Thoughts on Jerome's Letter 15?

[Christian Liberty]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

To be clear, I intend to continue discussing with TER (and anyone else, if they decide they're interested) on the original thread as well, but this is something I want to get people's thoughts on.

As far as the early church fathers go, I feel that this is the strongest pro-papal polemic that I've personally read through, to my knowledge. There are some other arguments that I'd use, and I would not have converted on the grounds of a single church father.

I am curious to hear from others, but particular from Eastern Orthodox.

After you have read this letter, do you feel that Jerome's statements here can be reconciled with an Eastern Orthodox view of the papacy? Or do you feel that Jerome was simply wrong (which would be an understandable conclusion, obviously not every Father agreed on everything) but ultimately that this particular saint and church father would've held more to an RC view of the pope than a Protestant one?

To me, the fact that Jerome is appealing to the Pope to intervene against chaos in the East (not the West), and the fact that Jerome conceeds to the Pope the authority to make a change to the creed (seemingly very similar to the filioque in my mind) seems to suggest that Jerome held much more so to papal supremacy than a mere primacy of honor. Jerome seems to think the Pope has the authority to order the East around, and tell them what to do.

What do you guys think? Am I reading Jerome incorrectly, or is Jerome simply wrong?

(I'm guessing most Roman Catholics would agree with me that Jerome does support papal supremacy too, but I also welcome pushback from Roman Catholics who may think this is a bad argument.)

[TER]

Hello friend and good morning!

I am happy to see you quoting Church Fathers! That demonstrates your real progress in understanding the Church and the apostolic faith. May the Lord continue to guide you as you grow closer to Him as a member of His Body!

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

To be clear, I intend to continue discussing with TER (and anyone else, if they decide they're interested) on the original thread as well, but this is something I want to get people's thoughts on.

As far as the early church fathers go, I feel that this is the strongest pro-papal polemic that I've personally read through, to my knowledge. There are some other arguments that I'd use, and I would not have converted on the grounds of a single church father.

You are taking a very careful and thoughful approach and I commend you! No single Church Father should be the sole source to draw from as no personal is infallable. Rather, it is in the consensus of the Saints whereby we find the truth parsed away from personal opinion. Again, the summit of the faith outside the Holy Scriptures is found in the canons and doctrinal teachings elucidated in the Holy Councils. The Christian faith (especially as understood within the Orthodox Church) allows for opinions on matters of faith so long as they do not counter the proclaimed teachings in the Holy Councils.

After you have read this letter, do you feel that Jerome's statements here can be reconciled with an Eastern Orthodox view of the papacy? Or do you feel that Jerome was simply wrong (which would be an understandable conclusion, obviously not every Father agreed on everything) but ultimately that this particular saint and church father would've held more to an RC view of the pope than a Protestant one?

To me, the fact that Jerome is appealing to the Pope to intervene against chaos in the East (not the West), and the fact that Jerome conceeds to the Pope the authority to make a change to the creed (seemingly very similar to the filioque in my mind) seems to suggest that Jerome held much more so to papal supremacy than a mere primacy of honor. Jerome seems to think the Pope has the authority to order the East around, and tell them what to do.

What do you guys think? Am I reading Jerome incorrectly, or is Jerome simply wrong?

(I'm guessing most Roman Catholics would agree with me that Jerome does support papal supremacy too, but I also welcome pushback from Roman Catholics who may think this is a bad argument.)

Let's first understand the theological climate that St. Jerome was speaking from. St. Jerome was born in the West and was baptized in Rome. The Church in Rome was his home church as it were. At the time of this particular writing, the Imperial Capital had moved to Constantinople and the West (Rome) was already teetering on the edge of collapse and surrounded by 'barbarians' which would bring upon the Dark Ages.

The greatest theological studies and debates at that time were happening in the East, primarily in Alexandria which was the greatest city for academic and theological studies during that time, as well as in Antioch. These two centers had established schools of higher learning while Rome was beginning to be a shadow of its former glory. In those two great cities (Alexandria and Antioch), which were cities whereby major trade routes passed and thus a large diversity in cultural and religious beliefs, some of the greatest heresies began to take root, the greatest example being Arianism. Admittedly, because of the Rome's 'isolation' at that time, both geographically and politically, they were less affected by the doctrinal contreversies which were raging in the East. There were indeed many instances whereby Rome held to the apostolic faith better than other Eastern parts of the Church and was thus deemed at that time to be a bulwark of the faith in a time when major heresies were taking root in the East.

St. Jerome has found himself in a situation where there was great turmoil within the Church because of doctrine disputes. The term hypostasis which was used by the Fathers of the Holy Councils to describe the Persons of the Holy Trinity was being fiercly debated and countered, especially by those who were siding with Arius. Meanwhile, Rome, who had already signed on to this terminology in the Creed decades earlier, enjoyed the privilige of not being in the thick of these debates (in truth, Rome had other worries at that time, namely the encroaching 'barbarians', which would eventually turn the See into a overt political organism, uniting State and Church completely, to the point where the Pope was the top secular authority of the Papal States and commander of armies.) However, during this particular time with St. Jerome, Rome's doctrinal fidelity to the Nicene Creed was firm and was a source of inspiration for many, especially for St. Jerome. For that reason he says "you alone keep your heritage intact", because, compared to the chaos and dissensions which were occuring in the East around him because of doctrinal disputes, Rome was indeed firm in upholding to the Nicean orthodox faith and especially the terminology of 'hypostasis', which was a term many, including St. Jerome, distrusted because of its ability to be misconstrued.

That all being said, the idea of the Roman Bishop being the supreme leader of the Church is not found in the writings of St. Jerome or any other Church Father at that time. It is true that in this Letter St. Jerome brandishes Pope Damasus with lavish compliments and asks for his clarification regarding the terminology used (hypostasis), something other Church Fathers have also done, but that doesn't mean that he ascribed to Papal supremacy as a dogma. He is defering to the Pope's opinion on the matter because he wanted word and advice from his home church and spiritual father at a time when he didn't know who to trust on this matter.

In fact, after getting no response from this letter, he wrote again to Pope Damasus a second letter, stating “as you hold an apostolic office…give an apostolic decision.” Notice the lack of exclusivity in his description of “an apostolic office.” He doesn't imply that the Roman Pope has THE apostolic office or any supreme position, but rather an aposotlic position. In other letters, he makes it obvious that all duly ordained Bishops hold the keys to the Kingdom.

For example, in his letter to Envagelus:

“When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number, chosen by themselves, and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.”

This sentiment is echoed in Jerome’s letter to Heliodorus:

“These [“The Clergy”,] you will say, remain in their cities, and yet they are surely above criticism. Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ.”

Here we see not only that Jerome held all bishops to be a part of the apostolic succession, but he also held to the orthodox belief that they had all been entrusted with the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” which he interpreted from Matthew 18 as authority to excommunicate members of the church for unrepentance.

Thus, while we see St. Jerome appealing to the Roman Pope for clarity in a time of doctrinal dispute, this does not equate with a belief that the Roman Bishop was supreme authority over the Church, regardless of the rhetoric he used. His appeal to Rome was therefore multifactoral, namely because it was his home church, because Rome at that time was not embroiled in the major doctrinal controversies which was happening in the East, and because Rome did hold a special place in honor within the Church. These do not, however, negate the orthodox catholic belief, as spelled out clearly in the canons of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, that every See is under the authority of the Bishop of that particular See, that decisions regarding doctrine would be made in synod with all the Bishops, and that the head of the Church is Christ alone and not any one man or Bishop.

What is held as authority is primacy of truth. Where the truth is held, there is primacy. But that does not reside in any particular office just by virtue of its position, for we find many instances of heretical Popes and bishops, and there have been times when it was lay people who held to the truth of the apostolic faith above a particular ordained member of the clergy. The Pope had a position of honor by tradition, but tradition as clearly expressed within the consensus of the Church Fathers both East and West and in the Holy Ecumenical Councils, never held to the Roman Bishop as being above any other Bishop in authority.

Sadly, as the East and West slowly drifted apart, because of the linguistic difference and political challenges, we find a growing assertion by the Latin Church and the Pope in particular to having an authority it never had over the entire Church or the other Patriarchates. This growing trend, alongside with the changes in doctrine that Rome was ascribing to (namely the Filioque, the use of unleavened bread, etc), culminated eventually into the Great Schism which has yet to be healed.