorem principalitatem), it is necessary that every church ,
that is, the faithful from all sides [of the world], should come be in agreement, in which the
tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved by those that are from all parts” ( St.
Irenaeus, 180 AD, Against Heresies – Book III, chapter III)

St. Jerome (A.D. 347-420)

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds [Araianism], subsisting between its
peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top
throughout, since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken
cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain and the garden enclosed, I
think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter…My words are spoken to the successor of the
sherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with
none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which
the church is built..If you think t enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three
hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or
orthodox, one confession will do for us all….I implore your blessedness, therefore, by the
cruci ed Saviour of the world, and by the consubstantial trinity, to authorize me by letter either
to use or to refuse this formula of three hypostases.”
(St. Jerome, Letter to Pope St. Damasus I, 367 A.D., Epistle #15) – picture
from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SAINT_JE OME_EN_MEDITATION.jpg

St. Damasus, Pope of Rome (A.D. 304-384)

“Although the catholic churches di used throughout the world are one bridal chamber of
Christ, yet the holy Roman church has been preferred to all other churches, not by any
synodical decrees, but has obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Savior in the
gospel, saying: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell
will never prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven…..Therefore, the rst see of Peter the Apostles is that of the Roman church,
not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing” (Decree of Damasus, Roman Synod 382.
Patrologia Latina 13.374; Jalland, T.G. (1944). Church and Papacy. London: Morehouse-
Gorham Co. p. 255-57)

St. Sircius, Pope of Rome (384-392)

[In his commenting on the rise of the Papacy in the mid-4th century and in particular this
below letter of Pope St. Siricius to the Bishop of Tarragona, Patristics historian Robert Eno
writes the following: “It is only from the mid-fourth century that we begin to have abundant and
unambiguous evidence from the letters of the bishops of Rome. This evidence plainly shows the Roman view of
itself as the supreme arbiter for the Church. In this letter, sometimes referred to as the rst papal decretal, Pope
Siricius (384-399) answers the questions sent to his predecessor Damasus (366-384) by a Spanish bishop”
(Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Robert B. Eno, SS, page 153)

“For in view of our o ce there is no freedom for us, on whom a zeal for the Christian religion is
incumbent greater than on all others, to dissimulate or to be silent. We bear the burdens of all
who are oppressed, or rather the blessed apostle Peter, who in all things protects and preserves
us, the heirs, as we trust, of his administration, bears them in us…[proceeds to list a number of
errors being promoted in Tarragona (Spain)]… it is also inappropriate henceforth for you to
deviate from that path, if you do not wish to be separated from our company by synodal
sentence….Enough error on this matter! All priests who do not wish to be torn from the solidity
of the apostolic rock, upon which Christ built the universal Church, should now hold the
aforementioned rule…[lists more errors]…let them know that they have been expelled by the
authority of the apostolic see from every ecclesiastical o ce, which they used unworthily…[lists
more errors]… there is freedom for no priest of the Lord to be ignorant of the statutes of the
apostolic see and the venerable decrees of the canons…” (Pope Siricius to Bishop Himerius of
Tarragona 385 AD, Epistle 1, Directa Ad Decessorem. Patrologia Latina 13.1132; Ed. Pierre
Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum ponti cum (Paris, 1721; reprint Farnborough, 1967),
623-638.)

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430)

“‘You know what the Catholic Church is, and what it is to be cut o from the vine? Come, if you
desire to be engra ed on the vine. It is a pain to see you thus lopped o from the tree. Number
the bishops from the very see of Peter, and observe the succession of every father in that order:
it is the rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not” (Augustine, Psalmus Contra
Partem Donati, 43)

This is a Synodical letter from 61 Bishops in Council from Milevis (Numidia) , North Africa to
Pope St. Innocent I (401-417), and it concerns the heresy of Pelagius. What is important here is
that St. Augustine was a participant:

“In insinuating these things to your Apostolic breast we have no need to say much, and heap up
words about this impiety, since doubtless they will move you in such wise that you will be
altogether unable to refrain from correcting them, that they may creep no further….The
authors of this most pernicious heresy are said to be Pelagius and Celestius, whom, indeed, we
should prefer to be cured with the Church, rather than that they should be cut o from the
Church, if no necessity compels this. One of them, Celestius, is even said to have arrived at the
priesthood in Asia. Your Holiness is better informed by the Council of Carthage as to what was
done against him a few years back. Pelagius, as the letters of some of our brethren say, is in
Jerusalem, and is said to have deceived many there. Many more, however, who have been able
to examine his views more closely, are ghting him on behalf of the Catholic Faith, but
especially your holy son, our brother and fellow-priest, Jerome. But we consider that with the
help of the mercy of our God, whom we pray to direct your counsels and to hear your prayers,
those who hold such perverse and baneful opinions will more easily yield to the authority of
your Holiness, which has been taken from the authority of the Holy Scriptures (auctoritati
sanctitatis tuae, de sanctarum scripturarum auctoritate depromptae facilius….esse cessuros),
so that we may be rather rejoiced by their correction than saddened by their destruction. But
whatever they themselves may choose, your Reverence perceives that at least those many must
be cared for whom they may entangle in their nets if they should not submit straightforwardly.
We write this to your Holiness from the Council of Numidia, imitating our fellow bishops of the
Church and province of Carthage, whom we understand to have written of this a air to the
Apostolic See which your Blessedness adorns.”
(Council of Mileve to Pope Innocent, June 416 – Patrologia Latina 33.763)

Another episcopal letter to Pope Innocent concerning Pelagius, and is signed by 5 North
African bishops ( Aurelius the Primate, Augustine, Alypius, Evodius and Possidius)

“Of the rest of the accusations against him doubtless your beatitude will judge in the same way
as the acts of the two Councils. Doubtless your kindness of heart will pardon us for having sent
to your Holiness a longer letter than you might perhaps have wished. For we do not pour back
our little stream for the purpose of replenishing your great fountain (non enim riuulum
nostrum tuo largo fonti augendo refundimus); but in the great temptation of these times (from
which may He deliver us to whom we say, ‘and lead us not into temptation’) we wish it to be
approved by you whether our stream, though small, ows from the same head of water as your
abundant river, and to be consoled by your answer in the common participation of the same
grace.”
(Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, & Possidius to Pope Innocent. Patrologia 33.764)

St. Innocent, Pope of Rome (401-417)

The reply of Pope St. Innocent in 417 to the Africans concerning their appeal on the controversy
of Pelagius/Celestius goes like this:

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by
bishops, and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council, by preserving, as you have
done, the example of ancient tradition, and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you
have truly strengthened the vigour of our Faith, no less now in consulting us than before in
passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgement, knowing what is
due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow the Apostle (Peter)
from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this name is derived. Following in his
steps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good. So also, you have by your
sacerdotal o ce preserved the customs of the Fathers, and have not spurned that which they
decreed by a divine and not human sentence, that whatsoever is done, even though it be in
distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, [39]
that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all
other Churches (like waters owing from their natal source and owing through the di erent
regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head), should receive what they ought to
enjoin, whom they ought to wash, and whom that water, worthy of pure bodies, should avoid as
de led with uncleansable lth. I congratulate you, therefore, dearest brethren, that you have
directed letters to us by our brother and fellow-bishop Julius, and that, while caring for the
Churches which you rule, you also show your solicitude for the well-being of all, and that you
ask for a decree that shall pro t all the Churches of the world at once; [40] so that the Church
being established in her rules and con rmed by this decree of just pronouncement against such
errors, may be unable to fear those men, etc.” (Pope Innocent I, Epistle 29, to the Council of
Carthage (In requirendis). Jan 27, 417 AD. Patrologia Latina 33.780)

Pope St. Zosimus (AD 417)

Innocent’s successor, Pope Zosimus, continued to write letters to Africa concerning the same
Pelagian issue:

“Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See
that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this
[judgment] by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws
pays the reverence which is due to the name of Peter, from whom it has itself descended …;
since therefore Peter the head is of such great authority and he has con rmed the subsequent
endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is forti ed … by human as well as by
divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name
itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we
have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done
nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters … not because we did
not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of
the Church, would be displeasing.…(From the epistle (12) “Quamvis Patrum traditio” to the
African bishops, March 21, 418. Patrologia Latina 20. 676; Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K.
(Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (p. 47). St. Louis,
MO: B. Herder Book Co.)
A er Pelagius had been condemned , St. Augustine wrote the following recap of the history of
the Pelagian condemnation:

“A er letters had come to us from the East, discussing the case in the clearest manner, we were
bound not to fail in assisting the Church’s need with such episcopal authority as we possess
(nullo modo jam qualicumque episcopali auctoritate deesse Ecclesiae debueramus). In consequence,
relations as to this matter were sent from two Councils — those of Carthage and of Milevis —
to the Apostolic See, before the ecclesiastical acts by which Pelagius is said to have been
acquitted had come into our hands or into Africa at all. We also wrote to Pope Innocent, of
blessed memory a private letter, besides the relations of the Councils, wherein we described the
case at greater length, to all of these he [Pope Innocent] answered in the manner which was the
right and duty of the bishop of the Apostolic See (Ad omnia nobis ille rescripsit eo modo quo fas
erat atque oportebat Apostolicae sedis Antistitem). All of which you may now read, if perchance
none of them or not all of them have yet received you; in them you will see that, while he has
preserved the moderation which was right, so that the heretic should not be condemned if he
condemns his errors, yet the new and pernicious error is so restrained by ecclesiastical
authority that we much wonder that there should be any still remaining who, by any error
whatsoever, try to ght against the grace of God….” (Augustine, Epistle 186: Alypius and
Augustine to Paulinus – Bishop of Nola near Naples. AD 417. Patrologia Latina 33.816)

and

“Refute those [Pelagians] who contrdict, and those who resist bring to us. For already two
councils on this question have been sent to the Apostolic see and replies have also come from
there. The cause is nished; would that the error might sometime be nished also!”
(Augustine, Sermo 131. Sept 23, 417. Patrologia Latina 38. 734)

Pope St. Boniface (422 AD)

“”For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the
Apostolic See.” (Letter 13 to Bishop ufus of Thessalonica – PL 20:776A)

The Council of Ephesus (431 AD)

“No one doubts, but rather it has been known to all generations, that the holy and most blessed
Peter, chief and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith, the foundation stone of the Catholic
church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer
of the human race, and that the power of binding and loosing sins was given to him, who up to
this moment and always lives in his successors, and judges.”
(From the speech of Philip the Roman legate in action III of the Ecumenical Council in
Ephesus 431; Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma.
(R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (p. 49). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.) – Picture
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_council_of_Eph%C3%A8sus_in_431.jpg

Pope St. Simplicius (468-483)

In the post-Chalcedonian crisis of 453 onward, the Eastern Emperor Basiliscus (a usurper to the
throne, and a erce combatant against Chalcedon) had enacted to obliterate the Council of
Chalcedon from the list of general Councils. Pope St. Simplicius (venerated by the Eastern
Orthodox, Feb 10th), wrote a letter stating the divine state of a airs as seen from Rome:
“Those genuine and clear [truths] which ow from the very pure fountains of the Scriptures
cannot be disturbed by any arguments of misty subtlety. For this same norm of apostolic
doctrine endures in the successors of him upon whom the Lord imposed the care of the whole
sheepfold , whom [He promised] He would not fail even to the end of the world , against whom
He promised that the gates of hell would never prevail, by whose judgment He testi ed that
what was bound on earth could not be loosed in heaven … Let whoever, as the Apostle
proclaimed, attempts to disseminate something other, than what we have received, be
anathema. Let no approach to your ears be thrown open to the pernicious plans of
undermining, let no pledge of revising any of the old de nitions be granted, because, as it must
be repeated very o en, what has deserved to be cut away with the sharp edge of the evangelical
pruning-hook by apostolic hands with the approval of the universal Church, cannot acquire the
strength for a rebirth nor is it able to return to the fruitful shoot of the master’s vine, because it
is evident that it has been destined to eternal re. Thus, nally, the machinations of all heresies
laid down by decrees of the Church are never allowed to renew the struggles of their crushed
attack.”
(From the epistle “Cuperem quidem” to Basiliscus Augustus January 10, 476; Denzinger,
H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (p.
64). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.)
 — Pope St. Gelasius I (492-496)

In the midst of the fall out from Chalcedon in Constantinople and Alexandria, Pope St. Gelasius
(for some Orthodox, a venerated saint) wrote the following to an Eastern christian named
Faustus, and in this letter, Gelasius implied infallibility by way of positing a supremacy to Papal
authoritative teaching:

“It is nothing to wonder at — that they presume to blaspheme the see of the blessed Apostle
Peter… And on top of this, they call us proud when the rst see has never ceased o ering them
whatever there is of piety. They with their utter shamelessness trust they will be able to
subjugate it.. I will ask them this: the trial which they call for, where can it be held? With them
(in the East), so that they may be the plainti , witnesses, and judges all in one? Neither human
a airs nor the integrity of the divine faith must be entrusted to such a tribunal. It matters of
religion (faith/morals), the canons say that the ultimate judgement must come only from the
apostolic see. The powers of this world? It is not for them to judge — rather they are to learn
from the bishops — and above all, from the vicar of blessed Peter about divine things. No ruler
of this world, however powerful, whether Christian or not, can presume to claim this for
himself, unless of course, he is a persecutor” (Pope Gelasius, Epistle 10 to Faustus – Thiel, A.,
Epistolae Romanorum Ponti cum, p. 347)
 — Pope Hormisdas (514-523)

“The rst condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate
from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew
16:18], should not be veri ed. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the
Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we
by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare
anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople,
who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by
the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema
Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon,
which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached
the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [“the Cat”] and
also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare
anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by
the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this
Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of
condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [“the Fuller”] of Antioch with
all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its
decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the
Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion
which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian
religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of
the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their
names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my
profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I
have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to
you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.” (“Libellus professionis dei” added
to the epistle “Inter ea quae” to the bishops of Spain, April 2, 518; Denzinger, H., &
Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (p. 73). St.
Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.)

— Patriarch of Jerusalem, John IV (575-593)

“Pere Salaville has drawn attention to the same point in an article in the Echos d’Orient, 1910 (p.
171), in which he deals with a letter written by John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575-593) to the
Catholicos of the Gregorian monks who had a colony in his see-city. The letter, probably
published rst in Greek, and an Armenian version of which was in recent times discovered and
published (1896) in Etchmiadzin, contains the following indepedent testimony to Eastern belief
in the prerogative and function of the Apostolic See:
“As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief
of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of the faith for the strengthening of the churches,
“You are Peter, etc….”. To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in
following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and
loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chaints those who do penance. Such is, above
all, the privilege of those who, on the rst most holy and venerable see, are the successors of
Peter, sound in the faith, and according to the word of the Lord, infallible’

Here is not simple primacy, but primacy connoting ‘infallibility'”

(S. Herbert Scott (2015). The Eastern Church and the Papacy. Mysterium Co. p. 359)

— Pope Pelagius II (579-590)

” (For) you know that the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired
to have you, that he might si you as wheat: but I have asked the Father for thee, that thy faith
fail not; and thou being once converted, con rm thy brethren [Luke 22:31 f.].
Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able
to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to si all the disciples, the Lord
testi es that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be con rmed by him;
and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest,
was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. John 21:15 .]; and to him also He handed over
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He
testi ed that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Matt. 16:16 .]. But, because the
enemy of the human race even until the end of the world does not abstain from sowing cockle
[Matt. 13:25] over the good seed in the Church of the Lord, and therefore, lest perchance anyone
with malignant zeal should by the instigation of the devil presume to make some alterations in
and to draw conclusions regarding the integrity of the faith; and (lest) by reason of this your
minds perhaps may seem to be disturbed, we have judged it necessary through our present
epistle to exhort with tears that you should return to the heart of your mother the Church, and
to send you satisfaction with regard to the integrity of faith.…” (From epistle (1) “Quod ad
dilectionem” to the schismatic bishops of Istria, about 585; Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K.
(Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (p. 94). St. Louis,
MO: B. Herder Book Co.)

— St. Sophronius of
Jerusalem (560-638)
Stephen, Bishop of Dora, was commissioned by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem to appeal to the
Roman see for the condemnation of the Monothelites [Constantinople, Alexandria, and
Antioch]. When Rome assembled in the Council of Lateran 649, this Stephen read aloud at the
council in the presence of Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos the Confessor:

“Who shall give us the wings of a dove, that we may y and report this to your supreme See,
which rules and is set over all, that the wound [Monothelitism] may be entirely healed? For this
great Peter, the Head of the Apostles, has been wont to do with power from of old, by his
Apostolical or canonical authority; since manifestly not only was he alone beside all thought
worthy to be entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to open and to shut these,
worthily to the believing, but justly to those unbelieving the gospel of grace. Not to say that he
rst was set in charge to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for He says, ‘Peter, lovest
thou me? Feed My Sheep’. And again, in a manner special and peculiar to himself, having a
stronger faith than all in our Lord, and unchangeable, to convert and con rm his spiritual
partners and brethren, when tossed by doubt, having had power and sacerdotal authority
providentially committed to him by very God for our sakes Incarnate. Which, knowing
Sophronius, of blessed memory, Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God , — places me on
Holy Calvary — and there bound me with indissoluble bonds, saying, ‘Thou shalt give account
to our God who on this sacred spot was willingly sacri ced in the esh for us, at His glorious
and dreadful appearing, when He shall judge the living and the dead, if thou delay and neglect
His faith endangered: though I, as thou know, cannot do this personally, for the inroad of the
Saracens, which has burst on us for our sins. Go then with all speed from one and of the earth to
the other, till thou come to the Apostolic See, where the foundations of the truth faith are laid.
Not once, not twice, but many times accurately made known to the holy men there what has
been stirred up among us, and cease not earnestly entreating and requesting, till out of their
Apostolic wisdom they bring judgment to victory’ ” (Mansi, X. 894)
 — Saint Maximos the Confessor (580-662)

“In this regard the wretches have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic See, and, what is
laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie
against the Apostolic See itself; but as though they were in its counsel, and as if they had
received a decree from it, in the acts they have composed in defence of the impious ecthesis,
they have claimed the great Honorius on their side….. What did the divine Honorius do, and
a er him the aged [Pope] Severinus, and [Pope] John who followed him? Yet further, what
supplication has the blessed Pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West
brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before
men in their letters?…..

“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly
plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the
See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he
excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the
Catholic Church of God. I beseech you, therefore, blessed Lord, to order that no one should
speak of Pyrrhus as sanctissimus or almi cus, for the holy canon does not allow him to be so
styled….

“….For he who has willfully separated from the Catholic Church has fallen from all holiness.
For it is not right that one who has already been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic See of
the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any king of honor , until he be
received by her [Rome], having returned to her, nay, to our Lord, by a pious confession and
orthodox faith, by which he can receives holiness and the name of holy. Therefore, if he wishes
neither to be a heretic nor to be accounted one, let him not make satisfaction to this or that
person, for this is super uous and unreasonable. For just as all are scandalized at him when
one is scandalized, so also, when satisfaction has been made to one, all without doubt are
satis ed. Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satis ed, all will
agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to
persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed
Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the
incarnate Son of God himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons
and de nitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of
binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God which are in the whole world. For
with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if
he thinks he
must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman Pope, he is acting like a
man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his
innocence to the judge appointed by law, but only uselessly and without pro t does his
best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit
him from the accusation. Wherefore, my blessed Lord, extend yet further the precept which it
is known that you have made well and according to God’s will, by which Pyrrhus is not allowed
to speak or misspeak with regard to dogma. But discover clearly his intention by further
inquiry , whether he will altogether agree to the truth. And if he is careful to do this, exhort him
to make a becoming statement to the Roman Pope, so that by his command the matter
concerning Pyrrhus may be canonically and suitably ordered for the glory of God and the
praise of your sublimity…”
(Epistle of Maximos to Peter the Illustrious, Opuscula 12 – This text is debated as
authentic since only fragments are preserved, and then, only in Latin, whereas Maximos
wrote in Greek. However, plenty of scholars accept it as authentic. Secondly, even if we
were to remove this text, there is the letter from Maximos to Anastasius which is
preserved in the Greek and which connect the promise of Christ to Peter with the faith of
the Roman church)

“For the extremities of the earth and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the
Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it
were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our
fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed ,
declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate
Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have possessed that
greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the
promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of Hell do never prevail against it, that it
possesses the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only
religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth
that speaks injustice against the most High”.

“[A er telling his monk-disciple Anastasios that the Byzantines had told him that Rome was
not in communion with the Monothelites & is ordering the whole church to subscribe to that
doctrine, he continues in this letter with instructions to inquire into whether this was true]…
Anasatios [a di erent one than Maximos’ monk-disciple to whom he writes this letter] ordered
me to transcribe these things and to make them known to you most holy people, in order that,
when you have found out about the trial from these, you might all bring a common prayer to
the Lord on behalf of our common mother, that is the Catholic church, and on behalf of us your
unworthy servants, for strengthening everyone and us also, persevering with you in it,
according to the orthodox faith rightly preached in it by the holy fathers. For there is great fear
in the whole world because this [Church] endures persecution by everyone at the same time,
unless He [God] o ers aid by his customary grace, He who always comes to aid, leaving the seed
of piety at least in older Rome, con rming His promise he made to the prince of the Apostles,
which does not deceive us“(Letter of Maximos to Anastasius his disciple – CPG 7701, Clauis
Patrum Graecorum, vols. 1-5, Corpus Christainorum. Gerhard, M.)

Now, lest I prove to be the only one who sees this in Maximos, I give you a quote from a
Lutheran Scholar on Maximos, Dr. Lars Thunberg, and he explains our Saints view of Roman
primacy:

“In a somewhat fragmentary letter to Peter the Illustrious (from 643 or 644), which is preserved only in a
Latin version, we nd some explicit expressions of a very advanced theology about the position of the bishop of
Rome. Maximus simply identi ed the see of Rome with the Catholic Church and he spoke of ‘the
very holy Church of Rome, the apostolic see, which God the Word [Jesus] Himself and likewise
all the holy Synods, according to the holy canons and the sacred de nitions, have received, and
which owns the power in all things and for all, over all the saints who are there for the whole
inhabited earth, and likewise the power to unite and to dissolve….’
(Patr. Gr. 91, 144 C). Finally, in a letter written later in Rome, he made himself even more clear in the following
maner: ‘...she [the Church of Rome] has the keys of the faith and of the orthodox confession;
whoever approaches her humbly, to him is opened the real and unique piety, but she closes her
moouth to any heretic who speaks against [divine] justice’ (Patr Gr 91, 140). This invites us to
evaluate what Maximus had to say about the primacy of the pope. As Fr Garrigues has clearly shown (in an
article in Istina, 1976), Maximus was convinced that Rome would never give way to the pressures of
Constantinople. Once more forced to consider the possibility that in the case of Monotheletism the Romans
might accept a union with the Byzantines, he answered through the paradoxical words of St. Paul, and said:
‘The Holy Spirit condemns… even the angels that would proclaim anything which is contrary to the Gospel’.
(Patr Gr 90, 121). This implies that he did not want to discuss an improbable hypothesis, but would rather
declare that he was prepared to die for the truth. This statement is a good starting point for a clari cation of
his own attitude. His personal experience of the doctrinal position of Rome con rmed his conviction that the
promises of our Lord to Peter were applicable to the Church that preserved his relics. Thus, for him the
communion of the Churches expressed itself as ‘a Roman communion’, a communion with the
bishop of Rome. One must remember that for Maximus there existed only one alternative, represented by
Imperial policy with its linke between Church and State, and that alternative could not enjoy the same
promises. Even sacramental signs were missing in the latter case.”(The Vision of St Maximus the
Confessor: Man and the Cosmos- Lars Thunberg, Page 25-26)

— Pope St. Agatho (678-681)

“Resting on Peter’s protection, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned aside from the way
of truth to any part of error, and her authority has always been faithfully followed and
embraced as that of the prince of the Apostles by the whole Catholic Church and all Councils,
and by all the venerable Fathers who embraced her doctrine…..and she [the Roman church], by
the grace of almighty God, will be proved never to have wandered from the path of apostolic
tradition, nor to have succumbed to the novelties of heretics; but even as in the beginning of the
Christian faith she received it from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, so she
remains unspotted to the end, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior Himself…
which He spoke to the prince of His apostles in the holy Gospels: ‘Peter, Peter, says He, behold
Satan has desired to have you, that he might si you as he who si s wheat; but I have prayed for
thee, that they faith fail not, and thou one day being converted, strengthen thy brethren’. Let
your clemency [Emperor Constantine] therefore consider that the Lord and Savior of all, to
whom faith belongs, who promised that the faith of Peter should not fail, admonished him to
con rm his brethren; and it is known to all men that the Apostolic Ponti s [of Rome],
predecessors of my littleness, have always done this with con dence…” (Letter of Pope St.
Agatho to the Byzantine Emperor & Council of Constantinople III – AD 681)

— Pope Hadrian I (787 AD)

“Let that false assembly, which without the Apostolic See … was held contrary to the traditions
of the venerable fathers against the divine images, be declared anathema in the presence of our
delegates, and let the word of our Lord Jesus Christ be ful lled, that “the gates of hell shall not
prevail against her” (Matt. 16:18); and again: ‘Thou art Peter …’ (Matt. 16:18–19), whose throne
holding the rst place in all the world shines forth and holds its place as the head of the whole
Church of God.” – This was read at the 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787).
(From epistle (1) “Quod ad dilectionem” to the schismatic bishops of Istria, about 585;
Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari,
Trans.) (p. 94). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.)
 — Theodore Abu Qurrah,
approximately 820 AD-
Arabic Chalcedonian
Bishop

“You should understand that the head of the Apostles was Saint Peter, to whom Christ said,
“You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not
overcome it.” A er his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the
sea of Tiberius, “Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.” In another passage, he
said to him, “Simon, Satan will ask to si you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your
faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.” Do you
not see that Saint Peter is the foundation of the Church, selected to shepherd it, that those who
believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on
his brethren and to strengthen them?

As for Christ’s words, “I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have
compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them”, we do not think that he
meant Saint Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of Saint
Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, “I am with you always, until the end of
the age”, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of
their seats and their ocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to Saint Peter, “Have
compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost”, he
meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the Apostles it was Saint Peter alone who
lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to
teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no Apostle
who fell and needed Saint Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these
words only Saint Peter himself, this person causes the Church to lack someone to strengthen it
a er the death of Saint Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the si ing of
the Church that came from Satan a er the Apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did
not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the Church
only a er the death of the Apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius,
Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the Gospel only Saint
Peter, the Church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver
her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly “the gates of hell”, which Christ said would
not overcome the Church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing
other than the holders of the seat of Saint Peter, who have continually strengthened their
brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.”

– From On the Councils by Theodore Abu Qurrah, Bishop of Haran, Syria (+820)

Source: Theodore Abu Qurrah. John C. Lamoreaux, translator. (Provo: Brigham Young
University Press, 2005), pp. 68-69; 128.

“As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the
foundation of Saint Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered
by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is
authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the Church, by summoning the
ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We
ask Christ to con rm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that
we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father
and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever.”

– From On the Death of Christ by the same author

Source: Theodore Abu Qurrah. John C. Lamoreaux, translator. (Provo: Brigham Young
University Press, 2005), pp. 68-69; 128.
 — St. Theodore the Studite Monk
(759-826)

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the body of Christ,
from the supreme see, in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, against which the gates of
hell (I mean the mouths of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the consummation,
according to the promise of Him who cannot lie. Let the most blessed and apostolic Pope
Paschal rejoice therefore, for he has ful lled the work of Peter” (PG 99, 1281)

and

“We venerate images….not because we are assured that we are right by the second holy synod
of Nicaea or by that which earlier decided divinely, but from the very coming of our lord and
God in writing and without writing we have been made rm and rest securely upon that
[Roman] See to which Christ say – you are Peter , and upon this rock I will build my church , and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (PG 99, 1117)
 — Pope Nicholas I (800-867)

“…Furthermore, if you do not listen to us [Rome], it remains that you be held by us as our Lord
Jesus Christ enjoins us to hold those who refuse to hear the Church of God; especially since the
privileges of the Roman Church con rmed in St. peter by the words of Christ, ordained in the
Church itself, observed from of old, proclaimed by the holy universal synods and ever
venerated by the whole Church, can by no means be diminished, infringed, or altered, since no
e ort of man has power to remove a foundation which God has laid, and what God has
established stands rm and unshakable….These privileges, then, were bestowed on this holy
Church by Christ: they were not bestowed by the Synod but were merely proclaimed and held in
veneration by them….it is immediately clear that the judgments of the Apostolic See, than which
there is no greater authority, cannot be handled by any other tribunal, nor is it permissible for
any to sit in judgement upon its decision…..”
(Pope Nicholas, Preposueramus Quidem, 865 AD, to the Emperor Michael, Epistle 8;
Mansi xv. 196)
 — Councils of Constantinople (869-879)

Just before the Synod of Constantinople 879-80, Pope John VIII had written a letter to Emperor
Basil I concerning the re-instating of Photius upon the death of St. Ignatius, who occupied the
episcopal throne prior to. Photius had actually been reconciled to St. Ignatius, and actually
canonized him a er his death. This letter from John VIII contained clear indication of some of
the basic elements of the de nitions @ Vatican 1 on the founding and prerogatives of Papal
power, and that in both Latin & Greek versions. Here is the passage I am referring to:

“Since it has seemed desirable to us to bring peace to the Church of God, we have sent our
legates so that they might execute our will, even though, in your charity, you have already
anticipated us, in reinstating Photius. We accept this action, which was done not by our own
authority, even though we have the power to do it, but in obedience to the apostolic teachings.
Since in fact we have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the High Priest, Jesus
Christ, by the intermediary of the First of the Apostles to whom the Lord said: ‘I will give unto
you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; everything which you will bind upon earth will be found
to be bound in heaven and everything which you will loose upon earth, will be found to be
loosed in heaven’; therefore this apostolic throne [Roman bishop] has the power to bind and
loose, and this according to the words of Jeremiah, to uproot and to plant. This is why, by the
authority of Peter, the prince of the Apostles, we announce to you in union with the whole
Church and through you as intermediary, we announce to our dear confreres and
concelebrants, the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and to the other bishops
and priests and to all the Church of Constantinople, that we are in agreement with you, or
rather in agreement with God, and that we consent to your reques…Accept this man without
any hesitation” (Mansi 17, 400)

The Greek version of this part of John’s letter was retained, and it shows us that Constantinople
knew of the Papal claims to universal jurisdiction by year 9th century. Now, you will notice the
reference to the Jeremiah passage (1:10) by the words “to uproot and to plant”. This allusion was
actually used by Pope Nicholas I to describe the Imperial power of the Emperor Michael
[predecessor to Basil]. So it is most probable that both Photius and Basil knew that this
language of uprooting and planting was referring to jurisdiction-power.

Photius not only understood the claims of Rome then, but he writes in a letter to John the
following:

“we may well ask who is the master who has taught you to act in this fashion? – surely, above
all, it is Peter, the leaders of the Apostles whom the Lord has placed at the head of all the
churches, when he said to him ‘Feed My sheep’. Nor is it only Peter, but also the holy synods and
constitutions. And besides, it was the holy and orthodox decrees established by the fathers, as
is clear from your divine and holy letters”
(Francis Dvornik , Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, pg. 107-118)
 — Photius the Great (810-891)

At the Council of C’ople (869), the Papal legates require that every Bishop should sign and
deliver to them for transmission to the Pope a profession of faith which says the following:

“Because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be past by , who ways, ‘Thou art Peter,
and aupon this rock I will build my Church’, these words are proved by the real e ect which has
followed; because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has ever been kept immaculate, and
holy doctrine celebrated there. Wherefore, by no mens desiring to be separated from its faith
and doctrine, and following in all things the constitutions of the Fathers, and chie y of the holy
Prelates of the Apostolic See, we anathematize all heresies…Condemning particularly, Photius
and Gregory of Syracuse, parricides, that is, who have not feared to put out their tongue against
their Spiritual father [Pope Nicholas of Rome]. Since, following in all things the Apostolic See,
and observing in all things the Apostolic See, and observing in all things its constitutions, we
hope that we may be worthy to be in one communion which the Apostolic See sets forth, in
which is the complete and true solidity of the Christian religion. But this my profession I have
written with my own hand, and delivered to thee, most holy Hadrian [the Pope current]
Supreme Ponti and Universal Pope” (Mansi XVI , 27)

Also, at this very Council in 869 was read a letter from Patriarch Ignatius of C’ople to Pope
Nicholas, and it was approved….and it said:

Of the wounds and sores of human members, art has produced many physicians; of whom one
has treated this disease, and another tha, using in their experience amputation or cure. But of
these, which are in the members of our Saviour Christ and God, the Head of us all, and of His
spouse the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Supreme Chief and most powerful Word,
Orderer, and Healer, and Master, the God of all, hath produced one singular pre-eminent and
most Catholic physician, your fraternal Holiness, and paternal goodness. Wherefore He said to
Peter, the great and supreme Apostle, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church’,
and again, ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom, and whatever you shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven’. For such blessed words He did not, surely, according to a sort of lot,
circumscribe and de ne to the prince of the Apostles alone [to exclusively Peter], but
transmitted by him [Peter] to all , who, a er him, according to him, were to be made supreme
pastors, and most divine and sacred Ponti s of OLDEN OME. And, therefore, from of old, and
the ancient times, when heresies and contradictions have arisen, many of those who preceded
there your Holiness and supreme Paternity, have many times been made the pluckers-up and
destroyers of evil tares, and of sick members, plague-struck and incurable: being, that is,
successors of the prince of the Apostles, and imitating his zeal in the faith, according to Christ:
and now in our times, your Holiness hath worthily exercised the power given to you by Christ”
(Mansi, XVI, 47)

Another letter was read and approved from Pope Nicholas to the Emperor Michael :

“That headship of divine power, which the Maker of all things has bestowed on his elect
Apostles, he hath, by establishing its solidity on the unshaken faith of Peter, prince of the
Apostles, made his see pre-eminent, yea, the First. For, by the word of the Lord it was said to
him, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church’. Moreover, Peter so entirely ceases
not to maintain for his own people the structure of the Universal Church unshaken and rooted
in the strength of faith, from the rmness of the Rock, which is Christ, that he hastens to
reform by the rule of right faith the madness of the wandering. For, according to the faithful
maintenance of the Apostolical tradition, as yourselves know, the holy Fathers have o en met,
by whom it has both been resolved and observed, that without the consent of the Roman See
and the Roman Ponti no emergent deliberation should be terminated” (Mansi XVI, 59)

To Photius himself Pope Nicholas says, as read in the same Council:

“Because the whole number of believers seeks doctrine, asks for the integrity of the faith, and
those who are worthy the deliverance from crimes — from this holy Roman Church, which is
the head of all churches, it behoves us, to whom it is entrusted, to be anxious, and the more
fervently to be set on watch over the Lord’s ock…” (Mansi XVI, 69)

Also, another letter is read @ the Council of 869, and approved…from Pope Nicholas to all
Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Bishops subject to C’ople:

“Wherefore, because, as your wisdom knows, we are bound by the care of all Christ’s sheep,
holding through the abundance of heavenly grace, his place, to whom is especially said by God,
‘Feed My sheep’, and again ‘And thou, when thou are converted, con rm they brethren’ we
could not dissimulate or reglect, but that we should visit our sheep dispersed and scattered, and
con rm in the faith and good conduct our brethren and neighbors” (Mansi XVI , 101)

And in the 2nd Canon of the same Council, it states

“Obey those set over you, and be subject to them, for they watch for your souls, as those that
shall give account: thus Paul the great Apostle commands. Therefore, holding the most blessed
Pope Nicholas for the organ of the Holy Spirit, as too, most holy Pope Hadrian, his successor,
we decree and approve that all things, which by them at di erent times have been set forth and
promulged synodically, as well for the defense of the Church of Constantinople, as for the
expulsion of the Photius, be kept and maintained” (Mansi XVI, 160)

And in the 21st canon it forbids an Ecumenical Council “boldly to give sentence against the
supreme Ponti s of elder Rome” (Mansi XVI, 174)

— Pope Leo IX (1053 AD)

“…The Holy Church has been built upon a rock, that is, upon Christ, and upon Peter, the son of
John, who was rst called Simon. It was so built because it never was to be conquered by the
gates of hell, that is, by heretical opinions which lead the unwary to destruction. This is the
promise of truth itself who is the cause of all that is true: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail
against it’. The same Son of God bears witness that by his prayers he obtained the ful llment of
this promise from the Father, for he said to Peter, ‘Simon , Simon, behold, Satan has desired to
have you…but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail’. Will there be anyone whose
will is power to do, can be devoid of e ect? Is it not by the see of the prince of the Apostles,
namely, by this Roman church, both by this same Peter and by his successors, that all the
inventions of heretics stand condemned, exposed, and overcome? Are not the hears of the
brethren strengthened in the faith of Peter which has not failed thus far and will not fail till the
end of time?” (Letter from Pope Nicholas to Michael Cerularius 1053; The Church Teaches:
Documents of the Church in English Translation, Page 71)
“… You are said to have condemned publicly in a strange presumption and incredible boldness
the Apostolic and Latin Church, neither heard nor refuted, for the reason chie y that it dared to
celebrate the commemoration of the passion of the Lord from the Azymes. Behold your
incautious reprehension, behold your evil boasting, when “you put your mouth into heaven.
When your tongue passing on to the earth” [Ps. 72:9], by human arguments and conjectures
attempts to uproot and overturn the ancient faith.…
… The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John
who rst was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics
which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome; thus Truth itself promises,
through whom are true, whatsoever things are true: “The gates of hell will not prevail against
it” [Matt. 16:18]. The same Son declares that He obtained the e ect of this promise from the
Father by prayers, by saying to Peter: “Simon, behold Satan etc.” [Luke 23:31]. Therefore, will
there be anyone so foolish as to dare to regard His prayer as in anyway vain whose being willing
is being able? By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the
same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been
disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which
so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened?… By passing a
preceding judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass
judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils… As
the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors
have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because “the
highest See is judged by no one.”
(From the epistle “In terra pax hominibus” to Michael Cerularius and to Leo of Achrida,
September 2, 1053 ; Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic
dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (p. 142). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.)

S H A R E T H I S:

 Twitter  Facebook

Like

One blogger likes this.

A Papal Infallibility That an Pope Francis under the test of On the Limits of Papal Infallibility
Eastern Orthodox Can Accept? Bishop Gasser's Relatio - Timothy Flanders
With 6 comments In "Amoris Laetitia" With 1 comment

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by E.T. Ybarra. Bookmark the permalink
[https://erickybarra.org/2017/03/14/church-fathers-papal-infallibility/] .

3 THOUGHTS ON “CHURCH FATHERS & PAPAL INFALLIBILITY”

Pingback: The Early Church was Catholic | Discerning
Good and Evil

IESUS MARIA
on June 10, 2019 at 8:53 am said:

Beautiful!

Pingback: Does the Lateran Council of 649 Prove Papal

Infallibility? – Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia