Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[guanophore]

When is the 1st time in history, in writing, properly referenced, where we see the name Orthodox Church?

I suspect that this term did not come into use to distinguish Eastern Christianity from Latin until after the second council of Nicea in 787. That council is referenced in Church History as the “triumph of Orthodoxy”. It was, like the term Catholic, used prior to that time, but both East and West were in communion until sometime after that council. Political, Cultural, linguistic and geographical separations slowly drove increasing wedges until the formal schism in 1054.

 

[guanophore]

It seems strange that the clergy of Rome do not choose their own Pope.

Do the clergy anywhere choose their bishops?

 

[BlackFriar]

Same problem isn’t it?

 

[deMontfort]

Same problem isn’t it?

How is it a problem?

 

[BlackFriar]

Do you not know how it used to be done before Papal authority (as opposed to service) seemed to cloud tradition.

 

[deMontfort]

Do you not know how it used to be done before Papal authority (as opposed to service) seemed to cloud tradition.

And Papal authority is a problem how?

 

[BlackFriar]

???
Lets stay with my first comment perhaps.

 

[deMontfort]

???
Lets stay with my first comment perhaps.

How about answering the initial question instead of dodging it?

 

[BlackFriar]

Why would you want me to answer a different question of your making when you haven’t had the courtesy to address mine?

Perhaps the authoritative aggression you exhibit here demonstrates the answer to the very question you keep demanding…

 

[deMontfort]

Why would you want me to answer a different question of your making when you haven’t had the courtesy to address mine?

Perhaps the authoritative aggression you exhibit here demonstrates the answer to the very question you keep demanding…

You said >>>>>

Same problem isn’t it?

And I asked how it was a problem. If you’re going to claim something is a problem the least you can do is explain WHY it’s a problem when asked.

 

[Aulef]

Yes, there is

 

[BlackFriar]

My original issue was:

It seems strange that the clergy of Rome do not choose their own Pope.

 

[deMontfort]

My original issue was:

It seems strange that the clergy of Rome do not choose their own Pope.

Which brings us back to “This is a problem how?”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The East ultimately had problems with authority that was already legitimately in place from apostolic times…

The question there was always “Who/What held the ultimate position of authority?”

Examples abound of eastern bishops giving the nod to Roman primacy among mortal bishops.

And think about that point. They took a very biblical approach before there was even a bible to refer to.

Vonsalza:

But many felt that the greatest authority in Christendom was ecumenical council, not any one man.

The issue is authority. The greatest authority in Christendom is Jesus. Who did HE give the keys to HIS kingdom to? One man. Peter. And the apostles were to be united to Peter.

Ecumenical councils also have authority over the entire Church. If they are NOT in union with the pope they are NOT ecumenical. They do NOT then, speak for the whole Church.

Vonsalza:

And the notion that any one man could somehow be supernaturally preserved from error (except, of course, for Christ) has always been a very hard sell for most non-Latins.

infallibility is the issue.

Based on your points, consider the following statements

The Bible Is Not Infallible. The Bible Is Not Infallible | Catholic Answers

How to Argue for Papal Infallibility How to Argue for Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

Identifying Infallible Statements Identifying Infallible Statements | Catholic Answers

Infallibility Infallibility | Catholic Answers

Vonsalza:

The western Church had/has some exposure to this issue as well in the form of Catholic councillarism that got started during the two great schisms - which I think has been anathematized. But I might be wrong on that. Been years since I read about it.

Conciliarism . Dictionary : CONCILIARISM | Catholic Culture

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When is the 1st time in history, in writing, properly referenced, where we see the name Orthodox Church?

I suspect that this term did not come into use to distinguish Eastern Christianity from Latin until after the second council of Nicea in 787. That council is referenced in Church History as the "triumph of Orthodoxy".

Reference please?

BTW, the question is the name “Orthodox Church”. There was no name “Orthodox Church” in 787.

guanophore:

It was, like the term Catholic, used prior to that time, but both East and West were in communion until sometime after that council. Political, Cultural, linguistic and geographical separations slowly drove increasing wedges until the formal schism in 1054.

The name Catholic Church goes back to the first century to cover the name of the one and only Church .

 

[Vonsalza]

And think about that point. They took a very biblical approach before there was even a bible to refer to.

That’s true, but I think I was insufficiently clear initially.

What I was meaning is that many of those very same bishops that recognized Petrine primacy would have balked if you defined that primacy as being superior to ecumenical council as it pertains to authority.

The issue is authority. The greatest authority in Christendom is Jesus. Who did HE give the keys to HIS kingdom to? One man. Peter. And the apostles were to be united to Peter.

Sure. The argument for primacy is very, very clear.

The argument for supremacy and infallibility much less so. Those eastern Christians would have viewed the Roman bishop like a prime minister or president or arbiter. Some sort of executive apart from other bishops.

But the ultimate authority of the Church would have been found in council, as Acts seems to model per their argument. As such, while the authority of the Roman bishop is the greater than any other bishop, his authority is still less than the college of bishops on the whole.

Summarized, we all seem to agree on primacy. We just disagree on what it means.

infallibility is the issue.

I’d probably change the “The” here to an “An”.

Non-latin Christians just don’t see a reason nor precedent for it. They would argue that if the Petrine heir could unilaterally proclaim doctrine in a supremely binding way, then there would have been little need to hold council in Jerusalem and Antioch in scripture.

Just get word from Peter and be done with it, right?

Conciliarism

Thanks for the link. Anathematized at Vatican 1, it appears.

 

[steve-b]

And think about that point. They took a very biblical approach before there was even a bible to refer to.

Vonsalza:

That’s true, but I think I was insufficiently clear initially.

What I was meaning is that many of those very same bishops that recognized Petrine primacy would have balked if you defined that primacy as being superior to ecumenical council as it pertains to authority.

steve-b:

And before there was a bible, let’s not forget, there wasn’t an ecumenical council either …YET

Vonsalza:

The argument for supremacy and infallibility much less so. Those eastern Christians would have viewed the Roman bishop like a prime minister or president or arbiter. Some sort of executive apart from other bishops.

But the ultimate authority of the Church would have been found in council, as Acts seems to model per their argument. As such, while the authority of the Roman bishop is the greater than any other bishop, his authority is still less than the college of bishops on the whole.

steve-b:

following that point, then the only reference we can use is the one who spoke up in that council, to end the debate. It was Peter. And whose point got applied? Peter’s.

Vonsalza:

Summarized, we all seem to agree on primacy. We just disagree on what it means.

steve-b:

Re: primacy, even Jesus didn’t get everyone to agree with Him on this side of eternity [Jn 6:66] such that even many of His own “disciples” left Him. Ergo, even when people don’t recognize primacy even when it is staring them in the face, it doesn’t mean primacy isn’t there.

Bottom line, that’s why there is judgement in the end. The separations and divisions we see on this side of eternity are made permanent in the next life. One doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of things but we know that will happen for most

steve-b:

infallibility is the issue.

Vonsalza:

I’d probably change the “The” here to an “An”.

Non-latin Christians just don’t see a reason nor precedent for it. They would argue that if the Petrine heir could unilaterally proclaim doctrine in a supremely binding way, then there would have been little need to hold council in Jerusalem and Antioch in scripture.

Just get word from Peter and be done with it, right?

 

[Vonsalza]

And before there was a bible, let’s not forget, there wasn’t an ecumenical council either …YET

That’s true; which made what was happening in Jerusalem pretty important as it came to precedent.

steve-b:

following that point, then the only reference we can use is the one who spoke up in that council, to end the debate. It was Peter. And whose point got applied? Peter’s.

Well, Peter certainly spoke, but the council is generally considered to be hosted by James the Just (bishop of Jerusalem), Paul spoke in reinforcement and then the council issued letters, seemingly, in the name of the council; not the Petrine seat.

So there’s “meat on the bone” here for both eastern and western theologians in their views of Church structure.

steve-b:

Ergo, even when people don’t recognize primacy even when it is staring them in the face, it doesn’t mean primacy isn’t there.

Sure. And I don’t think primacy is really all that hotly contested. It’s supremacy and infallibility that seem to be the lumps in the east-west marital bed.

Anywho, I think I’m circling now. So the floor is yours for now.

Thanks again for the link.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think an important point in terms of Catholic-Orthodox discussion/debate on this issue is simply, if Peter held a primacy in the church, then who would better understand this primacy: the church that continues the office, or the church that does not have this office?

I know this is a bit too simplistic. But it seems when various Orthodox admit to Petrine primacy and even a Roman primacy in the early church, there are all kinds of subtle nuances that deflect form the real issue, which is: Is this primacy meant for Christ’s church, or is it not? If it is, then how does it make sense that the church that has continued this institution is the one with the wrong understanding? —the one in schism??

Granted, Orthodox see some sort of continuation of the primacy in the sense that the Ecumenical Patriarch has what the Roman bishop was supposed to have all along. At least, that’s my understanding. And yet, there is still an admission by Orthodox that Rome’s and Peter’s primacy are connected. I just think that all the complications and nuances and discussions about “universal jurisdiction” or “primacy of honor” deflect from the key issue: Was the church meant to have Petrine primacy or not?

 

[guanophore]

Reference please?

There are a great many references to this, since it was a restoration of the legitimacy of icons in the East.

Sunday of Orthodoxy: Or, When Schisms Are Functionally Irrelevant | Christopher Benson

This Sunday marks “Sunday of Orthodoxy,” also known as “Triumph of . . . .

www.firstthings.com

I think the point you are trying to make is that “orthodoxy” is not valid, because the name was not present as a description prior to that time?