A Historical Graph On Church History - Or Is It?

To start, looking back to the year 600 AD, EVERYONE, that is, every Christian agreed at that time that the Church of Rome was clearly the Roman Catholic Church and the center of the Church of that time.  No honest historian, Protestant or Catholic, denies that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the Christian Catholic Church.  If one reads nothing later than 600, there is crystal clear testimony that the Church of Rome and the Bishop of Rome is the head of the entire Church at that time. This same Church is also recorded talking about Purgatory, all seven Sacraments, praying for the interception of Mary and the Saints, the necessity of baptism for salvation and many more Catholic concepts which the protestants reject today.  The early Church taught the entire Catholic faith as we know it today, before Protestants even existed.  It is completely historically inaccurate to say that the Word of God and the bible was lost from 600AD to 1500AD.  This is flat out not true.  

The book, Where We Got The Bible. by Fr. Henry Grahm from 600 AD to 1500 AD shows there were abundant translations of the bible to other vernaculars than there were before 600 AD.  This was due to many monasteries that started popping up all over Europe which resulted in many more monks copying the bible.  

The drawing or diagram above is inaccurate on many different issues.  It shows in 607 the Roman Catholic Church strayed from what God intended as the real Church and that the emperor Phocas gave primacy of the bishop of Rome over the bishop of Constantinople.  It also suggests that Phocas appointed the first Pope in 607 AD, and before that there were no Popes.  After digging into even Protestant history books, I found that was not the case at all as most Protestant records completely disagree with this diagram on history and admit there were Popes well before 607 AD.  

First, the understanding that the Bishop of Rome has authority over all was what the early Church taught and exercised from the VERY FIRST century, not the sixth century as this diagram suggests.  We have evidence in the letter of Clement to the Church at Corinth, 1st letter of Clement to the Corinthians, which can be found in the Protestant book, Early Christian Writings.  This book chronicles the historical records which show Peter handed the Seat over to Lidus, Then Lidus to Cletus, then Cletus to Clement.  Clement wrote this letter between 81 and 96 AD.  What he says in this letter shows his primacy over the Church in Greece, correcting them to get back to the ways of the Roman Catholic Church.  Clement writes "We are going to intervene because you Corinthians have deposed your priests (Elders) and are now running amuck.  We are telling you that if you keep up this rebellion, we are warning you that you will cut yourself from the Church."  So why would the Church of Rome, in Italy, interfere with a completely different Church in Greece, the Church of Corinth?  The only possible explanation is that the Church of Rome understood itself to have an authority over the Church in Greece and all congregations, which it did.  This lettter was written in the first century so it is clear there was authority and a Pope, which Clement was, well before the incident with Phocas in 607 AD.

Also, if any Christian would read another Protestant book called, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority by E. Giles, from 96 to 454, they would find plenty of evidence of the Papal authority from Rome.  It shows without question the Bishop of Rome having authority over all the other churches and concludes that by the time 454 AD rolls around, it is incontestable that the Bishop of Rome is talking and speaking, as well as all his subjects who adhered to him, that he is in charge over all churches and congregations.  The book also shows a logical progression of the Bishop of Rome and his authority grow over time starting in the first century.  Like an acorn blossoming into a strong rooted tree.

  

Another historical record that would disagree with the above graph and show it to be historically inaccurate is by another Protestant author, Readings In Church History, edited by Coleman J Barry.  On page 145 the letter of Pope Gelasius I writes a letter to the Byzantine Emperor, which is were Phocus ended up ruling hundreds of years later in 607 A.D.  Gelasius wrote a letter that dictated power and that he as Pope, had the first power, the spiritual power, and the Emperor had the second power, the royal power.  He also says that He, as Pope, is responsible for teaching the Emperor spiritual truth and refers to him as his son having authority over him, not the other way around.  He calls the Emperor to submit himself faithfully to those in charge of Divine things and look to them for guidance in means of salvation.  In this letter Gelasius mentions the Sacraments and salvation and their importance to all ruling.  He goes on to say many other things and commands the Emperor on how to first honor God and second rule his kingdom.  This letter is indisputable evidence of the Pope at the time, Gelasius I, telling the most powerful man alive at that time, the Emperor, to ascent to the Pope's authoirty and the Seat he holds, which God himself desired to be preeminent over all Priests, and which the whole Church has honored ever since. 

An overwhelming majority of Protestant sects and historians agree that Phocas was not the power that gave Pope Gregory his position as the ultimate power as Pope, nor did Phocas ever declare he was responsible for making the first Pope.  During this time, the Bishop of Constantinople was declaring himself to be the head bishop of all the bishops in the East.  He was trying to proclaim he (The Bishop of Constantinople) was in charge of all the Greek speaking bishops and the Bishop of Rome was head of the all the Latin speaking bishops.  So it was the Patriarch of Constantinople, not Alexandria, that started to get "too big for his britches", as the saying goes, and was also the spark that started the schism where the Eastern churches split away all together.  

There was no dispute between the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome at all during this period, in fact, the Bishop of Alexandria was on the decline.  There were disputes between The Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople and what Emperor Phocas actually did was confirm that the Bishop of Rome had already been declared by prior councils of having authority over all, including the bishops in the East. And again, I have to refer the reader back to the book "Documents Illustrating Papal Authority AD 96 - 454" by  the Protestant Edward Giles, who clearly demonstrates this in his unbiased and accurate research.  

All that Phocas did was say to the Patriarch of Constantinople that he was over stepping his bounds, his claim that he did not have to listen to the Bishop of Rome was wrong and that he being subordinate to the bishop of Rome had already been decided centuries earlier.  So Phocas did not hold any power to appoint anyone, nor did he claim he did. He was simply reminding the patriarch of Constantinople, who was the Bishop of his hometown, that he was under the Bishop of Rome's authority, and outside of that he was being disobedient.

You can read this documented in history The Book Of Popes, collected in the 7th century by the Pope at that time.  It numbers the Popes and details what happened during this time.  Specifically in chapter 68 as it relates to Phocas and what happened during that time.