DIVINE institution of the Primacy

[mardukm]

I received the following request from a member:

"**It seems pretty obvious that the Bishop of Rome held a primacy, I think even a prime authority, in the Church (and as far as the Absolute/High Petrinism question, while I can’t say I’m completely convinced yet, I think there’s a good case for it and I lean towards it). However, I’m not sure I see sufficient evidence from the early Church that this primacy was a result of divine establishment.

So, I was wondering if you could point me towards any patristic sources which you think give evidence of the divine origin of the papacy.**"

I don’t have the time right now to address this thoroughly. But I wanted to throw it out here in the public forum.

Folks, remember this is about the DIVINE insitution of the PRIMACY. We’re not talking about infallibility. And please realize, Catholic members, that the poster is asking for PATRISTIC sources, so please do not, on theoretical grounds, quote anything from Pastor Aeternus or afterwards.

And let’s establish some basic principles in this discussion:

(1) Quotes from the Fathers that assert that the bishop of Rome succeeds St. Peter in the primacy DO NOT answer the question.

(2) Quotes related to infallibility and indefectibility DO NOT answer the question.

(3) Quotes that establish the primacy of the bishop of Rome DO NOT answer the question.

I will formulate a response, but it will take time, as I will be very busy in the following week.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

I received the following request from a member:

"**It seems pretty obvious that the Bishop of Rome held a primacy, I think even a prime authority, in the Church (and as far as the Absolute/High Petrinism question, while I can’t say I’m completely convinced yet, I think there’s a good case for it and I lean towards it). However, I’m not sure I see sufficient evidence from the early Church that this primacy was a result of divine establishment.

So, I was wondering if you could point me towards any patristic sources which you think give evidence of the divine origin of the papacy.**"

I don’t have the time right now to address this thoroughly. But I wanted to throw it out here in the public forum.

Folks, remember this is about the DIVINE insitution of the PRIMACY. We’re not talking about infallibility. And please realize, Catholic members, that the poster is asking for PATRISTIC sources, so please do not, on theoretical grounds, quote anything from Pastor Aeternus or afterwards.

And let’s establish some basic principles in this discussion:

(1) Quotes from the Fathers that assert that the bishop of Rome succeeds St. Peter in the primacy DO NOT answer the question.

(2) Quotes related to infallibility and indefectibility DO NOT answer the question.

(3) Quotes that establish the primacy of the bishop of Rome DO NOT answer the question.

I will formulate a response, but it will take time, as I will be very busy in the following week.

Blessings,
Marduk

How about lack of evidence? There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that supports such a belief of a divine institution upon Peter that was passed on to the Bishop of Rome from the 60s AD. If it was divinely instituted, it would have been known more widely by the 70s AD around Christendom. It would also have dominated the Epistles of the Apostles themselves to ensure that every Christian everywhere adhered to it.

 

[mardukm]

How about lack of evidence? There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that supports such a belief of a divine institution upon Peter that was passed on to the Bishop of Rome from the 60s AD. If it was divinely instituted, it would have been known more widely by the 70s AD around Christendom. It would also have dominated the Epistles of the Apostles themselves to ensure that every Christian everywhere adhered to it.

That’s not helpful, brother CTG. There is a positive claim that Primacy is of divine institution. What needs to be done is to investigate the proofs for this. And the opposing pov can thence participate by trying to refute the evidence. Let the proponents of the claim present their evidence first.

I propose that the issue of whether Primacy is of divine establishment rests with the presentation of evidence that Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles. HOW we interpret the primacy, and whether this primacy was handed down are two wholly distinct issues. No doubt the latter two points will inevitably be discussed, but let’s focus on the one issue of whether Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles.

To that end, let the proponents of the claim offer their Scriptural evidence that Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles, as well as patristic support that the Scriptural evidence can be interpreted thus.

In summary, there are three distinct issues inherent in the question “Is Primacy of DIVINE institution?”
(1) Did Jesus establish a primacy among the Apostles?
(2) Was this primacy handed down?
(3) How do we interpret this primacy?

Let us just focus on the first issue in this thread for now. Once it has been sufficiently answered, whether in the positive or the negative, we can move on to the rest of the issues, perhaps in this thread, or in another. Of course, the assumption of moving on to issues (2) and (3) is premised on the idea that (1) will be answered in the positive, which I do believe with all my heart, soul, and mind will undoubtedly be the case.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

To the member who asked me the question:

Of the three issues inherent in your question (see my previous post), let me ask first - would you agree that the first issue can only be answered in the positive? If so, we can immediately move on to the second issue - “was this primacy handed down?”

If ANY reader doubts that the first issue can only be answered in the positive, please say so. Otherwise, we should move immediately to the second issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s not helpful, brother CTG. There is a positive claim that Primacy is of divine institution. What needs to be done is to investigate the proofs for this. And the opposing pov can thence participate by trying to refute the evidence. Let the proponents of the claim present their evidence first.

I propose that the issue of whether Primacy is of divine establishment rests with the presentation of evidence that Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles. HOW we interpret the primacy, and whether this primacy was handed down are two wholly distinct issues. No doubt the latter two points will inevitably be discussed, but let’s focus on the one issue of whether Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles.

To that end, let the proponents of the claim offer their Scriptural evidence that Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles, as well as patristic support that the Scriptural evidence can be interpreted thus.

In summary, there are three distinct issues inherent in the question “Is Primacy of DIVINE institution?”
(1) Did Jesus establish a primacy among the Apostles?
(2) Was this primacy handed down?
(3) How do we interpret this primacy?

Let us just focus on the first issue in this thread for now. Once it has been sufficiently answered, whether in the positive or the negative, we can move on to the rest of the issues, perhaps in this thread, or in another. Of course, the assumption of moving on to issues (2) and (3) is premised on the idea that (1) will be answered in the positive, which I do believe with all my heart, soul, and mind will undoubtedly be the case.

Blessings,
Marduk

Why is it not helpful? The lack of evidence means that they weren’t even thinking about this. We can’t expect the Fathers to address a non-issue. We can’t expect someone to say, “oh, by the way, just in case someone 2000 years from now would ask if the Papacy was divinely instituted or not…” It is like trying to find proof of the Internet in the 1800s, and saying it is not enough that there is no mention of it. Someone must conclusively say that there is or there isn’t an Internet in the 1800s. That’s just →

Did Jesus himself establish a primacy among the Apostles? Definitely. It is very apparent in Scripture the favor for Peter. But is this a divine institution of some Primacy that is to be passed on from generation to generation? No evidence of that at all.

 

[mardukm]

Why is it not helpful? The lack of evidence means that they weren’t even thinking about this. We can’t expect the Fathers to address a non-issue. We can’t expect someone to say, “oh, by the way, just in case someone 2000 years from now would ask if the Papacy was divinely instituted or not…” It is like trying to find proof of the Internet in the 1800s, and saying it is not enough that there is no mention of it. Someone must conclusively say that there is or there isn’t an Internet in the 1800s. That’s just →

I suspect what is meant by your statement “lack of evidence” really relates to the third issue (“how is the primacy to be interpreted?”). In other words, the argument here is really “there is no evidence for the Primacy as interpreted by Vatican 1.” We can hold off on that until the the first two issues have been addressed and resolved. So the statement above is not helpful at all at this point.

Did Jesus himself establish a primacy among the Apostles? Definitely. It is very apparent in Scripture the favor for Peter. But is this a divine institution of some Primacy that is to be passed on from generation to generation? No evidence of that at all.

Good. You agree that the first issue is to be answered in the positive, to which I agree. Let’s wait a little while longer if others will agree. I am actually primarily concerned for the OP. If he joins the thread and agrees that the first issue is answered in the positive, then we can move on to the second issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

This discussion has been done a million times already. It always comes down to cherry picked quotes and eisigesis.

 

[bzkoss236]

Personally, I feel the concept of the Keys of the Kingdom should be enough to understand that it would be passed on. In the OT kingdoms, when the king was away he would give the power of authority and primacy to one of his most trusted men, and he would say that he gave them the ‘keys of the kingdom’. And if the king had yet to return and this most trusted man were to die, whether from sickness or whatever, he would then pass the keys to the kingdom (authority and primacy of the kingdom) onto someone else, and so on until the king returned or that mention of the king’s death would force the keys onto his heir. Similarly, we can look at this for the system in regards to the Kingdom/Church established by Christ here on Earth. Except that we know that Jesus will never die, and that He will return, and so we wait. And as we wait for his return, the Keys of the Kingdom that Jesus bestowed onto Peter will have to be passed on until Jesus returns in glory.

To me, that is enough.

 

[mardukm]

This discussion has been done a million times already. It always comes down to cherry picked quotes and eisigesis.

Understood. But a particular person has expressed immediate concern for the matter, and I’m not inclined to simply tell him to do an internet search to answer his question. I admit I have never treated of this particular matter. Perhaps the reader has read everything else that is contained in CAF on the matter, and still does not have his question answered.

People have always accused me D) of being – umm – unique (for lack of a better word ) in my approach to these matters of ecclesiology. Perhaps he is asking me so I can offer a perspective not heretofore considered or presented to help him resolve the issue.

I’m presenting his question publicly for a resolution because I’m sure others have these patristic sources more readily available than me, and I hope they can present them so we can investigate them together. I agree with you that past discussions may have been fruitless - but I suspect that is because these past discussions have only presented the opposing EXTREMES of the Absolutist and Low Petrine views on the matter. Perhaps what is needed is the fresh perspective of a High Petrine advocate to help the OP resolve the issue for himself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Personally, I feel the concept of the Keys of the Kingdom should be enough to understand that it would be passed on. In the OT kingdoms, when the king was away he would give the power of authority and primacy to one of his most trusted men, and he would say that he gave them the ‘keys of the kingdom’. And if the king had yet to return and this most trusted man were to die, whether from sickness or whatever, he would then pass the keys to the kingdom (authority and primacy of the kingdom) onto someone else, and so on until the king returned or that mention of the king’s death would force the keys onto his heir. Similarly, we can look at this for the system in regards to the Kingdom/Church established by Christ here on Earth. Except that we know that Jesus will never die, and that He will return, and so we wait. And as we wait for his return, the Keys of the Kingdom that Jesus bestowed onto Peter will have to be passed on until Jesus returns in glory.

To me, that is enough.

Bold is mine. Keys + “vicar” = absent king.

So does the keys imply an absent king, thus the term “vicar” really points to someone ruling in the absence of?

 

[mardukm]

Bold is mine. Keys + “vicar” = absent king.

So does the keys imply an absent king, thus the term “vicar” really points to someone ruling in the absence of?

Does Jesus giving St. Peter the keys imply that Jesus Himself admitted He would be absent from the Church?:tsktsk:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bzkoss236]

Bold is mine. Keys + “vicar” = absent king.

So does the keys imply an absent king, thus the term “vicar” really points to someone ruling in the absence of?

Christ is always with us spiritually, but not physically, and as such, there needs to be a physical presence of Christ’s authority and primacy on Earth until He comes again at the end of days.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does Jesus giving St. Peter the keys imply that Jesus Himself admitted He would be absent from the Church?:tsktsk:

Blessings,
Marduk

Isn’t that the imagery that is purported always by those who say the keys is the symbol of the authority over the Church? If Christ is not absent, why does he need to hand over the keys of authority to anyone?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Christ is always with us spiritually, but not physically, and as such, there needs to be a physical presence of Christ’s authority and primacy on Earth until He comes again at the end of days.

Where does it say that? Is Christ’s spirit so limited? Can Christ spiritually only guide one man to act on his behalf?

 

[mardukm]

Isn’t that the imagery that is purported always by those who say the keys is the symbol of the authority over the Church? If Christ is not absent, why does he need to hand over the keys of authority to anyone?

But he did hand over the keys. So one has only two options - either:
(1) one admits that by Christ handing the keys to St. Peter, Christ meant to signify that he would be absent from His Church, or
(2) one admits that by Christ handing the keys to St. Peter, Christ DID NOT mean to signify that he would be absent from His Church.

Brother CTG, please do not bog down this thread with unnecessary and illogical claims.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Where does it say that? Is Christ’s spirit so limited? Can Christ spiritually only guide one man to act on his behalf?

Where did the “one man” concept come from? The doctrine of the Catholic Church since the time of Pope St. Leo the Great states that the keys are shared by the Pope with his brother bishops.

I think this is why these issues are so difficult to resolve - because someone will always jump in trying to inject irrelevant matter.

The issue at this point is proof that the primacy is handed down. The notion of keys being given by Christ is a strong indication that the primacy is handed down. This Absolutist Petrine claim that the authority of the keys is possessed ONLY by the Pope is not Catholic doctrine, nor is it relevant to the matter. So please refrain from misrepresenting Catholic teaching, and stick to the topic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[theistgal]

This Absolutist Petrine claim that the authority of the keys is possessed ONLY by the Pope is not Catholic doctrine, nor is it relevant to the matter. So please refrain from misrepresenting Catholic teaching, and stick to the topic.

Blessings,
Marduk

But it is Catholic doctrine that the Pope can overrule the rest of the Bishops, even though they also possess the authority of the keys, is it not? Isn’t that what happened during the Arian controversy?

 

[mardukm]

Isn’t that the imagery that is purported always by those who say the keys is the symbol of the authority over the Church?

Btw, brother CTG, I’ve never heard from any Catholic who uses the argument of passing down authority from the keys that Christ is absent from His Church. It is always rather those who oppose the claim who impose that artificial meaning into the doctrine so they can pretend to have cause to reject it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister theistgal,

But it is Catholic doctrine that the Pope can overrule the rest of the Bishops, even though they also possess the authority of the keys, is it not? Isn’t that what happened during the Arian controversy?

But the Pope alone did not overrule the Arian bishops. Let’s not forget the awesome witness of Pope St. Athanasius during the controversy. St. Athanasius and all the rest of the orthodox bishops shared in the authority of the keys possessed by the primatial office of the bishop of Rome.

To be more concise, it is not Catholic doctrine that there will ever be a time when the Pope will be the only orthodox bishop left on earth. Every orthodox bishop shares in the authority of the keys.

From what magisterial document can one get the idea that the Pope can overrule every other bishop on earth? Or even that the Pope can overrule every ORTHODOX bishop on earth?

TBH, sister, I would like us to stick to the relevant issue - whether the Primacy established by Christ in St. Peter among the Apostles is handed down. I think what is being brought up presently is more relevant to the third issue -how is primacy to be interpreted?. I promise that when the time comes, I will address every facet of this issue. But for now, can we please only discuss the second (or first) issue that I mentioned in my post#3 at this time?

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

But he did hand over the keys. So one has only two options - either:
(1) one admits that by Christ handing the keys to St. Peter, Christ meant to signify that he would be absent from His Church, or
(2) one admits that by Christ handing the keys to St. Peter, Christ DID NOT mean to signify that he would be absent from His Church.

Brother CTG, please do not bog down this thread with unnecessary and illogical claims.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, those are the only two options for those who see the keys as symbols of authority. But keys are, as per their original design, tools of access to something inaccessible. You use a key to unlock a locked door, thus gain access. So are the keys Christ’s authority over the Church he is handing over to Peter? Or are they keys of access, given to Peter to be able to open the gates of the Kingdom and have access to it? That is why in the Orthodox Church, the belief is that every Bishop has the keys. It is not because the Orthodox believes every Bishop is a supreme, infallible Pope. It is because they bishop, especially early in the Church, is the one who presides over Liturgy where those gathered are brought to the Kingdom of God. The Bishop has the keys of access through the Apostolic Succession to bring the gathered faithful into the Kingdom.