Do You Think The Reformation Was Necessary?

[Lincoln7]

Seems there’s a whole lot of conflicting perception of this ‘infallible’ guide.

Are the Thomists or Molinists right on predestination?

Isn’t that what YOU’RE doing–ascribing greater authority to man’s word, than to God’s Word–when you ascribe Martin Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura, greater authority than that of the Church that Yeshua himself actually founded?

The hermanutical principle of Sola Scriptura does not originate with Luther. An naturally, we disagree on what the church Jesus founded is.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Rosinante]

Are the Thomists or Molinists right on predestination?

The hermanutical principle of Sola Scriptura does not originate with Luther. An naturally, we disagree on what the church Jesus founded is.

Regards

Lincs

The doctrine of predestination is of no practical use–it’s God’s to know, not man’s. Disagreement within the Church on this matter is quite frankly, trivial. Only a protestant would hang so much weight on it, as to justify founding his own church—and in the interest of charity–as it’s applied around here–I’ll have to leave it at that.

If not from ML, do tell us from whence you believe the principle sola scriptura originates?

 

[Lincoln7]

The doctrine of predestination is of no practical use–it’s God’s to know, not man’s. Disagreement within the Church on this matter is quite frankly, trivial. Only a protestant would hang so much weight on it, as to justify founding his own church—and in the interest of charity–as it’s applied around here–I’ll have to leave it at that.

If not from ML, do tell us from whence you believe the principle sola scriptura originates?

Why can Rome not tell me with certainty a definite answer on a huge biblical topic such as predestination (Acts 4:28, Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30, Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11, Rom 9,), but with certainty tell me that Mary was immaculately conceived, despite the centuries of disagreement and debate such doctrine produced and lack of scriptural support? One is discussed by the writers of scripture many, many times, the latter is not.
I wouldn’t relegate predestination to “trivial” status… Is salvation God’s work alone or mans?

One will not find the exactly articulated doctrine as held by the latter part of the reformation, but one finds it expressed rather explicitly prior to Luther; take for example Cyril of Jerusalem -

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. - Cyril of Jerusalem - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.viii.html

“Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the…” Church? The Bishop of Rome?

No. The Holy Scriptures.

Kind Regards

Lincs

 

[Rosinante]

Is it wrong to ascribe to the living words of God an authority greater than mans?

As for Luther, I am not a Lutheran. I believe luther got much right, other things I do not agree with him on. But a mighty servant of God he was.

Lincs

You conspicously avoided my first, and most elementary question:

***How exactly did you…arrive at this conclusion–that the Bible [scripture] is infallible? Who told you this? Or that scripture was the sole infallable authority? ***

Is it in the Bible somewhere?

 

[Lincoln7]

You conspicously avoided my first, and most elementary question:

***How exactly did you…arrive at this conclusion–that the Bible [scripture] is infallible? Who told you this? Or that scripture was the sole infallable authority? ***

Is it in the Bible somewhere?

It was not intentional. But forgive me. I’ve already responded to this question earlier in the thread.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Rosinante]

Why can Rome not tell me with certainty a definite answer on a huge biblical topic such as predestination (Acts 4:28, Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30, Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11, Rom 9,), but with certainty tell me that Mary was immaculately conceived, despite the centuries of disagreement and debate such doctrine produced and lack of scriptural support? One is discussed by the writers of scripture many, many times, the latter is not.
I wouldn’t relegate predestination to “trivial” status… Is salvation God’s work alone or mans?

One will not find the exactly articulated doctrine as held by the latter part of the reformation, but one finds it expressed rather explicitly prior to Luther; take for example Cyril of Jerusalem -

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. - Cyril of Jerusalem - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.viii.html

“Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the…” Church? The Bishop of Rome?

No. The Holy Scriptures.

Kind Regards

Lincs

That’s not really ‘sola scriptura’ he’s describing there. “…give not ABSOLUTE credence…”–which is to say, feel free to verify what I tell you, against scripture–not that scripture is sufficient in and of itself, without–or to the exclusion of–the Church.

As for predestination–tell me how it benefits anyone (other than the propietor of the independent ecclesiastical commuinty he founds)–to preach pre-destination to the world–to emphasize that nothing they do in their lives, will have any impact whatsoever, on their eternal destination? (…and then confess–in the small print, of course-- that well…we don’t even really know if your of the ‘elect’, or not, and have no way of knowing such…).

Point being–it’s not of any practical use.

 

[Rosinante]

It was not intentional. But forgive me. I’ve already responded to this question earlier in the thread.

Regards

Lincs

No–actually you didn’t. But no worries, mate–I’ll answer it for you–you believe the Bible is infallible, because the Church—that is, the CATHOLIC CHURCH–determined it was so…

…centuries before John Calvin conjured up his famous TULIP acronym.

 

[Lincoln7]

That’s not really ‘sola scriptura’ he’s describing there. “…give not ABSOLUTE credence…”–which is to say, feel free to verify what I tell you, against scripture–not that scripture is sufficient in and of itself, without–or to the exclusion of–the Church.

As for predestination–tell me how it benefits anyone (other than the propietor of the independent ecclesiastical commuinty he founds)–to preach pre-destination to the world–to emphasize that nothing they do in their lives, will have any impact whatsoever, on their eternal destination?

(…and then confess–in the small print, of course-- that well…we don’t even really know if your of the ‘elect’, or not, and have no way of knowing such…).

Athanasius would have disagreed with you there… “Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth…” - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vi.ii.i.i.html

Your view of reformed teaching on predestination is a caricature. our lives and what we do in them count. It benefits greatly, to know that salvation is not ones own achievement, that perseverance in faith is not ones own achievement, but rather God has decreed his children will come to him, they can rest in the peace of God, knowing he will never let them be snatched from his hand, they are secure in him. - “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” - John 10:27-29 ESV.

As for your last line, I take Peter at his word - “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” (2 Pet 1:10) - As Sproul has said, if Peter says make your calling and election sure, it presupposes that you can make them sure.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

No–actually you didn’t. But no worries, mate–I’ll answer it for you–you believe the Bible is infallible, because the Church—that is, the CATHOLIC CHURCH–determined it was so…

…centuries before John Calvin conjured up his famous TULIP acronym.

I will simply point to ‘Canon revisited’ by Michael Kruger, or ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’ by Kruger and Andreas Kostenburger, for an excellent treatment of canon development and recognition without falling back on an infallible church argument, for anyone who wants to hear a good Protestant response to this question.

How do you know Rome is infallible?

Regards

Lincs

 

[Rosinante]

I will simply point to ‘Canon revisited’ by Michael Kruger, or ‘The Heresy of Orthodoxy’ by Kruger and Andreas Kostenburger, for an excellent treatment of canon development and recognition without falling back on an infallible church argument, for anyone who wants to hear a good Protestant response to this question.

How do you know Rome is infallible?

Regards

Lincs

Sacred Tradition, the Church Fathers, as passed on by the Apostles, to their successors, as evidenced in Scripture:

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

…

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_II

As for the Heresy of Orthodoxy you recommended–may I politely recommend to you, just plain ol’ Orthodoxy, by your countryman, GK Chesterton?

 

[Lincoln7]

Isn’t that just your interpretation of the tradition, the fathers and scripture that leads you to conclude Rome is infallible?

Regards

Lincs

 

[Rosinante]

^^^

Follow up wrt to Church Tradition–(didn’t fit all in same post):

As for the Heresy of Orthodoxy you recommended–may I politely recommend to you, just plain ol’ Orthodoxy, by your countryman, GK Chesterton?

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.’” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

“[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome…” Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

“Peter…coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome…Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right…For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven…" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

“And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, ‘Ye must bear witness at Rome,’ deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing…” Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

…

 

[Rosinante]

Isn’t that just your interpretation of the tradition, the fathers and scripture that leads you to conclude Rome is infallible?

Regards

Lincs

Sure…cause I’ll be celebrating my 2000th birthday real soon here…

…oh my…you’ve tricked me into giving away my age.

 

[Lincoln7]

Sure…cause I’ll be celebrating my 2000th birthday real soon here…

…oh my…I’ve given away my age.

Then we have established that appeals to infallible church authorities fall flat as the individual still must discern for themselves which infallible church body to follow based not heir non infallible discernment.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Rosinante]

Isn’t that just your interpretation of the tradition, the fathers and scripture that leads you to conclude Rome is infallible?

Regards

Lincs

…and some more gems from the CF’s:

…

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…”
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110), in ANF,I:73

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.”
Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to*** the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source***; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.”
Cyprian,To Cornelius,Epistle 54/59:14(A.D. 252),in ANF,V:344

Athanasius,Dionysius of Rome,13 (A.D. 352),in NPNF2,IV:180

…

 

[Rosinante]

Then we have established that appeals to infallible church authorities fall flat as the individual still must discern for themselves which infallible church body to follow based not heir non infallible discernment.

Regards

Lincs

You’ve established nothing–other than that you seek to disregard the authority that gave you your bible, in favor of your said bible, and that are ashamed to credit the one person (luther) who was responsible for [mis] informing you, that this was how Yeshua intended for his Faith to be transmitted.

 

[Lincoln7]

You’ve established nothing–other than that you seek to disregard the authority that gave you your bible, in favor of your said bible, and that are ashamed to credit the one person (luther) who was responsible for [mis] informing you, that this was how Yeshua intended for his Faith to be transmitted.

No, I disagree with you that scripture, tradition and history point to Rome. I think this thread risks going round in circles now. I’ve made my points, people can read our back and forth and make up their own mind.

Regards

Lincs

 

[brb3]

No, I disagree with you that scripture, tradition and history point to Rome. I think this thread risks going round in circles now. I’ve made my points, people can read our back and forth and make up their own mind.

Regards

Lincs

Then make your case,… from history, Catholic Canon scripture, (or apocryphal writings if you accept them), and your church’s traditions ( from 33AD to 1520 AD) ---- to support your lineage back to the Apostles.

 

[R_C]

Then we have established that appeals to infallible church authorities fall flat as the individual still must discern for themselves which infallible church body to follow based not heir non infallible discernment.

Regards

Lincs

This is a mistaken conclusion, for we have known ever since the earliest days that the Church of Christ has very clear characteristics: one, holy, universal, apostolic.

Find the Church that meets these four characteristics, and you will have the Church with whom Christ is well pleased.

 

[R_C]

How do you know Rome is infallible?

We do not know “Rome” is infallible. We know that the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church of Christ receives the light of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, and that a special light is given to the Bishop that holds the See of Rome, for he is the direct successor of Peter, and from him the authority flows like a river. This we find in the words of Christ and in the behavior of the apostles the primacy of Peter, and after the apostolic succession took place, we find in the writings of the early Church Fathers the utmost respect for the episcopal see of Rome.

It would be an offense to everyone’s culture to attempt, in my ignorance, to show this here. However, we could quote a few writings. We could mention the intervention of St. Clement of Rome, third successor of Peter, considered the first true exercise of the Roman primacy…we could mention St. Ignatius of Antioch, who writes in his Epistle to the Romans:

to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father,

We could mention St. Iraeneus of Lyons, who writes:

We point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known church which was founded at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul–we point, I say, to the tradition which this church has from the apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men, which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops. It is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful who are everywhere, should agree with this church; in which that tradition which is from the apostles has been preserved by those who are everywhere.

We could mention St. Cyprian of Carthage, who writes:

He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the Church?

And from there on we reach St. Augustine of Hippo, who writes that “in a figure Peter represented the Church” and that “the succession of the priests keeps me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate”, and (perhaps one of his most quoted or paraphrased statements) he so refers to the episcopal see of Rome (the “Apostolic See”):

already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also reports have come. The cause is finished.

By now, what was a matter of well-known tradition became an established fact:

Who does not know or observe that the church order was delivered by Peter the chief of the apostles to the Roman church, and is kept until now, and ought to be retained by all, and that nothing ought to be imposed or introduced which has no authority, or seems to derive its precedents elsewhere? (Innocent I)

“This act, lord brother, we thought right to intimate to your holy charity, in order that to the statutes of our mediociry might be added the authority of the apostolic see to protect the safety of many” (Council of Carthage to Innocent I)

“Since God has by a special gift of his grace set you in the apostolic see, and has given such a man to our times, so that it could be rather imputed to us as a fault of negligence, if we withheld from your reverence whatever is to be furnished for the Church, than that you should be able to receive the same contempt or neglect, we beseech you to apply your pastoral care to the great peril of the weak members of Christ …] We consider that by the help of the mercy of our Lord God, who deigns both to direct your counsel and to hear your prayers, those who hold such perverse and pernicious opinions will more easily yield to the authority of your holiness, drawn from the authority of Holy Scripture” (Council of Mileve to Innocent I)

“you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due the apostolic see, since all we who are set in this place desire to follow the very apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this name emerged… and that you ask for a decision which may benefit all the churches of the world together; so that the Church, being established in her rules, and confirmed in this decree of just proclamation against such errors, may be unable to tolerate those men.” (Innocent I to Council of Carthage)

The right of this power did indeed pass on to other apostles, and the order of this decree passed on to all the chiefs of the Church; but not in vain was that which was imparted to all entrusted but one. Therefore this is commended to Peter separately, because all the rulers of the Church are invested with the figure of Peter… So then in Peter the strength of all is fortified, and the help of divine grace is so ordered that the stability which through Christ is given to Peter, through Peter is conveyed to the apostles (Leo I)

Is there controversy? There certainly is. The Church has faced errors, misunderstandings, schisms and heresies ever since it came into being. However, what is part of Tradition is Tradition, and our roots are on very solid ground. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said about other relatively modern doctrines.