DIVINE institution of the Primacy

[mardukm]

Dear brother MilesVitae,

Is the Primacy of St. Peter passed on in the Church throughout the centuries?

I will argue for the positive answer in two parts. The first part involves primarily philosophical and scriptural considerations; I will continue with the second part depending on your response to the first.

By the principle of Apostolic Succession, it would be altogether logical that the question is answered in the positive. The doctrine of Apostolic Succession teaches that everything that was necessary for the upbuilding of the body of Christ in the beginning must be given to each generation perpetually until Christ returns (except, of course, the unique character of the Apostles that made them Apostles and primordial foundations of the Church). If the Apostles had a head among them as their principle of visible unity that was part of their ministry as Apostles, then the successors of the Apostles must also have a head among them as their principle of visible unity that is part of their ministry as bishops. This follows since the Church after the Apostles was/is not more perfect than the Church at the time of the Apostles.

It is more poignant when one considers the efficient Cause of Apostolic Succession. “Succession” in the Church cannot be thought of according to the usual, secular understanding of succession, because succession in the Church does not progress by way of one person handing on what he has to another. In the Church, the active Principle Who gives the power in each successive generation of the Church is ALWAYS Jesus Christ Himself ALWAYS PRESENT through the Holy Spirit; and we discover the divine WIll of Jesus Christ for His Church in the Scriptures. In the Scriptures, we see that it was Christ’s will for the Church in that day that those he set over the Church as its servants (the Apostles) should have a head, St. Peter. Christ is the same always and forever. Christ is present right now in His Church (and in each generation throughout history) and His will for the Church has not changed, a will made evident in the Scriptures. Scripture indicates it was Christ’s will for the servants of the Church (who are the visible representatives of Christ’s authority) to have a visible head, and since Christ does not change and still present in His Church, then in each generation, it is His will that the servants of the Church (in the first generation, it was the Apostles, and in successive generations, it was/is the bishops) should have a visible head.

In my first post, I posited that patristic evidence for the bishop of Rome’s primacy is not sufficient to answer the question of whether the Primacy is of Divine institution – I did so only because I know that epistemologically speaking (having been on the other side of the fence), opponents of the Catholic position distinguish between (1) the existence of the Primacy and (2) its justification (i.e., whether it is divinely instituted, or developed/necessitated due to merely secular circumstances). Christ is ALWAYS and PRESENTLY the Efficient Cause of the Primacy, and the Church is merely the Material Cause of Christ’s Divine Will. So it is not a matter of whether this Church Father or that Church Father believes the Primacy is handed down. It is IN FACT merely a matter of whether the Primacy of the bishop Rome was recognized by these Fathers, because that fact evinces the same reality that Christ willed for His Church in the Scriptures (that the servants should have a visible head), Christ truly present in the Church now as in every age. The Church being the Material Cause of the Efficient Cause (Who is Christ), the mere fact of the recognition of the Primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Church evinces that Christ’s Divine Will for His Church (that is evident in Scripture and never changes) is still living, active, and present.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not an argument from Divine Providence. The argument from Divine Providence does not refute the notion that Primacy is of merely ecclesiastical origin. The argument from Divine Providence does not claim to know the Divine Will except through CONTEMPORARY circumstances that are evident in our PRESENT condition. In distinction, the present argument asserts that (1) the Divine Will was already made known through Scripture, evident in the fact that Christ established a visible head for the Apostles as a principle of unity (according to St. Cyprian’s well-known explanation in De Unitate), and (2) the Church’s subsequent recognition of the primacy of Rome is a reflection of this Divine Will made known explicitly in Scripture.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The philosophical argument becomes more powerful when we analyze what is considered to be of merely ecclesiastical origin versus what is of divine institution, we discover that the distinction rests in the idea that what is of divine institution depends on the direct scriptural evidence of what Christ and/or His Apostles themselves established. For example, it is on this principle that the Church distinguishes the special nature of the seven Sacraments – the Church finds direct evidence from Christ’s and/or the Apostles’ own words or actions in Scripture to support the unique character of the Seven Sacraments. Accordingly, the Church down through the centuries regarded the Seven Sacraments to be divinely instituted and thus faithfully maintained the teaching and praxis of the Seven Sacraments. This analogy to the divine institution of the Sacraments becomes most relevant when we consider the fact that even though all the Sacraments have a direct and explicit approval from the words or actions of Christ/the Apostles, most of them don’t have a like prescription to be perpetually continued. The Church considers them divinely instituted and hence continues the teaching and praxis of the Seven Sacraments simply and only because of the Scriptural evidence that Christ and/or His Apostles approved them. So do we have explicit evidence from Scripture that Christ intends his servants to have a chief among them, and does Scripture record that the Apostles operated with the principle of a coryphaeus among them? The answer to that, of course, is a resounding “YES.”

(For anyone wondering : the foregoing argument does not make the primatial office a Sacrament. Sacraments have one purpose in the Church – i.e., to sanctify. The purpose of the divinely instituted primatial office of the Church is, distinctly, for the sake of its government on earth.)

Brother MilesVitae, do you agree with what I just wrote? Would you agree that patristic evidence for the Primacy of Rome among the Churches (or, equivalently, the Primacy of the bishop of Rome among his fellow bishops), is sufficient evidence to answer issue (2) in the positive? If so, we can begin to present the patristic evidence in recognition of the primacy of Rome (and not only of the primacy, brother Miles, but also of the fact that the primacy is intimately connected with St. Peter).

ADDENDUM: Though I have argued that the second issue should be answered positively based on a comparison with the Sacraments, many of them not having an explicit command to be perpetually enjoined, there is actually Scriptural evidence that Christ intended that there is to be a perpetual primacy in each generation. Our Lord exhorted the Apostles with the parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant (Mt 25:45-51; Lk 12:41-48).

This parable should not be confused with the parable of the unforgiving servant, which is a lesson on forgiveness for any Christian in general. The current parable is addressed not to the Christian in general, but specifically to the one who, among the servants, is accounted as chief. This parable offers several lessons:
(1) The Master of the household (Jesus Christ) WILL and DOES set a servant over the other servants and over the entire household. This statement most naturally applies to the universal Church, but it can validly be applied to any level of the hierarchy wherein the notion of a primatial office exists – i.e., to the bishop for his diocese, the Metropolitan for the Metropolitan Church, the Patriarch for the Patriarchal Church, and Pope for the universal Church);
(2) This head servant exists at the time of the Master’s return. Unless we agree with the Mormon idea that the hierarchy of the Church completely disappeared for a time, then it is natural to interpret this to mean that the office of head servant has always existed and will always exist from the time when Christ (the Master) selected the first head servant up until the time He returns.
(3) The head servant has been given more responsibilities than the other servants.
(4) The head servant (or, generally, anyone who is accounted as a chief on whatever level of the hierarchy) will have a greater punishment for neglecting his greater responsibilities than the other servants who had fewer responsibilities.

It is, of course, #(2) above that holds special relevance for our present discussion. I have not investigated all the patristic interpretations of this parable. St. John Chrysostom, for one, interpreted this parable to refer specifically to St. Peter and his successors.

NOTE: Remember, we are here only considering issue#2 – i.e., whether the primatial office of St. Peter was passed down in each generation of the Church. We are not yet considering the third issue of the proper understanding of the primacy. I suspect most disagreements really have to do with the third issue. The disagreements are really about: IS PRIMACY ACCORDING TO V1 OF DIVINE INSTITUTION? It is not about whether Primacy per se is of divine institution. The first two issues considered thus far are only concerned with the notion of primacy per se, regardless of its interpretations. I think it is generally conceded by all that Christ established a primacy among the Apostles. Currently I am proposing that the explicit actions and statements of the Church down through the centuries indicating the primacy of Rome is evidence enough that such primacy was recognized by the Church throughout the centuries to have been passed down. As a reminder, we are not yet concerned with how we are to interpret this evident primacy, only that the primacy was recognized.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[PJM]

=Nine_Two;9994299]PJM: Why are you on the Eastern Catholic board if you believe they are an aberration?

I ask this because you clarified that Christ meant a singular Church. Obviously a kick at our decentralized structure, but one which hits Eastern Catholics, who all belong to different Churches and have a similar decentralized structure.

Look my friend, God didn NOT die and make me a judge.

By Christ intent in Matt. 10, 16 and 28 are exceedingly clear as to what God desires and accomplished. I have no axe to grind and personally think highly of the Eastern Rites. But that fact does not change the singular truth of what Christ did.

God Bless you brother!

 

[PJM]

=ConstantineTG;9994362]Some Roman Catholics do believe that Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholics with an Eastern Rite. That we are all under the Pope, which means we are one Church (which means one organizational structure).

It took me a while to understand the Communion Ecclesiology but now that I do I completely understand it and completely accept it. It makes sense in relation to the entire faith. So I don’t agree that one Church has to have one ecclesiastical heirarchy. Because the Church is a living being (it is the body of Christ) and not an organization.

I respectfully disagree Father.

The entire bible from the time of Abram onward is solidly indicitive of a single chosen people; perfected and elevated in the NT/ New Covenant of Christ Blood.

jesus Himself invented the term “church” in CONJUNCTION and inseperatble fro the "key’s to the kingdom; Peter and through Peter [Mt. 10:1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; Mt 18:18, Mt. 28: 16-20, John 14: 16-17 [fulfilled in John 20:21-22]; John 17:15-19 and again John 20:19-22. At least 3 times in these passages Jesus passes on to His Apostles His own Powers and Authority.

In Matt. 28:19-20 this authority had to include Apostolic Succession which was both clearly understood, accepted and practiced.

John and Paul both make this exceeding clear:

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

Eph. 3: 9-10 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [singular] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord"

Eph. 4: 1-7 …“There is one body [WHICH MEANS only ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift”

Luke 6:48 "He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and it could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.

Eph. 2: 20-21 "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord."

That God permits other opinions is NOT evidence that he desires, agrees with or accepts them.

Thanks for your Ministry!

Love and prayers,
pat /PJM

 

[ConstantineTG]

I respectfully disagree Father.

I’m not a priest nor are you an offspring of mine. Just making that clear.

The entire bible from the time of Abram onward is solidly indicitive of a single chosen people; perfected and elevated in the NT/ New Covenant of Christ Blood.

jesus Himself invented the term “church” in CONJUNCTION and inseperatble fro the "key’s to the kingdom; Peter and through Peter [Mt. 10:1-8; Mt. 16:15-19; Mt 18:18, Mt. 28: 16-20, John 14: 16-17 [fulfilled in John 20:21-22]; John 17:15-19 and again John 20:19-22. At least 3 times in these passages Jesus passes on to His Apostles His own Powers and Authority.

In Matt. 28:19-20 this authority had to include Apostolic Succession which was both clearly understood, accepted and practiced.

John and Paul both make this exceeding clear:

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

Eph. 3: 9-10 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [singular] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord"

Eph. 4: 1-7 …“There is one body [WHICH MEANS only ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift”

Luke 6:48 "He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and it could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.

Eph. 2: 20-21 "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord."

That God permits other opinions is NOT evidence that he desires, agrees with or accepts them.

Thanks for your Ministry!

Love and prayers,
pat /PJM

The Eucharistic model does not violate whatever you said but in fact it makes sense that separate things can be united as one without losing their own distinctiveness. When we come into communion with Christ, we don’t cease to be Constantine, PFM, Joe, John, Bob, etc. Yes we are all one body. That is the Eucharistic model of the Church. The Church in Antioch is distinct from the Church in Rome, but they are both the one Church. Antioch doesn’t have to be under Rome and Rome doesn’t have to be under Antioch for them to be one Church.

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear Marduk,

You refer to Peter’s “primatial office.” I granted that Saint Peter had a primacy of some sort among the Apostles - but one of my doubts was about the nature of this primacy. Was it a primacy that can be called official, or was it more a personal vocation of Peter’s to play a primal role among the Apostles, without it being an “office.” (I know the terms I am using are somewhat vague, and that is perhaps a source of my uncertainty, and why I am still searching for answers).
That being said, if Peter’s primacy was not official, then a recognition of the primacy of Rome can be interpreted as merely a historical development within the structure of the Church, but not an essential aspect of it - deference (for lack of a better word), prime honor, etc. was given to Rome as the final place of Peter, since he was the first among the Apostles (if not for other reasons as well - such as the martyrdom of Paul there, its place as center of the secular empire, and its steadfastness in orthodox faith and in charity).
Even if Peter’s primacy among the Apostles was an “office,” the (divinely intended) perpetuation of this office would be seriously called into doubt if none or very few of the Church Fathers clearly recognized it. In other words, if we find no mention of this concept in the writings of the early Church, on what basis can we claim that it is orthodox belief, a part of Sacred Tradition handed down since the Apostles? (I will grant that silence about divine institution in single cases does not prove the lack of this belief - but, if this belief is not able to be found widely spread among the opinions of the Church Fathers, then how can we claim it is part of Sacred Tradition?)
So, I am unable at this point to definitely give a “yes” to your question “[is] patristic evidence for the Primacy of Rome among the Churches (or, equivalently, the Primacy of the bishop of Rome among his fellow bishops), is sufficient evidence to answer issue (2) in the positive?”
As far as the parable of the servant and John Chrysostom’s commentary on it, do you happen to know where the commentary you mentioned can be found? I think I remember having come across it once in the past (after hearing this same argument presented), and thinking that no clear connection was made to Peter and his successors or the Bishops of Rome…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MilesVitae

You refer to Peter’s “primatial office.” I granted that Saint Peter had a primacy of some sort among the Apostles - but one of my doubts was about the nature of this primacy. Was it a primacy that can be called official, or was it more a personal vocation of Peter’s to play a primal role among the Apostles, without it being an “office.” (I know the terms I am using are somewhat vague, and that is perhaps a source of my uncertainty, and why I am still searching for answers).

I understand what you are saying. In terms of “office,” how do you interpret, then, the parable of the Faithful and Wise servant? What lessons do you suppose the Lord wanted his Apostles and the subsequent generations in the Church to learn from that parable? Did not the Lord in fact explicitly explain the parable to them as recorded in Luke? Did not the Lord explicitly assert that there would be one who would have a greater responsibility than the rest of the servants? Can you please respond explictly to the analysis I presented of the parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant?

That being said, if Peter’s primacy was not official, then a recognition of the primacy of Rome can be interpreted as merely a historical development within the structure of the Church, but not an essential aspect of it - deference (for lack of a better word), prime honor, etc. was given to Rome as the final place of Peter, since he was the first among the Apostles (if not for other reasons as well - such as the martyrdom of Paul there, its place as center of the secular empire, and its steadfastness in orthodox faith and in charity).

But where did the very idea of the primacy come from? Did the Church invent the concept out of the blue due to their secular circumstances, or did they have instruction from the Lord and the Apostles on the matter? I mean, even if we pretend that it is due to the secular prominence of Rome, we need to ask the question of why the Churches would even recognize the idea of a primatial figure among them in the first place, correct? That is the question you must answer for yourself.

Even if Peter’s primacy among the Apostles was an “office,” the (divinely intended) perpetuation of this office would be seriously called into doubt if none or very few of the Church Fathers clearly recognized it.
The question of “office” seems to be a bit of a red herring. Did they or did they not recognize a primatial figure among them? That is the question. And from whence did the idea of a primatial figure come from? Do we find evidence in Scripture for such a primatial figure or not? The Catholic argument is that the idea of a primatial figure comes from the words and practice of Christ and the Apostles themselves. The idea of recognizing (or selecting, if that is your pov) the bishop of Rome as the primatial figure in the Church, even if only for the secular status of the city of Rome, only answers the question of HOW the Church recognized who the primatial figure was. The question that still needs to be asked is how did the Church even get the idea that there was such a primatial figure to begin with?

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

In other words, if we find no mention of this concept in the writings of the early Church, on what basis can we claim that it is orthodox belief, a part of Sacred Tradition handed down since the Apostles? (I will grant that silence about divine institution in single cases does not prove the lack of this belief - but, if this belief is not able to be found widely spread among the opinions of the Church Fathers, then how can we claim it is part of Sacred Tradition?)

Do we not find sufficient evidence for the primacy of the bishop of Rome from the praxis and writings of the early Church? How can it be claimed there is “no mention of the concept?” How is it that two Ecumenical Councils recognized “Peter has spoken through Leo…Agatho…?” How can it be claimed there is not sufficient evidence when another Ecumenical Council wrote of the bishop of Rome: “For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own care…it is right that all things which have taken place should be brought to the knowledge of your holiness, we are writing of necessity…” Does not this assertion by an Ecumenical Council exactly match the exhortation in Apostolic Canon 34 “the bishops of every nation must acknoweldge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…?” Even the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, despite the vacillation of the bishop of Rome, were willing to acknowledge Pope VIgilius as their “father and head,” Do the statement of Ecumenical Councils count for nothing? How can it be assumed that the primacy of the bishop of Rome cannot be claimed to be “part of Sacred Tradition?” Even if one claims that the primacy was due to the secular status of Rome, where did the very idea of primacy among the Churches come from, especially in the context of the non-Catholic claim that every bishop is equal in every way?

I have another question for you to ponder- If it is true that the primatial status of Rome is due to the secular status of the city, how come the bishop of Rome was still considered to have primatial status even after the capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople?

As far as the parable of the servant and John Chrysostom’s commentary on it, do you happen to know where the commentary you mentioned can be found? I think I remember having come across it once in the past (after hearing this same argument presented), and thinking that no clear connection was made to Peter and his successors or the Bishops of Rome…

I do not have my NPNF series here in the Philippines. The book contains a scriptural index, and you can trace it through the Scriptural index. I’m sorry I don’t have it available off hand. But rest assured that St. Chrysostom definitely connected the head servant in the parable to “Peter and his successors” (those are the exact words).

Brother Miles, the questions I asked above are not merely rhetorical. I hope you take the time to answer them, and give your answers publicly for the benefit of those who may be going through the same struggles as you.

NOTE: As a reminder, we are only here talking of the primacy per se. We are not yet covering how the primacy is to be interpreted.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear brother MilesVitae

I understand what you are saying. In terms of “office,” how do you interpret, then, the parable of the Faithful and Wise servant? What lessons do you suppose the Lord wanted his Apostles and the subsequent generations in the Church to learn from that parable? Did not the Lord in fact explicitly explain the parable to them as recorded in Luke? Did not the Lord explicitly assert that there would be one who would have a greater responsibility than the rest of the servants? Can you please respond explictly to the analysis I presented of the parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant?

It seems likely that the parable of the servant relates in particular to those placed in positions of authority within the Church - especially the Apostles and the Bishops, to be sure. After all, it is after Peter asks “Is it to us or to everyone that you tell this parable?” that Jesus says “who then is the wise and faithful…” I also understand your point about it most naturally applying to the universal Church - still I am not sure it amounts to an explicit statement that there will be one over the whole Church. I don’t see how the parable and Jesus’ comments would be rendered unintelligible if we were to grant that there were no universal visible head and that it applied only to those who have a singular responsibility over some more local part of the Church.
Also, I wonder about the reference to the master’s return…does this necessarily reference Christ’s second public coming, or can it reference the individual servants’ personal judgment? That being said, I think it probably refers primarily to the former.

But where did the very idea of the primacy come from? Did the Church invent the concept out of the blue due to their secular circumstances, or did they have instruction from the Lord and the Apostles on the matter? I mean, even if we pretend that it is due to the secular prominence of Rome, we need to ask the question of why the Churches would even recognize the idea of a primatial figure among them in the first place, correct? That is the question you must answer for yourself.

Just to clarify, I did not mean to justify Rome’s primacy primarily by its secular status in the empire - merely to suggest that this was perhaps part of what gave rise to its primacy. I also referenced the martyrdom of Paul (as well as Peter, of course) there, its apparent steadfastness in orthodox faith, and its charity.

Now, as to where this notion of a primatial figure (or primatial church) came from. As I said, it may have developed - as the Church of Rome grew in honor due to its religious importance, perhaps the secular importance of the city itself, its faith, and/or its charity, deference to the Church of Rome grew. Why could not the Church of Rome (or, hypothetically, another Church) have acquired a primacy (or priority, as it was called by an author I recently read) in this or a similar manner, without a primatial Church or office being an essential structure of the universal Church? You ask “The question that still needs to be asked is how did the Church even get the idea that there was such a primatial figure to begin with?” It is not necessarily the case that there was already a primatial figure, as though the Church had to discover where this primatial figure was located. Am I misunderstanding your comment?

 

[MilesVitae]

CONT’d

Do we not find sufficient evidence for the primacy of the bishop of Rome from the praxis and writings of the early Church? How can it be claimed there is “no mention of the concept?” How is it that two Ecumenical Councils recognized “Peter has spoken through Leo…Agatho…?” How can it be claimed there is not sufficient evidence when another Ecumenical Council wrote of the bishop of Rome: “For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own care…it is right that all things which have taken place should be brought to the knowledge of your holiness, we are writing of necessity…” Does not this assertion by an Ecumenical Council exactly match the exhortation in Apostolic Canon 34 “the bishops of every nation must acknoweldge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…?” Even the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, despite the vacillation of the bishop of Rome, were willing to acknowledge Pope VIgilius as their “father and head,” Do the statement of Ecumenical Councils count for nothing?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not questioning whether the primacy of Rome is attested to by the Fathers - I acknowledge that it most definitely is! What I had originally said was “Even if Peter’s primacy among the Apostles was an “office,” the (divinely intended) perpetuation of this office would be seriously called into doubt if none or very few of the Church Fathers clearly recognized it.” I am questioning whether the Fathers taught that Christ established a perpetual office with Peter, not whether Rome had a primacy.

How can it be assumed that the primacy of the bishop of Rome cannot be claimed to be “part of Sacred Tradition?” Even if one claims that the primacy was due to the secular status of Rome, where did the very idea of primacy among the Churches come from, especially in the context of the non-Catholic claim that every bishop is equal in every way?

By Sacred Tradition, I mean part of orthodox faith. As I’ve already clarified, I was not referring to a lack of evidence for the primacy of Rome, but a lack of evidence for the belief in a divinely established, perpetual petrine office. That being said, I would also comment further that I do not think the wide recognition among the Church Fathers of the primacy of Rome makes it part of Sacred Tradition - after all, there were other Churches with special honor and status (Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) - would we call there special status a matter of Sacred Tradition?
As far as the supposed absolute equality of bishops according to non-Catholics - this is an interesting point. You would know better than I, how do the Orthodox account for the authority of head Bishops other than the Pope?

I do not have my NPNF series here in the Philippines.

That old excuse again!

The book contains a scriptural index, and you can trace it through the Scriptural index. I’m sorry I don’t have it available off hand. But rest assured that St. Chrysostom definitely connected the head servant in the parable to “Peter and his successors” (those are the exact words).

I tried to find it online - no luck so far, but I’ll keep trying. I’ll take your word for it that Chrysostom connects it with Peter and his successors, but please understand if I am eager to see it for myself in context

 

[mardukm]

It seems likely that the parable of the servant relates in particular to those placed in positions of authority within the Church - especially the Apostles and the Bishops, to be sure. After all, it is after Peter asks “Is it to us or to everyone that you tell this parable?” that Jesus says “who then is the wise and faithful…” I also understand your point about it most naturally applying to the universal Church - still I am not sure it amounts to an explicit statement that there will be one over the whole Church. I don’t see how the parable and Jesus’ comments would be rendered unintelligible if we were to grant that there were no universal visible head and that it applied only to those who have a singular responsibility over some more local part of the Church.

I believe the problem with the last sentence is that it does not seem to acknowledge the gravity of the fact that these words came from Jesus’ own mouth. He plainly asserts that He will set one servant over HIS household (which includes the other servants), and explains quite plainly that this one servant will have greater responsibilities. There is no room for a different interpretation here because Jesus Himself gave the explanation. Can you please explain how it is possible that something so clearly set forth from Jesus’ own lips can be regarded as not being of divine institution?

Furthermore, if it is admitted that the parable is most naturally referring to the universal Church (after all, how else can we interpret the household of the Master?), what rationale can be offered to try to exclude that interpretation? Remember that this is coming from Jesus’ own lips, so while positively acknowledging other valid interpretations (i.e., that it can refer to local churches or groups of churches), we must be extremely careful not to disregard its most natural meaning, for fear that we might otherwise be opposing the will of the Lord. Would you agree?

Also, I wonder about the reference to the master’s return…does this necessarily reference Christ’s second public coming, or can it reference the individual servants’ personal judgment? That being said, I think it probably refers primarily to the former.

Every other parable that contains the image of the Master returning definitely refers to the Second Coming. So I would think it is most natural to interpret it the same way here. Would you agree that the parable plainly states that the head servant will exist when the Master returns? Would you agree that this refers to the perpetuation of that role in the household of God (i.e. the Church) until the Second Coming?

Now, as to where this notion of a primatial figure (or primatial church) came from. As I said, it may have developed - as the Church of Rome grew in honor due to its religious importance, perhaps the secular importance of the city itself, its faith, and/or its charity, deference to the Church of Rome grew.

The secular importance of the city was not a factor at all in the earliest years. Only when Christianity became more established and widespread (i.e., in the 3rd century) did the secular importance of the city have any bearing on ecclesiastical polity, due to the fact that there was a greater concentration of Christians in the major cities. But during a time when Christians were generally persecuted and was basically an underground movement? Christian persecution was unrelenting until the reign of Commodus, so it is laughable that the Church would go around making secular prominence a standard by which to gauge the importance of a particular Church.

Why could not the Church of Rome (or, hypothetically, another Church) have acquired a primacy (or priority, as it was called by an author I recently read) in this or a similar manner, without a primatial Church or office being an essential structure of the universal Church?

Two reasons:
(1) The parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant. Assuming these Gospels were common fare in the latter 1st and early 2nd century, it would have been natural for the reader to understand the parable as referring to the Church universal, especially with the presence of apostolic men, who had a solid awareness of the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles. When St. Peter died, and with the fact that Christians in this early period expected the return of the Lord very soon, they would have looked to his successor as the head servant of the servants spoken of in the Gospels.

(2) Are you familiar with the ancient Apostolic Canon 34? Where did it come from? Why was it instituted? What do you think is the most natural explanation – (1) because it was based on the model of the Apostles, or (2) because it was developed from the influence of secular culture? If it is (1), would that not make the notion of a head bishop divinely established? An early fourth century Synod had already referred to the apostolic Canon as “ancient.” If that is not an indication that it is part of Sacred Tradition, what is? It is possible that the Canon was written after it was realized that the Lord was not coming very soon, so a rule was established to perpetuate the office of the head servant in accordance with the Lord’s words in the parable.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

You ask “The question that still needs to be asked is how did the Church even get the idea that there was such a primatial figure to begin with?” It is not necessarily the case that there was already a primatial figure, as though the Church had to discover where this primatial figure was located. Am I misunderstanding your comment?

You understood correctly, but I am not claiming they had to look for it. It’s more logical that they already knew that the successor of St. Peter who was the coryphaeus of the Apostles would be the one to hold the primacy. I have no problem with St. Peter establishing the bishopric at Antioch. But one does not have a successor while one is still alive. Besides, there’s no indication that Antioch held a primacy like Rome’s. We have record of Polycarp travelling all the way to Rome to discuss the issue of Easter, not Antioch which was closer to him. Ignatius of Antioch’s epistles all contain exhortations and instructions to the Churches, except the one to Rome, who he recognized was the one that gave others instruction. We find St. Basil appealing steadfastly to Rome to fix the schism in Antioch. Etc. Etc.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not questioning whether the primacy of Rome is attested to by the Fathers - I acknowledge that it most definitely is! What I had originally said was “Even if Peter’s primacy among the Apostles was an “office,” the (divinely intended) perpetuation of this office would be seriously called into doubt if none or very few of the Church Fathers clearly recognized it.” I am questioning whether the Fathers taught that Christ established a perpetual office with Peter, not whether Rome had a primacy.

I am aware of the non-Catholic rhetoric that Catholics often offer evidence of St. Peter’s primacy and by a non-sequitur automatically conclude that it also refers to the Bishop of Rome. But what if I offer you evidence that attaches the prominence of the bishop of Rome directly to St. Peter?

By Sacred Tradition, I mean part of orthodox faith. As I’ve already clarified, I was not referring to a lack of evidence for the primacy of Rome, but a lack of evidence for the belief in a divinely established, perpetual petrine office. That being said, I would also comment further that I do not think the wide recognition among the Church Fathers of the primacy of Rome makes it part of Sacred Tradition - after all, there were other Churches with special honor and status (Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) - would we call there special status a matter of Sacred Tradition?

Is the ancient Apostolic Canon part of Sacred Tradition?

As far as the supposed absolute equality of bishops according to non-Catholics - this is an interesting point. You would know better than I, how do the Orthodox account for the authority of head Bishops other than the Pope?

Yes. My point was that a paradigm that claims all bishops are perfectly equal has no natural warrant for a head bishop. So the question remains – where did the notion of a head bishop come from? We must consider the ancient apostolic canon 34 at this point.

That old excuse again!

I tried to find it online - no luck so far, but I’ll keep trying. I’ll take your word for it that Chrysostom connects it with Peter and his successors, but please understand if I am eager to see it for myself in context

I hope you find it. Though I can’t give you the reference, I can tell you the context. He had just been appointed to the position of Patriarch of Constantinople, and is writing his friend about the responsibilities of a head bishop. In the process, he gives the example of St. Peter who was the head of the Apostles, and accordingly cites the parable of the Faithful and Wise servant, explicitly mentioning that the parable refers to St. Peter and his successors. I don’t recall that he is calling himself a successor of St. Peter, but obviously viewed the office of ANY head bishop as being modeled after the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles. I think it is highly relevant that he mentions that St. Peter has successors because in another place, he specifically states that St. Peter is the teacher of the whole world (in distinction from St. James who was the leader of the local congregation at Jerusalem).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

I believe the problem with the last sentence is that it does not seem to acknowledge the gravity of the fact that these words came from Jesus’ own mouth. He plainly asserts that He will set one servant over HIS household (which includes the other servants), and explains quite plainly that this one servant will have greater responsibilities. There is no room for a different interpretation here because Jesus Himself gave the explanation. Can you please explain how it is possible that something so clearly set forth from Jesus’ own lips can be regarded as not being of divine institution?"

In the parable, the master sets a servant over his household as steward. In reading the passage in terms of the Church, I granted that the universal Church first comes to mind. Through Catholic eyes, this passage is easily understood as a universal, papal image. None the less, I still cannot see it as necessarily implying this interpretation. Cannot the local Church, where a Bishop holds singular responsibility over the others, be called the Lord’s household, and the Bishop the steward (after all, Jesus does not explicitly say “there will be one in the universal Church who will have more responsibility than the rest”)? I simply do not see the passage is unintelligible if looked at from a perspective which lacks a universal head Bishop. This is especially so in light of the theory of Eucharistic ecclesiology. I am only acquainted with it, and have my issues with it thus far - but as I understand this ecclesiology, Christ’s Church is to be found in the local Church in unity with the local Bishop. I do grant the plausibility of your interpretation, especially if Chrysostom’s passage has the meaning you attribute to it - I simply do not see a non-papal ecclesiology as rendering it unintelligible.

Every other parable that contains the image of the Master returning definitely refers to the Second Coming. So I would think it is most natural to interpret it the same way here. Would you agree that the parable plainly states that the head servant will exist when the Master returns? Would you agree that this refers to the perpetuation of that role in the household of God (i.e. the Church) until the Second Coming?

That is what I thought (concerning the return of the master and the second coming) - yes, I believe we can safely interpret this passage to mean that the role of the servant(s)/Bishop(s) is perpetual.

The secular importance of the city was not a factor at all in the earliest years. Only when Christianity became more established and widespread (i.e., in the 3rd century) did the secular importance of the city have any bearing on ecclesiastical polity, due to the fact that there was a greater concentration of Christians in the major cities. But during a time when Christians were generally persecuted and was basically an underground movement? Christian persecution was unrelenting until the reign of Commodus, so it is laughable that the Church would go around making secular prominence a standard by which to gauge the importance of a particular Church.

None the less, the Church of Rome was still in the city which was center of the Empire - it was located in a geographically, culturally, political important location. I am not sure it’s so laughable that such a Church would gain prominence due to those reasons - though, it seems that as a matter of fact, that was not a reason. In any case, the signifance of its location in the capital of the Empire was not a major point of mine - I only mentioned it as one of the reasons that may have contributed to that Church’s prominence.

 

[MilesVitae]

Why could not the Church of Rome (or, hypothetically, another Church) have acquired a primacy (or priority, as it was called by an author I recently read) in this or a similar manner, without a primatial Church or office being an essential structure of the universal Church?

Two reasons:
(1) The parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant. Assuming these Gospels were common fare in the latter 1st and early 2nd century, it would have been natural for the reader to understand the parable as referring to the Church universal, especially with the presence of apostolic men, who had a solid awareness of the headship of St. Peter among the Apostles. When St. Peter died, and with the fact that Christians in this early period expected the return of the Lord very soon, they would have looked to his successor as the head servant of the servants spoken of in the Gospels.

Well, that doesn’t really answer my question - if there were no primatial office instituted as an essential aspect of the Church, why could primacy not develop as I suggested?
In any case, though, your point is interesting and perhaps quite sound - I can raise no objection to it at this point. It would be interesting to see if there are other patristic commentaries besides Chrysostom’s which consider the parable in terms of Church structure, head offices, Peter, etc.

(2) Are you familiar with the ancient Apostolic Canon 34? Where did it come from? Why was it instituted? What do you think is the most natural explanation – (1) because it was based on the model of the Apostles, or (2) because it was developed from the influence of secular culture? If it is (1), would that not make the notion of a head bishop divinely established? An early fourth century Synod had already referred to the apostolic Canon as “ancient.” If that is not an indication that it is part of Sacred Tradition, what is??

I am somewhat familiar with it, having seen it quoted many times in the Absolute/High/Low Petrinism discussions here. What is the actual context this canon is taken out of? I would like to look into it more before answering your questions in regards to it. Also, which Synod referred to it as ancient (not that I’m doubting your claim that it says so)?

It is possible that the Canon was written after it was realized that the Lord was not coming very soon, so a rule was established to perpetuate the office of the head servant in accordance with the Lord’s words in the parable.

:ehh: If it was the case that the Church established a continuation of that office, then how could it be claimed that this office was established by Christ as an essential, perpetual aspect of the Church and a truth of orthodox faith?

I have no problem with St. Peter establishing the bishopric at Antioch. But one does not have a successor while one is still alive. Besides, there’s no indication that Antioch held a primacy like Rome’s. We have record of Polycarp travelling all the way to Rome to discuss the issue of Easter, not Antioch which was closer to him. Ignatius of Antioch’s epistles all contain exhortations and instructions to the Churches, except the one to Rome, who he recognized was the one that gave others instruction. We find St. Basil appealing steadfastly to Rome to fix the schism in Antioch. Etc. Etc.

Interesting - although, I am not sure why you brought up Antioch.

I am aware of the non-Catholic rhetoric that Catholics often offer evidence of St. Peter’s primacy and by a non-sequitur automatically conclude that it also refers to the Bishop of Rome.

I think this is more than mere rhetoric - I think this actually occurs. Personally, I know I have made that mistake at times in my thinking. In earlier days, speaking for myself, I think this was in part due to a false dichotomy in my mind between the Catholic position, and a position (perhaps more common among Protestants than Orthodox?) which denies any sort of petrine primacy.

But what if I offer you evidence that attaches the prominence of the bishop of Rome directly to St. Peter?

It would depend, I’d have to consider the evidence in question… I grant that Peter had primacy, and I grant that Rome became prominent and received honor in part because of Peter, but not necessarily because of a divinely intended perpetuation of Peter’s primacy.

Yes. My point was that a paradigm that claims all bishops are perfectly equal has no natural warrant for a head bishop.

So, how do the Orthodox justify the existence of head bishops?

I hope you find it.

So far no luck - I’ve searched “Peter” through the letters of Chrysostom that I could find on newadvent.org, and searched some scriptural indexes of the Church Fathers.

I think it is highly relevant that he mentions that St. Peter has successors because in another place, he specifically states that St. Peter is the teacher of the whole world (in distinction from St. James who was the leader of the local congregation at Jerusalem).

“…and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing at what price He sets the presidency over his own sheep. And if anyone should say, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem? This I would answer, that He appointed [Peter] teacher, not of that throne, but of the world.” Yes?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MilesVitae,

In the parable, the master sets a servant over his household as steward. In reading the passage in terms of the Church, I granted that the universal Church first comes to mind…I still cannot see it as necessarily implying this interpretation. Cannot the local Church, where a Bishop holds singular responsibility over the others, be called the Lord’s household, and the Bishop the steward (after all, Jesus does not explicitly say “there will be one in the universal Church who will have more responsibility than the rest”)? I simply do not see the passage is unintelligible if looked at from a perspective which lacks a universal head Bishop. This is especially so in light of the theory of Eucharistic ecclesiology. I am only acquainted with it, and have my issues with it thus far - but as I understand this ecclesiology, Christ’s Church is to be found in the local Church in unity with the local Bishop. I do grant the plausibility of your interpretation, especially if Chrysostom’s passage has the meaning you attribute to it - I simply do not see a non-papal ecclesiology as rendering it unintelligible.

To repeat, what rationale can be offered to REJECT the most natural interpretation?

The Catholic position accepts ALL the valid interpretations. We recognize its moral application for every level of the hierarchy where the position of a chief exists. What is the viability of the non-Catholic position that willfully rejects the most natural interpretation?

Do you understand what I’m getting at? What is logical about a paradigm (non-Catholic) that rejects the most natural interpretation in the face of a paradigm (Catholic) that accepts all the valid interpretations that does not conflict with its most natural interpretation? Keep in mind that in exegesis, the Catholic paradigm demands that we interpret Scripture according to its most natural meaning. We certainly take Jesus’ word according to its most natural meaning with regards to eating his flesh, and baptism by water. Why not here, where he plainly explains that he will set one servant over the other servants? He is speaking to the Apostles who had a universal solicitude over the Church. Therefore, the most natural meaning of the head servant is one that has universal scope. We do not doubt that it is the sure model for every level of the hierarchy where there is a chief figure, but what rationale can you offer for not maintaining its most natural meaning alongside its use as a model for every level of the hierarchy? Pragmatically speaking, Christ set up the universal standard; as the Church grew larger, the Church determined the untility of applying the universal standard to the local context.

But morally speaking, is there not an inherent danger of disobeying Christ Himself if we do not accept the most natural meaning of His words? Why would you even risk it?

Further, the theory of Eucharistic ecclesiology Is senseless without acknowledgement of a visible chief office. Eucharistic ecclesiology is an ecclesiology of unity. An ecclesiology of unity cannot exist without the visible principle of a chief among the group that shares the Eucharist. This is why in the local Church, we do not have merely priests, but a bishop who is the principle of unity for the whole diocese (on a regional level, this visible principle of unity is the Metropolitan; on the patriarchal level, it is the Patriarch; and on the universal level, it is the Pope). Think about it - a purely metaphysical Eucharistic ecclesiology does not even require the bishop. But our ecclesiology is incarnational, not purely metaphysical.

That is what I thought (concerning the return of the master and the second coming) - yes, I believe we can safely interpret this passage to mean that the role of the servant(s)/Bishop(s) is perpetual.

The parable explicitly refers not just to the position of the servant, but also to the position of the servant who is set over the other servants. If one admits the perpetuity of the role of servant, what prevents you from admitting the same for the role of the head servant? Also, since you would obviously admit that this servant in perpetuity is an office, please explain why the head servant in perpetuity would not also be an office.

I have two more questions for you:
(1) Can one deny Jesus’ own explanation of the parable that he will be setting one servant over the household with greater responsibility than the other servants?
(2) In this parable, how do you interpret (a) the role of the servant and (b) the role of the servant who will be set over the other servants and the entire household? Personally, I interpret this to mean the Apostles and St. Peter, or the bishop and the head bishop. In other words ,it does not refer to the general Christan. That’s the most natural meaning, and he was in fact speaking directly to the Apostles alone when he gave this parable.

None the less, the Church of Rome was still in the city which was center of the Empire - it was located in a geographically, culturally, political important location. I am not sure it’s so laughable that such a Church would gain prominence due to those reasons - though, it seems that as a matter of fact, that was not a reason. In any case, the signifance of its location in the capital of the Empire was not a major point of mine - I only mentioned it as one of the reasons that may have contributed to that Church’s prominence.

As the discussion progresses, I hope to demonstrate that the secular factor is not even evident in the Church until the 3rd century, which does no justice to the fact of Rome’s evident primacy even before that time.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Well, that doesn’t really answer my question - if there were no primatial office instituted as an essential aspect of the Church, why could primacy not develop as I suggested?

I affirm wholeheartedly it is because the Church would not act or think w/o evident warrant from Jesus or the Apostles. In everything they did, they would have to ask themselves “Would Jesus or the Apostles approve of this action or way of thinking?” In fact, since that generation was so close to apostolic times, I think the question on their minds was rather “did the Jesus or the Apostles say anything about this?” Assuming this premise, it goes back to my original question – where did the idea of primacy come from, if not from Jesus and the Apostles?

I am somewhat familiar with it, having seen it quoted many times in the Absolute/High/Low Petrinism discussions here. What is the actual context this canon is taken out of? I would like to look into it more before answering your questions in regards to it. Also, which Synod referred to it as ancient (not that I’m doubting your claim that it says so)?

Not much context to speak of. It is a Canon. Here it is in full:
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concen his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit

A Synod of Antioch in 341A.D.: (of the few resources I was able to bring to the Philippines, the one volume of NPNF I brought was the one on the 7 Ecum Councils ):
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province: because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, according to the ancient canon which prevailed from our fathers, or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

I see important differences between the ancient canon and the one from Antioch. I’ll hold off discussion on them until you comment.

:ehh: If it was the case that the Church established a continuation of that office, then how could it be claimed that this office was established by Christ as an essential, perpetual aspect of the Church and a truth of orthodox faith?

To repeat, it is because the Church would not act or think without evident warrant from Jesus or the Apostles. The plain fact is that Rome displays a primacy that is so primordial (as evident from the Epistles of St. Clement and St. Ignatius and the action of St. Polycarp) that I find it hard to believe that Jesus or the Apostles themselves did not provide a direct warrant for the primacy.

Interesting - although, I am not sure why you brought up Antioch.

Because the line of succession is known to have been established at Antioch by St. Peter. That is the only other possible claimant to the primatial role, but no evidence exists for such a primatial role for Antioch among the Churches as a whole.

I think this is more than mere rhetoric - I think this actually occurs.

I agree. I’ve never found evidence for St. Peter’s primacy ALONE to be sufficient to establish the papal claims. Of course, there is a great apologetic utility in establishing the primacy of St. Peter because there are Protestants, and even Eastern Orthodox, who deny that St. Peter even had a primacy among the Apostles (I’ve debated EO here in the CAF who even claimed there was no such thing as a head bishop!).

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

It would depend, I’d have to consider the evidence in question… I grant that Peter had primacy, and I grant that Rome became prominent and received honor in part because of Peter, but not necessarily because of a divinely intended perpetuation of Peter’s primacy.

OK. I will present the evidence after you respond to this current series of posts, or until we have discussed the philosophical/scriptural dimension sufficiently. COMMENT: It is my impression that the patristic evidence that connects St. Peter with the role of the bishop of Rome in the Churches would not answer your question of whether the primacy is a perpetual office instituted by Christ. I think the resolution really rests with the interpretation of Jesus’ words. Of course, I believe as a matter of doctrinal Faith that there is really no room for much interpretation because Jesus Himself explained his parable quite plainly – that he would set a servant over his household that would have greater responsibilities than other servants.

Btw, you have not responded to my analogy to the divine institution of the Sacraments. Many of them do not have explicit Scriptural warrant for perpetual continuation – we only have (1) their certain establishment or approval by Christ and the Apostles as recorded in Scripture, and (2) evidence of the historical and perpetual practice of the Church. It seems to me recognition of the divine institution of the primacy depends on similar, if not identical, grounds – i.e., (1) clear indication in Scripture of an establishment of primacy, and (2) the historical and perpetual practice of the Church as far as recognizing a primacy among the Churches.

So, how do the Orthodox justify the existence of head bishops?

It is claimed that it was a development from rather mundane factors. The Churches of the Syriac Traditions (Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Catholic), along with the Catholic Churches generally, understand that it was established by Christ and thus perpetuated.

So far no luck - I’ve searched “Peter” through the letters of Chrysostom that I could find on newadvent.org, and searched some scriptural indexes of the Church Fathers.

I found it (I knew it was quoted in a past thread, so I did a search). Here is the fuller context:
**For when we see any one bestowing care upon members of our household, or upon our flocks, we count his zeal for them as a sign of love towards ourselves: yet all these things are to be bought for money:— with how great a gift then will He requite those who tend the flock which He purchased, not with money, nor anything of that kind, but by His own death, giving his own blood as the price of the herd. Wherefore when the disciple said, You know Lord that I love You, and invoked the beloved one Himself as a witness of his love, the Saviour did not stop there, but added that which was the token of love. For He did not at that time wish to show how much Peter loved Him, but how much He Himself loved His own Church, and he desired to teach Peter and all of us that we also should bestow much zeal upon the same. For why did God not spare His only-begotten Son, but delivered Him up, although the only one He had? It was that He might reconcile to Himself those who were disposed towards Him as enemies, and make them His peculiar people. For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. Naturally then did Christ say, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord shall make ruler over His household. Again, the words are those of one who is in doubt, yet the speaker did not utter them in doubt, but just as He asked Peter whether he loved Him, not from any need to learn the affection of the disciple, but from a desire to show the exceeding depth of his own love: so now also when He says, Who then is the faithful and wise servant? he speaks not as being ignorant who is faithful and wise, *but as desiring to set forth the rarity of such a character, and the greatness of this office. * Observe at any rate how great the reward is— “He will appoint him,” he says,” ruler over all his goods.” ** On the Priesthood, Book 2.

“…and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing at what price He sets the presidency over his own sheep. And if anyone should say, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem? This I would answer, that He appointed [Peter] teacher, not of that throne, but of the world.” Yes?

Yes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is claimed that it was a development from rather mundane factors. The Churches of the Syriac Traditions (Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Catholic), along with the Catholic Churches generally, understand that it was established by Christ and thus perpetuated.

That is a misrepresentation of what the Orthodox believe. The system of primacy is encoded within the apostolic canons, and is thus considered to be of apostolic origin. What is believed to have developed from mundane or political factors is the location of primatial sees. The system is apostolic, but its manner of implementation is not completely immutable.

 

[Schism_hater]

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.

Isn’t that what the Holy Spirit is for? The Spirit makes Christ spiritually present in the Church, and physically present in the Eucharist. But your language doesn’t even mention the Spirit at all. Christ specifically frames the Spirit as someone who will come in his place.

 

[marlo]

So do you mean that the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ?

Isn’t that what the Holy Spirit is for? The Spirit makes Christ spiritually present in the Church, and physically present in the Eucharist. But your language doesn’t even mention the Spirit at all. Christ specifically frames the Spirit as someone who will come in his place.