Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[steve-b]

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?

Nicely said

catholic1seeks:

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??

I like simple. Again, nicely said

catholic1seeks:

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.

suggest from
what the Roman bishop was supposed to have all along

to

what the Roman bishop had all along

It started with, / goes back to, what JESUS GAVE TO PETER. That is the hierarchy Jesus established.

catholic1seeks:

And yet, there is still an admission by Orthodox that Rome’s and Peter’s primacy are connected.

True

catholic1seeks:

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?

Peter holds the keys

 

[BlackFriar]

Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy? Apologetics

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

 

[deMontfort]

Or you could just answer the question instead of trying to divert and muddy the waters.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

Do you not know how it used to be done

 

[deMontfort]

Answer the question.

 

[BlackFriar]

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

 

[catholic1seeks]

> ME: 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.

YOU: (steve-b) suggest from
what the Roman bishop was supposed to have all along
to
what the Roman bishop had all along

I was referring to that some Orthodox say that the Ecumenical Patriarch is basically the primacy in the church that was transferred to Constantinople after Rome went in schism (in their view). And so it’s not necessary that the primacy (how they define it) is connected to Rome.

But of course, that view doesn’t make much sense when we look at WHY the early fathers considered Rome having a primacy: IT was BECAUSE of it’s connection to Peter, the head Apostle, thereby making Rome’s bishop the chief. As Cyprian of Carthage says (AD 250) says, Rome is the font of the church’s unity. Some Byzantine theory later on claimed it was because of Rome’s political prominence… BUT this was NOT the earliest understanding, nor the universal understanding. Nor was it the position of the entire East, but only SOME Byzantine (Constantinople) theologians and leaders at first. After all, a portion of the Syriac church (Maronite) has always been in communion with Rome, understanding Peter and Rome in the truly Catholic sense.

The history of the East post-schism may wrongly give the implication that the entire East all at once was in agreement and it Rome who was the odd man out – but that’s ignorance of history. After all, a great portion of Eastern Orthodoxy in the slavic countries and Russia and so on developed after the split and was influenced by their missionary traditions (so naturally, THAT portion of the “East” would have the Orthodox perspective). Alexandria and Antioch are more complicated.

 

[Vonsalza]

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 think the Orthodox would argue that since the doctrine seems to be awfully self-serving, it would have likely over-developed when the eastward tug of the Church ended in Great schism.

When I’m by myself and assured that no one can hear my heresies, that’s mostly what I think.

After they broke, the western Church became more “papal” than it observably was in prior centuries and the eastern Church developed such an allergy to executive leadership that it’s incapable of holding councils that are binding upon member-Churches that abstain from attending…

Is this primacy meant for Christ’s church, or is it not?

Again, most of the fracas is over what primacy means.

Is papal primacy akin to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Is it like the American Presidency? Or is it like a benevolent dictatorship? How much additional power is entitled to the primate?

 

[deMontfort]

Because you indicated there was some sort of problem with the way things are done now. If you’re going to make that claim then the least you can do is explain why, in fact, the current process is a problem. However, you keep dodging that key point and coyly trying to muddy the waters rather explaining yourself.

 

[BlackFriar]

I’ll leave you to play cat and mouse with yourself.
Lets resume when you are prepared to advise you understand the traditional way that bishops were chosen which should make my thinking fairly clear.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Again, most of the fracas is over what primacy means.

Is papal primacy akin to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Is it like the American Presidency? Or is it like a benevolent dictatorship? How much additional power is entitled to the primate?

But the root issue is WHETHER there is a primacy in the church, as divinely established, and rooted in Peter? Catholic and Orthodox basically say yes in some fashion. BUT it is my perspective that it makes much more sense that the side that continues this petrine primacy (Catholicism) in fact has the true understanding (if we are to believe the Church is divinely instituted and guided). Of course this says nothing of the broader biblical and historical evidence, which I also believe expresses the Catholic side.

 

[deMontfort]

That’s what I thought: The ultimate dodge.

 

[catholic1seeks]

ALSO I have to clarifty, for any non-Catholics who may be reading my post. I have an entirely favorable view of Eastern Orthodox Christians and their traditions. I think Catholicism, precisely because it is CATHOLIC (according to the whole, universal) very easily incorporates the Eastern Church in its understanding of authentic Christianity. There are Eastern Catholic churches after all. And so, Eastern Orthodoxy is essentially Catholicism — but not fully, sense they lack full communion with Rome, which continues the divinely-established primacy and unifying role of Peter.

 

[Vonsalza]

But the root issue is WHETHER there is a primacy in the church, as divinely established, and rooted in Peter?

Really I don’t think so. And I’m not trying to be difficult here. From my time as an Orthodox catechumen, I found Orthodox laity and clergy to be less than hostile to the notion of a vague “primus inter pares” leadership role being assumed by the Roman bishop.

It’s when supremacy and infallibility are also assigned to the Roman bishop that they start to bristle.

So, again, the issue ins’t primacy. It’s what you mean by “primacy” that is the issue.

Of course this says nothing of the broader biblical and historical evidence, which I also believe expresses the Catholic side.

I think you’re extremely correct if you narrow the historical evidence to western Christian history post-April 1204.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So, again, the issue ins’t primacy. It’s what you mean by “primacy” that is the issue.

Hmmm. I still think my point is being missed. You are saying that the Orthodox nod to a primacy of Rome in some sense, which I agree. They don’t like supremacy and infallibility. I understand this. But what I am saying is that, disregarding all the nuances and technical definitions of the extent of papal prerogatives and so on, I think the key question we should be humble about asking is: “Did Christ want to have a primacy in the Church, centered on Peter?” And if so, I don’t think it makes sense for the church that has this primacy to suddenly or eventually get this primacy all wrong — so no longer having it, or, even being justified to split from this church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Of course this says nothing of the broader biblical and historical evidence, which I also believe expresses the Catholic side.

I think you’re extremely correct if you narrow the historical evidence to western Christian history post-April 1204.

Extremely correct post 1204? Okay. But at least correct in the early church? I think so. I think if we even limit to the first three centuries, before Constantinople even came along, a distinctly Catholic understanding of the Pope is evident. From these centuries, we see that union with Rome is necessary for both correct doctrine and being in full union with the universal church.

 

[Vonsalza]

“Did Christ want to have a primacy in the Church, centered on Peter?”

Almost undeniably.

And if so, I don’t think it makes sense for the church that has this primacy to suddenly or eventually get this primacy all wrong — so no longer having it, or, even being justified to split from this church.

It makes plenty of sense that it can go wrong if the primate tries to assume more power than they are due - which is exactly what the easterners think happened. And make no mistake, they don’t think they split off from the Catholics. They think the Catholics [read: papists] split off from them.

And it wasn’t sudden. I’d say it began in the 6th and was clear in the early 13th with the largely Venetian sack of Constantinople.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Reference please?

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

from https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/f...y-or-when-schisms-are-functionally-irrelevant

That article begins with

“This Sunday marks “Sunday of Orthodoxy,” also known as “Triumph of Orthodoxy,” a date that meant nothing to me a few years ago because it is only observed in the liturgical calendar of the Eastern Orthodox Church”.

That reference shows a Catholic Council, correcting errors in the East for ditching icons.

There is no “Orthodox Church”, in writing, at the time of that council.

Technically, even today, there is no “Orthodox Church”. They have no ONE over everybody. Ergo they are not one Church.

Not my words but from

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from The Crisis of Ecumenism, According to Cardinal Kasper - ZENIT - English

guanophore:

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?

The point is

The Eastern Orthodox, regardless of stripe are NOT the Catholic Church.

Again, not my words but from Bp John

His points are Melkite – Holy Synergy scroll down to his point

"In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

He says things well.

 

[Vonsalza]

post 1204? Okay. But at least correct in the early church? I think so.

Sure, you’re a good Catholic. Of course you do.

But to be frank, we can fairly clearly (though not irrefutably) use 2nd and 3rd century documentation to point to papal primacy. But supremacy and definitely infallibility enjoy very little real support from that period.

Keep in mind, when we read of Rome being declared a defender of Orthodoxy during this time, many readers do not assume those words as synonymous with “infallible” and “supreme”.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It makes plenty of sense that it can go wrong if the primate tries to assume more power than they are due - which is exactly what the easterners think happened.

Which is why the “divinely-established” part of the primacy is worth remembering