A Catholic Rejects the Primacy of Peter

[Epistemes]

And what of Iraneaus, before him? He mentions the primacy of Rome (“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”) founded on the primacy of Peter and Paul (“by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul”).

He claims uncertainty due to translation, and that there is no mention of jurisdiction (how then does he explain that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church”?) Contrary to the claim of your favored interpreter (as you said, interpretation is a major issue, so let’s actually discus the primary source, not dismiss it based on some third party nearly two millennia after the Apostles), this one passage does seem to imply a universal jurisdiction over doctrine.

If we wish to deal in history, treading close to the line of antiquarianism, then let us do so honestly.

Rehashing your own literal interpretation (of a troubled translation) is hardly a sufficient counter to Quasten’s research and my own commentary. Your attempt to shirk such research, by only one Catholic theologian among others, including Pierre Batiffol, Georg Schwaiger, and T. Ortolan (a renowned pre-Vatican II moral theologian) and sweep it under the rug makes It is apparent that at this point you have nothing new to say. Or, more to the point, I’ve grown bored with your inability to convince me otherwise.

 

[Nicea325]

And what of Iraneaus, before him? He mentions the primacy of Rome (“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”) founded on the primacy of Peter and Paul (“by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul”).

He claims uncertainty due to translation, and that there is no mention of jurisdiction (how then does he explain that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church”?) Contrary to the claim of your favored interpreter (as you said, interpretation is a major issue, so let’s actually discus the primary source, not dismiss it based on some third party nearly two millennia after the Apostles), this one passage does seem to imply a universal jurisdiction over doctrine.

Tertullian is not even one century removed from the apostles (John died c. 100, Tertullian was writing c. 185). If we wish to deal in history, treading close to the line of antiquarianism, then let us do so honestly.

I have been discussing this issue for years with opponents of Roman primacy. What I have yet to receive are the early church writings explicitly stating primacy is a novelty or an invention solely by the church of Rome. Where are the writings by the early church fathers attacking primacy as a heresy or usurpation of Christ?

I hear the same circular arguments over and over and over. I find it really striking the church fathers were all over heresies,schims,etc but fail to mention primacy as one major error? Come on…

 

[Nicea325]

Rehashing your own literal interpretation (of a troubled translation) is hardly a sufficient counter to Quasten’s research and my own commentary. Your attempt to shirk such research, by only one Catholic theologian among others, including Pierre Batiffol, Georg Schwaiger, and T. Ortolan (a renowned pre-Vatican II moral theologian) and sweep it under the rug makes It is apparent that at this point you have nothing new to say. Or, more to the point, I’ve grown bored with your inability to convince me otherwise.

Speak for yourself because you have yet to convince otherwise.

Bottomline is simple:

You cannot produce PRIMARY sources,not SECONDARY sources,rebuking the primacy has a heresy,invention,novelty or usurpation of Christ. Everything you say is circular and same old boring rhetoric from opponents. If you truly believe it is false,then produce the ancient empirical historical records/writings in their PRIMARY form debunking the primacy.

Until we read it all rests on silent proof and deaf ears.

 

[seamusmohr]

And what of Iraneaus, before him? He mentions the primacy of Rome (“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”) founded on the primacy of Peter and Paul (“by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul”).

He mentions the primacy of Rome being founded on the two apostles. It is the Rome of the Suburbicarian Church, The City or Bishopric and all down from there including the three islands. Nowhere is the Petrine claims mentioned or the papacy, .It is Rome the great City of the Empire. Rome then, was not the sectarian Church it is today after its rebirth at Trent!
It was the only See in the West to be founded by not one but two Apostles and Old Rome!
That is why Rome’s Primacy is built on the Councils, because like Constantinople it was a political city and rewarded as such!

 

[seamusmohr]

T

The quote you included looked like a bit of catholic bashing which isn’t worth taking seriously.

,‘catholic bashing?’.

Now being an Anglican Catholic why should I want to do that when I am a member of the Catholic Church by my baptism and faith held?

 

[Epistemes]

Bottomline is simple:

You cannot produce PRIMARY sources,not SECONDARY sources,rebuking the primacy has a heresy,invention,novelty or usurpation of Christ.

See post #53, paragraph 1. Which, being the second time I’ve had to refer you to another post of mine suggests that your beligerence is interfering with literacy and rationale.

No primary source can be produced which rebukes the primacy as heresy because no such document exists; however, more to the point of my argument is that analysis of the writings of both Clement and Irenaeus points to the fact that the ante-Nicene Fathers did not consider the primacy to be divinely appointed and ecclesiastically bestowed. The only proof otherwise is the exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19, which has been demonstrated was not appealed to by the ante-Nicene Fathers until Tertullian (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]) and Pope Stephen I.

 

[jimmy]

Sorry jimmy that is not the consensus of the Early Church Fathers both Greek and latin Fathers. Your quote here, “The declaration of Peter is the essence of our faith” has nothing to do with Jesus building his Church upon Peter. You are introducing a whole new topic here separate from Jesus changing Simon’s name to Rock “Peter”.

Here is what St. John Chrysostom says about Matt.16

1. What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.”(9) “Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;”(10) that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell” shall not prevail against it." “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”

St. Augustine originally spoke of the rock being Peter, but then changed his opinion and retracted that and said that the rock upon which the Church is built is Christ Himself.

To assert that the fathers believed that Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built in Matt.16 is to overlook many of the fathers. You should also be careful quoting Cyprian to support the papacy, because he certainly didn’t support any conception of the papacy as it is currently taught. He openly disputed the idea that one bishop has authority over any other and declared that all bishops have an equal voice. And so he called the council of Carthage.

 

[Nicea325]

See post #53, paragraph 1. Which, being the second time I’ve had to refer you to another post of mine suggests that your beligerence is interfering with literacy and rationale.

No primary source can be produced which rebukes the primacy as heresy because no such document exists; however, more to the point of my argument is that analysis of the writings of both Clement and Irenaeus points to the fact that the ante-Nicene Fathers did not consider the primacy to be divinely appointed and ecclesiastically bestowed. The only proof otherwise is the exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19, which has been demonstrated was not appealed to by the ante-Nicene Fathers until Tertullian (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]) and Pope Stephen I.

Excuse me? My beligerence is interfering with literacy and rationale? I did read it and replied,so perhaps you should take at look at your own belligerence.

 

[Nicea325]

Here is what St. John Chrysostom says about Matt.16

1. What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.”(9) “Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;”(10) that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell” shall not prevail against it." “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”

St. Augustine originally spoke of the rock being Peter, but then changed his opinion and retracted that and said that the rock upon which the Church is built is Christ Himself.

To assert that the fathers believed that Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built in Matt.16 is to overlook many of the fathers. You should also be careful quoting Cyprian to support the papacy, because he certainly didn’t support any conception of the papacy as it is currently taught. He openly disputed the idea that one bishop has authority over any other and declared that all bishops have an equal voice. And so he called the council of Carthage.

You should also be careful quoting Cyprian to support the papacy, because he certainly didn’t support any conception of the papacy as it is currently taught. He openly disputed the idea that one bishop has authority over any other and declared that all bishops have an equal voice. And so he called the council of Carthage

Not true. Read what he said about primacy:

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

 

[jimmy]

You should also be careful quoting Cyprian to support the papacy, because he certainly didn’t support any conception of the papacy as it is currently taught. He openly disputed the idea that one bishop has authority over any other and declared that all bishops have an equal voice. And so he called the council of Carthage

Not true. Read what he said about primacy:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

And this is what Cyprian said at the council of Carthage in 258.
You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently determined, that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the Church. Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,[3] nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.[4] But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

Remember that this council is in response to P. St. Stephen’s view that heretics are not to be rebaptized. Cyprians view is not as clear as you are making it out to be.

 

[CDNowak]

Rehashing your own literal interpretation (of a troubled translation) is hardly a sufficient counter to Quasten’s research and my own commentary. Your attempt to shirk such research, by only one Catholic theologian among others, including Pierre Batiffol, Georg Schwaiger, and T. Ortolan (a renowned pre-Vatican II moral theologian) and sweep it under the rug makes It is apparent that at this point you have nothing new to say. Or, more to the point, I’ve grown bored with your inability to convince me otherwise.

You are the one who raised the question of interpretation and continually re-raised the question of distance from the Apostles (citing a 100 year difference as too far to be reliable). Pardon me for attempting to meet you at your own terms. For the record, not many here are convinced by your argument by fiat. If you wish to be entertained than you too need to engage.

If you wish to argue interpretation then do so: how, in your opinion, is the literal translation incorrect? If there is a better translation, please tell me how they differ.

From what you have stated the first teaching the we have historical record of regarding the primacy of Rome is just prior to 200 AD and is not the theory of primacy that you are advancing (one that achieved prominence around 450 AD). I don’t, and never have, claimed that the popular Latin understanding of the Papacy is without development or even correct (in fact I noted that the popular understanding has been put on the table as a matter of discussion in talks with other Churches because it is a development in isolation). However, that the primacy developed is not a fatal flaw to my argument, while your argument rests that there can have been no development. The fact that you have to go to the post-Nicean Fathers indicates development prior to your theory.

He mentions the primacy of Rome being founded on the two apostles. It is the Rome of the Suburbicarian Church, The City or Bishopric and all down from there including the three islands. Nowhere is the Petrine claims mentioned or the papacy, .It is Rome the great City of the Empire. Rome then, was not the sectarian Church it is today after its rebirth at Trent!
It was the only See in the West to be founded by not one but two Apostles and Old Rome!
That is why Rome’s Primacy is built on the Councils, because like Constantinople it was a political city and rewarded as such!

My problem is the ready dismissal of two points: that the ECF’s did seem to see Rome as the standard for orthodoxy doctrine and the foundation of Rome on Peter and Paul. As I said above, I readily grant that the Imperialistic notion of Roman primacy is unfounded, but I also nowhere see the support for the minimalistic understanding of primacy espoused by the OP. What I do see support for is Roman primacy being universal, but not immediate (that is Rome can step in only when invited, usually only between legitimate Churches).

I think (and I could be wrong) that this understanding is just about the only one the embrace the totality of what the Fathers had to say. Both the Primacy of Rome and the independence of the local bishop as equal in dignity to any other bishop.

 

[MoreCoffee]

,‘catholic bashing?’.

Now being an Anglican Catholic why should I want to do that when I am a member of the Catholic Church by my baptism and faith held?

Nobody but you an answer that question. The quote was rather anti-catholic; simply a matter of fact. The quote said,
*" It is well-known that the Papists insist upon the so-called “primacy” of the Pope with unrelenting obstinacy. In addition, they have declared that: “Union of Christianity means nothing else but subjugation [to the Pope], the only representative of Christ on earth”. And that “the primacy and infallibility are not ecclesiastical decrees that the Church can annul but dogmas whose foundations no one is in a position to shake.”
*
If you think that’s friendly and warm dialogue you are mistaken.

 

[Nicea325]

And this is what Cyprian said at the council of Carthage in 258.
You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently determined, that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the Church. Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,[3] nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.[4] But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

Remember that this council is in response to P. St. Stephen’s view that heretics are not to be rebaptized. Cyprians view is not as clear as you are making it out to be.

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,[3] nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop,according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.

So Cyprian is wishy-washy with his convictions? First of all,how is the above a direct reference to the Bishop of Rome? Nothing he said is contrary to what ALL bishops should do and practice. More important, if Cyprian is applying the following to the Bishop of Rome as well: can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another

Then explain why over the centuries, on numerous occasions eastern and western bishops took matters to Rome to be resolved? If ALL are equal in honor and jurisdiction,then why even bother to ask Rome to intervene?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is what St. John Chrysostom says about Matt.16

1. What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.”(9) “Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, "And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock

Here is St. Augustine on the primacy of Peter;

**"For, if the order of succesion of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we mumber them from Peter, to whom, as representing the Whole Church, the Lord said; “Upon this rock I will build my church **and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18). "For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus…(St. Augustine goes on to name every Apostolic successor of Peter’s in the unbroken line of Popes to Pope Anastasius.

There is nothing here indicating Jesus building his Church upon Peter’s faith nor does St. Augustine have any reason to retract his historical accurate account of Peter and the Popes who succeeded Peter.

To assert that the fathers believed that Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built in Matt.16 is to overlook many of the fathers. You should also be careful quoting Cyprian to support the papacy, because he certainly didn’t support any conception of the papacy as it is currently taught. He openly disputed the idea that one bishop has authority over any other and declared that all bishops have an equal voice. And so he called the council of Carthage.

I agree with you only in part because the ECF when the 400 year old persecution was lifted the Papacy was not defined by councils as needed in our present histories, because back then they were all in unity with the Pope as one in Christ Jesus.

I disagree with you about St. Cyprian for it is he who calls Peter’s Chair the “Sacerdotal Throne which being occupied by the will of God”, he also references Peter’s bishopheric as “one cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church”. When he writes to Antonianus, a 251- 252.

Taking all these ECF teachings surely does not equate how the Papacy has been defined by Jesus himself and throughout the ages, but these ECF’s sure blazed a path for us to follow in regards to recognizing Peter and his successors in the Popes.
[/QUOTE]

 

[TheAdvocate]

Simply put, the role of the pope is to act as the principle of unity within the Church. He is to be the glue that keeps the Church together, the anchor, the guardian (and therefore watchdog) of unity.

Good so far, right? Ok, but think about it: how can he be the principle of unity without authority? He would be ineffective with a mere moral authority. No, he must have real, judicial authority. That way, if the unity of the Church is being threatened, he can step in and say, “Stop that! Do this, do that.”

A wise pope will let each bishop shepherd his own particular diocese with little interference; in theory, he should only intervene for a good reason. That way, the apostolic succession of each bishop is respected, but the unity of the Church is likewise guaranteed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Simply put, the role of the pope is to act as the principle of unity

within the Church. He is to be the glue that keeps the Church together, the anchor, the guardian (and therefore watchdog) of unity.

Good so far, right? Ok, but think about it: how can he be the principle of unity without authority? He would be ineffective with a mere moral authority. No, he must have real, judicial authority. That way, if the unity of the Church is being threatened, he can step in and say, “Stop that! Do this, do that.”

A wise pope will let each bishop shepherd his own particular diocese with little interference; in theory, he should only intervene for a good reason. That way, the apostolic succession of each bishop is respected, but the unity of the Church is likewise guaranteed.

I would say that sums up the early church, that there is no unity of the Catholic church Jesus built upon Peter without being in unity with “The Bishop” of Rome in Peter “Rock” and his successors in the unbroken line of Popes since Pentecost.

Fast forward, we have mankind inventing new teachings such as “there is no god” and if God exists he cannot be seen or has nothing to do with humanity because man comes from the monkey? The Pope proclaims God dwells with the human race, because God took on flesh and built his Church upon Peter and his apostles. In fact God most assuredly dwells with man because he makes the Pope infallible when he proclaims Truth taught by Jesus Christ our founder on faith and morals.

 

[eucharisteo]

Simply put, the role of the pope is to act as the principle of unity within the Church. He is to be the glue that keeps the Church together, the anchor, the guardian (and therefore watchdog) of unity.

Good so far, right? Ok, but think about it: how can he be the principle of unity without authority? He would be ineffective with a mere moral authority. No, he must have real, judicial authority. That way, if the unity of the Church is being threatened, he can step in and say, “Stop that! Do this, do that.”

A wise pope will let each bishop shepherd his own particular diocese with little interference; in theory, he should only intervene for a good reason. That way, the apostolic succession of each bishop is respected, but the unity of the Church is likewise guaranteed.

Each bishop has sole juridical authority over his diocese. The Pope does not have absolute authority in a judicial form, but as a pastoral authority. If you wish to be in communion with the Church Christ founded you should adhere to the pastoral direction. I’m learning this as it develops because it means a lot to me to understand it better. I particularly am concerned about it simply because of trying to grasp what the Orthodox Church teaches. My heart is set on reunification one day and I have a feeling that many prideful Catholics have been sticking to overstating the “power” of the Pope as opposed to his pastoral authority, much like a patriarch - yet as the first among equals in that he has at least some say so to settle disputes as they arise.

You see the arguments now involve groups shooting to hold the Vatican financially responsible for the priest scandals. So now we’ll see what the Holy See really is through this scandal. I believe we’ll see something between over statements of his authority and understatements of his authority [more like none]. It’ll be interesting how this turns out.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=eucharisteo;6677287]Each bishop has sole juridical authority over his diocese

.

And when did this ever change?

The Pope does not have absolute authority in a judicial form, but as a pastoral authority. If you wish to be in communion with the Church Christ founded you should adhere to the pastoral direction. I’m learning this as it develops because it means a lot to me to understand it better. I particularly am concerned about it simply because of trying to grasp what the Orthodox Church teaches. My heart is set on reunification one day and I have a feeling that many prideful Catholics have been sticking to overstating the “power” of the Pope as opposed to his pastoral authority, much like a patriarch

Wait a minute there Catholics do not go around making the Pope a superhuman or a Ruthless ruler over all Bishops as the EO not in communion with the Pope falsely protray the Popes. You have the power issue blown out of proportiion from EO who refuse communion with the Pope confuse with Catholics. For a Catholic the Pope is the Vicar or Primeminister of our King of Kings Jesus Christ. The Pope has boundaries, the EO falsely claim that the Pope does not have boundaries. This alone reveals who has the issues with authority.

You see the arguments now involve groups shooting to hold the Vatican financially responsible for the priest scandals. So now we’ll see what the Holy See really is through this scandal. I believe we’ll see something between over statements of his authority and understatements of his authority [more like none]. It’ll be interesting how this turns out.

Once you get your sense of direction correct of who is blowing hot air over the Popes power, then you will see that the Bishops in communion with the Pope operate freely, yet should they vear off Apostolic Doctrine or teachings, then you will see the Pope act to protect the flock of Jesus Christ as Jesus commanded Peter to tend and feed his flock.

The Bishops have full reign to settle any scandal issues in their own diocese. If it involves the faithful the Pope may oversee the proceedings, but will not intervene unless the local Bishop is out of line from Apostolic Traditional teaching, or is bringing scandal to the body of Jesus Christ.

It never fails when ever an opponent to Catholic Teachings runs out of argument, one is quick to reach out for any anti-Catholic rhetoric or scandal from the past present.

 

[fnr]

Here’s an graphical analysis of quotes from the “Peter’s Roman Residency” page on catholic.com. I noted whether each quote mentioned “Peter and Paul” or “Peter, no Paul” as the basis of the city’s primacy. I’ve also superimposed other major events with substantial reference to papal authority. I’ve limited the analysis to around 400 AD.
View attachment 7951

It appears from this analysis that the following hypotheses are supported:
First, in the earliest years of the Church, Peter and Paul together were viewed as the basis of Roman primacy.
Second, after a series of theological conflicts, more quotes supporting Peter alone occur.

This trend in greater support of a monarchical Roman bishop over time is also consistent with the changes of art history.
Here’s an image of the Traditio legis, showing Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom and Paul receiving the scroll of wisdom, located in the Roman catacombs.
A 5th-7th century image of Peter alone receiving the law from Christ is here.

 

[steve_b]

It seems to me that history speaks voumes about the primacy of Peter: if the apostle was regarded as being universally primary and as Christ’s sole vicar then there wouldn’t be so much fuss. The fuss, it seems, is due to an encroachment upon previously unconceived notions about Peter’s role. There needs to be no exegesis of Scripture but a simple look at the history of the early Church itself which bespeaks of a variety of churches, a variety of communities, and various liturgical preferences with no apostle greater than the others.

There was an argument that broke out among the apostles, on which of them was the greatest. Do you recall what Jesus said?
E:

As the church in the West continued to evolve, the primacy of Peter was exagerrated and the heightened role of the papacy created separate from the other bishops. That’s all the primacy of Peter amounts to: an exagerration offered by the Western Church in light of a divided empire.

Yes, I understand schism quite clearly now.

That’s not understanding, that’s someone’s rhetoric.