DIVINE institution of the Primacy

[MilesVitae]

Dear brother MilesVitae,

Where are we at right now? Philosophically and scripturally speaking, through the parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant, you had agreed that Jesus’ statement that the head servant will exist when the Master returns naturally means that the office of the head servant will exist until Christ’s return. It also seems you agree that we should take Jesus’ words at its most natural meaning. We also agree that the primacy of the bishop of Rome among all the Churches is a historical fact. I’m not sure what else we can discuss at this point.

Yes, I grant all of these for now - some more tentatively than others.

Unless, you have other concerns, I’m imagining that we can now present the patristic evidence for the primacy of the bishop of Rome (remember we are not yet discussing the third issue - the interpretation of the primacy).

Yes, I am quite eager to discuss that evidence, particularly that which connects this primacy with Peter.

 

[pneuma07]

Thank you brother P7. It contributes greatly to the thread. Sorry for not acknowledging this earlier.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk,

thanks for your words, coming, IMHO, from one of the greatest contributors to CAF.

In Christ

P7

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, I grant all of these for now - some more tentatively than others.

Yes, I am quite eager to discuss that evidence, particularly that which connects this primacy with Peter.

Dear Miles Vitae,

the Council of Sardica, which took place approximately in 343-344 ( and was BTW received by the Quinisext Council in 692 ) regulated a universal appellate jurisdiction of the Roman bishop.

Here we’re not concerned about the details of these regulations, presented in Canons 3 -5, but to what was quoted as the reason for this primacy of the bishop of Rome.

Canon 3, introducing the above said clauses, reads:

let us, if it seem good to your charity, honor the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome ……

Which seems to settle IMHO at least two issues:

1. That petrine primacy was not disputed
2. That the unique connection of the Roman see with Peter was not disputed ( Antioch or other sees being not even mentioned here)

This connection with Peter is the only reason which the Council gives.
Nothing at all is said about the current or previous secular position of that city.

In Christ
P7

 

[josethomas2005]

Dear Miles Vitae,

the Council of Sardica, which took place approximately in 343-344 ( and was BTW received by the Quinisext Council in 692 ) regulated a universal appellate jurisdiction of the Roman bishop.

Here we’re not concerned about the details of these regulations, presented in Canons 3 -5, but to what was quoted as the reason for this primacy of the bishop of Rome.

Canon 3, introducing the above said clauses, reads:

let us, if it seem good to your charity, honor the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome …

Which seems to settle IMHO at least two issues:

1. That petrine primacy was not disputed
2. That the unique connection of the Roman see with Peter was not disputed ( Antioch or other sees being not even mentioned here)

This connection with Peter is the only reason which the Council gives.
Nothing at all is said about the current or previous secular position of that city.

In Christ
P7

The Catholic Church through the Council for Christian Unity, has already begun a dialogue on the primacy. I think we should continue the dialogue and seek a common agreement with the Eastern Churches, as there was in the first four centuries of Christianity. At that time there was a common understanding of the primacy. Now the Orthodox Church argues that it is impossible to go back to theology before the Council of Chalcedon because we do not possess any documents from that era. But I think that from the documents and statements subsequent to the time of Chalcedon there would be the possibility of dialogue and agreement on the Petrine ministry. Because there is the phrase primus inter pares. We all need a Petrine ministry of unity, which is a reference for all the Churches. I hope that a halfway point is found where the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches could come together in full communion with the Church of Christ.

From the above, the argument made by you about the council of Sardica on AD 343 is absolutely false. Those documents are later made to show the primacy of Rome. Those inceidents reported before the council of chalcedon cannot be believed. They were made falsely.

 

[MilesVitae]

From the above, the argument made by you about the council of Sardica on AD 343 is absolutely false. Those documents are later made to show the primacy of Rome. Those inceidents reported before the council of chalcedon cannot be believed. They were made falsely.

Beyond your aforementioned claim that we lack documents pre-Chalcedon, on what basis do you claim this evidence is false, and how do you explain it?"

This isn’t a rhetorical question - I know little about the claims you made.

 

[josethomas2005]

Beyond your aforementioned claim that we lack documents pre-Chalcedon, on what basis do you claim this evidence is false, and how do you explain it?"
This isn’t a rhetorical question - I know little about the claims you made.

Examine the last paragraph of the following article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Alencherry

 

[JerryZ]

The Catholic Church through the Council for Christian Unity, has already begun a dialogue on the primacy. I think we should continue the dialogue and seek a common agreement with the Eastern Churches, as there was in the first four centuries of Christianity. At that time there was a common understanding of the primacy. Now the Orthodox Church argues that it is impossible to go back to theology before the Council of Chalcedon because we do not possess any documents from that era. But I think that from the documents and statements subsequent to the time of Chalcedon there would be the possibility of dialogue and agreement on the Petrine ministry. Because there is the phrase primus inter pares. We all need a Petrine ministry of unity, which is a reference for all the Churches. I hope that a halfway point is found where the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches could come together in full communion with the Church of Christ.

From the above, the argument made by you about the council of Sardica on AD 343 is absolutely false. Those documents are later made to show the primacy of Rome. Those inceidents reported before the council of chalcedon cannot be believed. They were made falsely.

You quoted material from Wikipedia, the link documents the Council of Sardica from the Enciclopedia Brittanica:

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524124/Council-of-Sardica

There are other sources also.

 

[pneuma07]

The Catholic Church through the Council for Christian Unity, has already begun a dialogue on the primacy. I think we should continue the dialogue and seek a common agreement with the Eastern Churches, as there was in the first four centuries of Christianity. At that time there was a common understanding of the primacy. Now the Orthodox Church argues that it is impossible to go back to theology before the Council of Chalcedon because we do not possess any documents from that era. But I think that from the documents and statements subsequent to the time of Chalcedon there would be the possibility of dialogue and agreement on the Petrine ministry. Because there is the phrase primus inter pares. We all need a Petrine ministry of unity, which is a reference for all the Churches. I hope that a halfway point is found where the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches could come together in full communion with the Church of Christ.

From the above, the argument made by you about the council of Sardica on AD 343 is absolutely false. Those documents are later made to show the primacy of Rome. Those inceidents reported before the council of chalcedon cannot be believed. They were made falsely.

Hi Josethomas2005.

The statement that “30 Giorni”, quoted in Wikipedia, attributes to Mar George Cardinal Alencherry, where he would attribute to the Orthodox the persuasion that we do not possess any document from the pre-Chalcedonian age, is rather astonishing.
I believe he was somehow misunderstood, don’t you ?

Going to the point, do you personally maintain that we have no document from the first three Ecumenical Councils ?

As for Sardica, you may want to read about the authenticity of its Latin and Greek proceedings eg here:

faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/OhmeGreekCanonLaw.htm

I hope this can help

In Christ
P7

 

[MilesVitae]

Examine the last paragraph of the following article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Alencherry

The last paragraph is simply the quotation which you already provided in the post to which I was responding - it doesn’t answer my question: on the basis of what further evidence do you reject the authenticity of Synod of Sardica as evidence for Roman Primacy?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

Just wanted to let you know I haven’t forgotten about this thread. I am very busy with family right now, but I am slowly and surely formulating my presentation for the proofs of the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the undivided Church (including the proofs connecting the primacy with St. Peter). There are a lot of evidences, so it’s taking a while. I should have it by this weekend.

Thank you for your patience.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josethomas2005]

The last paragraph is simply the quotation which you already provided in the post to which I was responding - it doesn’t answer my question: on the basis of what further evidence do you reject the authenticity of Synod of Sardica as evidence for Roman Primacy?

May I tell you one thing. From my knowledge and by discussing this matter with an orthodox protestent scholar, the fact is that after council of chalcedon, Rome prepared a list of bishops beginning from St Peter. Pope Leo started writing letters to various dioceses saying that he is the supreme. Also Constantinople prepared a list of bishops beginning from St. Andrew. From my knowledge, the list of most bishops in Rome and Constantinople that we know at least before 4th century are fake.
Note that in the first three ecumenical councils, bishop of Rome was not present. Followers of Roman primacy says that the representatives of Pope were present. Who knows? They say that the first to sign in Council of Nicea were papal delegates. I don’ t think it is true. If it is true, the facts given in Eusebius’s world history should also be true. In his world history, many times, times it is given that Roman bishop is supreme. If this book is not a forged one, there will not be such a division between christians. All these are forged and fake as you can see the case of ‘Donation of Constantine’. In these periods, emperor’s seat was at Rome or at Constantinople. They had the political power t odo all these things. Now also this happens. World political leaders are queuing in Vatican to visit the Pope and to get his advices no matter Islamic or Chrisitan.
Now to make Europe again a superpower in the world, and to stabilise the economy in the area, Rome and European powers have to spread this propaganda again.
In the book ‘faith of the fathers’, Cardinal James Gibbons say this. It says that Europe achieved all this prosperity during these 1000 years by using this propaganda that Rome is the seat of Peter. Colonialists, crusaders destroyed created all the problems in the middle east and many areas of the world, especially in the syriac churches and orthodox churches using this propaganda.

 

[MilesVitae]

May I tell you one thing. From my knowledge and by discussing this matter with an orthodox protestent scholar, the fact is that after council of chalcedon, Rome prepared a list of bishops beginning from St Peter. Pope Leo started writing letters to various dioceses saying that he is the supreme. Also Constantinople prepared a list of bishops beginning from St. Andrew. From my knowledge, the list of most bishops in Rome and Constantinople that we know at least before 4th century are fake.

Including Saint Irenaeus’ list in Against Heresies?

Note that in the first three ecumenical councils, bishop of Rome was not present.

So, I’ve heard - a fact the implications of which I’ve wondered about.

Followers of Roman primacy says that the representatives of Pope were present. Who knows?

Well, if it can’t be confirmed then the matter of Papal Primacy will have to be settled by an investigation of other historical/Patristic texts.

They say that the first to sign in Council of Nicea were papal delegates. I don’ t think it is true.

Why?

If it is true, the facts given in Eusebius’s world history should also be true. In his world history, many times, times it is given that Roman bishop is supreme.

I’m not familiar enough with these texts to know why you are making that connection…

[quoteIf this book is not a forged one, there will not be such a division between christians. All these are forged and fake as you can see the case of ‘Donation of Constantine’.
[/quote]

All of what? What other specific works are you referring to other than the Donation of Constantine and Eusebius’ history? Also, a few examples of confirmed forgeries, such as the Donation of Constantine (which I’ve heard to be a forgery, but never looked into - primarily because it didn’t seem worthy of consideration if its a forgery), don’t discredit all other evidence.
Furthermore, I don’t think it follows that there would be no division if these texts were not forgeries. Protestant belief is in opposition to much scriptural and patristic evidence on various matters - but it doesn’t follow that these texts are forged. Also, there are various texts which serve as evidence for the Catholic claims regarding the Bishop of Rome and which are certainly not considered forgeries. Also, do you think there is any patristic evidence for the Orthodox claims on this issue? Is it reasonable for us to say “These must be forgeries too or there would not be such division?”

In these periods, emperor’s seat was at Rome or at Constantinople. They had the political power t odo all these things. Now also this happens. World political leaders are queuing in Vatican to visit the Pope and to get his advices no matter Islamic or Chrisitan.
Now to make Europe again a superpower in the world, and to stabilise the economy in the area, Rome and European powers have to spread this propaganda again.
In the book ‘faith of the fathers’, Cardinal James Gibbons say this. It says that Europe achieved all this prosperity during these 1000 years by using this propaganda that Rome is the seat of Peter. Colonialists, crusaders destroyed created all the problems in the middle east and many areas of the world, especially in the syriac churches and orthodox churches using this propaganda.

Alright.