Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[guanophore]

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

Iconoclasm was a problem for centuries in various areas of the church. It was particularly vexing for Eastern Catholics because of the Muslim influence/political powers that held against the physical/flesh. But yes, my point was that up till at least this year, there was a united Church. It was a truly Ecumenical Council, unlike many that followed that were primarily Latin in composition.

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

Yes, that was my point. Gradually from this time and 1054, political, economic, cultural and other forces (much more than theological) they drifted apart (East and West).

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

At the Schism, they believed that the Latin’s had drifted from the One Faith, so began to distinguish themselves from these departures in practice and theology by referring to themselves as “orthodox”.

The East does suffer for lack of a visible uniting successor of Peter, but they are recognized as “particular churches” since they have valid priesthood and valid sacraments.

It behooves us to recognize what unites us, more than what divides us.

“The Church must breathe with her two lungs!” - Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, no. 54

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

Was someone claiming otherwise? They do not want to be called Roman Catholic, even less than many Protestants who want to call themselves Catholic. But they are part of the One Church founded by Christ. They are the other lung.

 

[guanophore]

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”.

The infallibility of the Church comes from the promise of Christ to lead her into “all Truth”. She cannot be permitted to teach error, or the disciples would pass through the gates of hell, over which Jesus promised victory.

I do agree that “supreme” is not a term that Jesus or the Apostles used, and is a secular concept that is not required to have orthodoxy. I think it is obvious, given the lack of unity in the Eastern Church, that it is clear how NOT having a visible sign of unity on earth is detrimental.

 

[steve-b]

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

guanophore:

Iconoclasm was a problem for centuries in various areas in the Church

steve-b:

It was an Eastern problem.

guanophore:

But yes, my point was that up till at least this year, there was a united Church.

steve-b:

As I was understanding you, you were trying to make the case for Eastern Orthodoxy as a Church. It wasn’t there. Ecumenical means, the council was in union East and West, with the pope of Rome.

guanophore:

It was a truly Ecumenical Council, unlike many that followed that were primarily Latin in composition.

As for timing

When the schism finally took place, 300 + years later those in the East we call Eastern Orthodox, they looking back in history, didn’t accept any following councils after THAT date as ecumenical. The Catholics in the East (all those in union with the pope) DO accept ALL 21 ecumenical councils.

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

guanophore:

Yes, that was my point. Gradually from this time and 1054, political, economic, cultural and other forces (much more than theological) they drifted apart (East and West).

steve-b:

They paid a fierce price for their divisions. Not
being one with each other, and no longer united to the West, they were conquered by Islam that was unified.

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

guanophore:

At the Schism, they believed that the Latin’s had drifted from the One Faith, so began to distinguish themselves from these departures in practice and theology by referring to themselves as “orthodox”.

The East does suffer for lack of a visible uniting successor of Peter, but they are recognized as “particular churches” since they have valid priesthood and valid sacraments.

steve-b:

Our Lord’s prayer is that all will be perfectly one in the design Jesus established. Jesus design is Peter is the leader, and all are united to Peter perfectly. Not my words but it’s from Jesus. John 17:20-23 RSVCE - “I do not pray for these only, but - Bible Gateway

It’s NOT what the Eastern Orthodox invented. It’s NOT what Protestantism invented

guanophore:

“The Church must breathe with her two lungs!” - Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, no. 54

steve-b:

Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics breathing together. 24 Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome
. The Other Catholics: A Short Guide to the Eastern Catholic Churches

 

[guanophore]

birth control will probably drive me to Orthodox

I hope not! More likely, drive to Hell!

And they have the right to define their own magisterial declarations. Absolutely.

Yes, but either the zygote is a human person when the sperm penetrates the egg, or it is not. Science tells us yes. And the Church teaches us that the termination of innocent human life is a mortal sin.

My conscience bothers me not one bit.

In that case, better not to take @steve-b sage advice. THe more you know, and the more informed your conscience is, the more culpable you are!

Church fathers do not agree with birth control as such either.

Indeed not!

" The second commandment of the Teaching: “Do not murder; do not commit adultery”; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; “do not steal”; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant." ~ Didache

While Catholics must acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome exercised real primacy in the early Church…

I don’t think this is an article of faith, and in fact, I doubt most Catholics have any idea about the early Church writings. But this is not something 'Catholics must acknowledge" as much as it is the clear evidence of the sum of the historical record. One does not need to be Catholic to accept this - the Orthodox also do so.

… the Bishop of Rome exercised real primacy in the early Church, it would be fool hearty to think that the Pope, assisted by the Roman Curia, actively managed the global Church in the manner that the modern “Vatican” does… that simply wasn’t the case.

Of course not! The Church began as a mustard seed and was barely a sapling! As the Church spread, it became more and more difficult to even communicate in a timely manner with the plantings. The Apostles appointed Bishops to succeed themselves.

The Pope did not appoint bishops of far flung dioceses for most of Church history.

Unfortunately, no. If this had been the case, there would be more unity in the Church. But the Church in both East and West experienced the contamination of secular intrusion into appointments for Bishop.

For why should the bishop of Rome have this authority?

It seems this is quite clear from the early documents. Jesus charged Peter to confirm his brethren. The responsibility was given to him to keep them on track.

 

[guanophore]

I say the very same principle that gave the bishop of Rome this authority is the same one that has allowed for other developments.

To the extent that the Church in Rome was made more solid by the preaching of Peter and Paul, then I suppose this is true. But “development” of the doctrine occurred throughout the world.

Are these extensions always the most prudent? Maybe not.

Not sure what an “extension” is? Perhaps you are talking about the development of doctrine, and find something the Church established as imprudent? The Trinity, perhaps? Hypostatic union? Table of contents for the Bible?

 

[BlackFriar]

Did Jesus confirm one of THEM is the greatest? Yes

Where in Lk 22:24-32 does it clearly state that?

All I see is a denial of seeking to answer such an arrogance! EG

26But you are not to be like that.

Is it not the greater who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

I confer on you a kingdom (no special mention of Peter by himself as the greatest ruler)

I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers

In this last verse Jesus singles Peter out not as the greatest (ruler) amongst the disciples but as the one who most spectacularly falls. His penance is then to serve the others and also help them avoid seeking “greatness” and failing as Peter would.

Yes there is a call for Peter to be a great servant here … but lets not kid ourselves that this unusual form of service “primacy” or “greatness” is what the squabble is about between East and West.

Who could squabble over being well served by Rome!
Obviously Rome by 1024 (and well before) had in practise interpreted “primacy” and “greatness” in exactly the way Jesus warned Peter against. No wonder the East reacted accordingly.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Not sure what an “extension” is? Perhaps you are talking about the development of doctrine, and find something the Church established as imprudent? The Trinity, perhaps? Hypostatic union? Table of contents for the Bible?

In context, and to what I was replying to, I was referring to the various ways Papal authority has been expressed over the years but was not necessarily so in the early centuries of the church — like appointing bishops, etc.

 

[guanophore]

In context, and to what I was replying to, I was referring to the various ways Papal authority has been expressed over the years but was not necessarily so in the early centuries of the church — like appointing bishops, etc.

Yes, I agree with you. The office and it’s function has grown with the needs of the Church, and no doubt will continue to do so.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Yes, I agree with you. The office and it’s function has grown with the needs of the Church, and no doubt will continue to do so.

And here is my issue with the Catholic-Orthodox debate on the issue. Orthodox tend to say that the papacy got off track by assuming supremacy and infallibility. But really, they are just fuller expression of the truth that was already there.

Infallibility: (A) Church in infallible — the teacher of Christ’s doctrines. (B) The bishop of Rome, as Cyprian says, is the font of the church’s visible unity. Therefore he is the representative, the spokesman, the steward. The Pope can speak for the church. So (C) the Pope is infallible.

Ireneaus:

"“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

-Against Heresies 3:3:2, 2nd century

 

[Agathon]

So what do you have to say about my post?

 

[Vonsalza]

Wow. That’s what I call a “power-post”, steve.

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.

Sure! But it wasn’t exclusively Peter’s. It was also Paul’s and Barnabus’. And who delivered the point home (and seemingly closed the council)? James the Just; host of the council and bishop of Jerusalem.

Given Peter’s authority, Given him by Jesus, as leader of the apostles ergo leader of the Church as well, we can’t remove the Petrine seat from that example, any more than when Jesus referred to the chair of Moses we can remove that seat.

A reasonable interpretation by a faithful Catholic!

Nonetheless, the text states:
Acts 15:22 Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members[f] and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers[g] of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. (NRSVCE, emphasis added)

The language invoked doesn’t appear distinctly Petrine. It appears ecumenical.

If you want to argue that it’s crypto-Petrine, fine with me. But know that those kinds of arguments are just nigh-impossible to indubitably prove.

Re: Church structure:
When there was an argument among the apostles who was the greatest among THEM, Jesus gave this answer

Oh, no need to belabor primacy with little ole me. I concede the reality of primacy from the get-go. Even a lot, if not most, eastern Christians are willing to do the same.

Again, the bugaboo for them is this curious notion that the primate is also capable of unilaterally proclaiming or developing dogma that is binding upon the entire Church. To say that this specific power was specifically bequeathed to the Petrine seat does seem to require some interpretive license over the biblical text.

I’m not saying it’s demonstrably wrong - mind you. Just that scripture makes a less-than-unambiguous case for the post-Vatican 1 Catholic view on the Petrine function. Maybe Irenaeus’ presentation of the final and highest Arbiter was more apt in describing (and limiting) that function.

as an aside, who started their argument? Satan

Amen. And Christ settled it.

one could ask, where is the limit to “rule”

That’s been the question since the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation, hasn’t it?

Just how much power is that guy supposed to have?

 

[Vonsalza]

The infallibility of the Church comes from the promise of Christ to lead her into “all Truth”. She cannot be permitted to teach error, or the disciples would pass through the gates of hell, over which Jesus promised victory.

Amen. Indubitably, she cannot be wrong in ways that affect salvation or the incorruptible deposit of faith.

Thankfully, I think most easterners and westerners would agree (although maybe not rad trads and the EO equivalent) that whether the pope or ecumenical council held/hold higher authority is not an issue that meets this standard.

I do agree that “supreme” is not a term that Jesus or the Apostles used, and is a secular concept that is not required to have orthodoxy. I think it is obvious, given the lack of unity in the Eastern Church, that it is clear how NOT having a visible sign of unity on earth is detrimental.

I’ll agree there. It appears that poor souls seeking the apostolic Church are forced by the schism to choose between an Eastern Church that is allergic to executive leadership or a western Church that maybe over-concentrated it into one man; particularly after the ropes that tugged toward eastern influence were cut resolutely in 1204.

 

[Vonsalza]

I hope not! More likely, drive to Hell!

Unless, of course, the Church errs here, as the other half of Christendom explicitly and probably 90% of “Catholics” implicitly seem to think…

Yes, but either the zygote is a human person when the sperm penetrates the egg, or it is not.

Contraception prevents the union of sperm and egg. Ergo there is no person.

In that case, better not to take @steve-b sage advice. THe more you know, and the more informed your conscience is, the more culpable you are!

My conscience is clearly under-informed then.

 

[Agathon]

Unless, of course, the Church errs here, as the other half of Christendom explicitly and probably 90% of “Catholics” implicitly seem to think…

Since when have morals been founded on popular support?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Unless, of course, the Church errs here, as the other half of Christendom explicitly and probably 90% of “Catholics” implicitly seem to think…

Since when have morals been founded on popular support?

Well… if you’re speaking anthropologically, they’ve been based on popular support since morals have existed.

As it pertains to Christian morality, that would be a bit of an oversimplification.

One of the points raised by Paul VI’s committee before releasing HV was that they might consider that the vast majority of non-Catholic Christianity was led to accept some limited forms of BC and as such, perhaps the Spirit had a hand in that reality. It was certainly voiced widely in the Catholic Church as well…

His holiness obviously didn’t see it their way.

---

So in reply to your question(and in an effort to steer back toward thread topic), since when have morals been founded soley on papal decree?

Well, we kinda have an answer for that. For Catholics, maybe since the Church was founded. But definitely after July 18, 1870 with the release of Pastor Aeternus!
For non-Catholics? Maybe never, except in Petrine epistle.

 

[guanophore]

Contraception prevents the union of sperm and egg. Ergo there is no person.

For some minority forms, yes, but most artificial birth control, including hormonal, destroys the fertilized egg.

 

[guanophore]

Since when have morals been founded on popular support?

Indeed, the Church moves with the sensus fidelum only when it is consistent with the divine deposit of faith, and the termination of innocent life is not one of those.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Hey. A lot can be said about the contraception debate/morality. But if I were to just offer a few points that could potentially be helpful, it would be:

1. If we’re going to admit to Apostolic authority, as you seem to indicate, then we have to also admit that there will be times when established teaching is not received by every single Christian. There was even a point in history when “most” bishops – (whether exaggerated or not for the sake of the crisis) were Arian. The truth of a particular item of the faith simply cannot be identified on the basis on whether most Christians currently adhere to the teaching. You seem to suggest that the “90%” of Catholics somehow indicates against the Catholic doctrine on contraception. But remember, by that principle, you are also subtly attacking the Orthodox means of arriving at Christian truth as well. If the Orthodox bishops finally met and decided once and for the immorality of contraception — what then? They have the authority to do so.
2. I would argue that Orthodox church ecclesiology makes it much harder to find consensus in issues that have come to the forefront in the last millennium. Again, church tradition and church fathers seem generally against contraception. And many Orthodox are in disagreement: but they cannot all be right. Artificial contraception has become a special issue in its own right over the last hundred years or so. But it seems the Orthodox don’t really have a way to approach modern issues and challenges in a universally binding way — as was the case with the ecumenical councils of the first millennium.
3. The Orthodox position has seemed to shift.

 

[Vonsalza]

The truth of a particular item of the faith simply cannot be identified on the basis on whether most Christians currently adhere to the teaching.

I would agree. But for many, “because the pope said so” doesn’t seem sufficient either because they don’t view any one bishop (or person, really) as being able to unilaterally craft/develop doctrine/dogma.

Sure, Peter may have written part of the NT, but Paul wrote more and there are other authoritative authors still! And when a big question came up, it seems council was gathered rather than unilateral decree issued.

At the time of Nicaea, do you think it would have been easier for Constantine to call a large, expensive council, or simply (and cheaply) summon the bishop of Rome?

If the Orthodox bishops finally met and decided once and for the immorality of contraception — what then? They have the authority to do so.

Respectfully, I’m not going to indulge anyone’s hypotheticals. What if the pope issued an encyclical tomorrow that declared priests can marry, condoms are allowed and remarried Catholics and homosexuals can receive communion?

See? It’s a game anyone can play…

I would argue that Orthodox church ecclesiology makes it much harder to find consensus in issues that have come to the forefront in the last millennium.

I would argue you’re right.
But then the common follow-up, “And this is a bad thing???”

Again, church tradition and church fathers seem generally against contraception.

Sure. With their far more simplistic understanding of contraception in a world with high infant mortality, low human population and low (read: non-existent) minimum standards of care for children, trying to apply their social views on issues of their time to issues of our time is textbook anachronism.

All they really had was onanism, placing things inside a woman and abortifacients. So their understanding of contraception isn’t nearly the same as ours. Nothing like condoms and hormonal birth control (the hugely dominant forms of birth control today) would come about until roughly the modern era

But it seems the Orthodox don’t really have a way to approach modern issues and challenges in a universally binding way — as was the case with the ecumenical councils of the first millennium.

It’s the same way. It’s just that council is apparently not binding on those that don’t attend. And their solution to this is, again, “if we need to deal with it, we’ll meet over it”.

It displays the classic problem with legislative-only leadership. It’s slow. Whereas executive leadership can be very fast (for better or worse).

 

[Vonsalza]

1. The Orthodox position has seemed to [shift]

Per the opinion of the Catholic blogger you cite, sure. But he’s probably a little biased, right?

So first, I was never aware of there being one binding view on the whole of Orthodoxy on the topic, so I’m not sure how that can change in any official way…

Next, the same has been said of the Catholic Church - albeit not by good Catholics, to be sure!
I was reading a treatment on something by Diarmaid MacCulloch (I forget what) but I enjoyed the snippet where two fictional bishops were talking about a new doctrine being promulgated and one of them says something like “Yes, this new dogmatic definition is true… just as it always has been” and the other rolls his eyes.

You see “development”. Someone else may see “change”.