Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[Vonsalza]

all the Pope did was affirm consistent teaching. Unless you think contraception was deemed moral before the mid 20th century by the Catholic Church?

First usage of the word “contraception” in our language is 18th century. Before that, examples that Catholics take for “contraception” are more accurately translated to other words like “drugs” or “witchcraft”, which non-Catholic Christians are typically happy to take at face-value.

As a discrete idea, it’s just not ancient. Contraception is, literally, the frustration of conception. Since the knowledge of conception and how conception works is roughly as ancient as the automobile, any claim that the Catholic stance on contraception CAN BE near-ancient is, to me, genuinely bizarre. It’s like you’re trying to tell me Origen found semi-automatic handguns immoral to own.

As I mentioned earlier; in the time of the Fathers, if you wanted to avoid children you had onanism, placing some crude or noxious thing inside a woman, or abortion.
Where we axiomatically disagree, I think, is that you want to say “Yeah! And these are the same as hormonal birth control and condoms!”. To which I’m replying, “Nope!”

There was a committee of families, theologians, etc. set up by the Pope to look into birth control, and most came out, in fact, contrary to church teaching.

These were good Catholics selected by a Curia whose overall position on the matter wasn’t terribly hard to guess beforehand. I’m genuinely surprised some opposition managed to get through at all.

Surprisingly, it found “The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. This report was approved by 64 of the 69 members voting. According to this majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method”

I’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw up off the floor…

Collegiality aside, we know how Pope Paul VI ruled.
Thus began the emptying of the Church in the west, as many see it…

The Pope knew very well the stress and burdens of the family.

A 70 year old man in a patriarchal culture that never had to deal with rearing a family would probably know less than others, in fairness.

But does that justify changing a moral teaching? Nope.

Again, many think that you can’t “change” a supposedly ancient view on something that didn’t exist just a few decades prior… Saying that ancient attitudes on different practices is tantamount to the same thing is felt by many to be baldly fallacious conflation.

No one said all the church’s teachings are easy.

Such are the words of any dwindling group, in truth.

 

[Vonsalza]

Kinda like Cyprian saying union with Rome was union with the church?

Cyprian?

Of Carthage?

as in… closest major and ancient bishopric to Rome?

Are you surprised that he saw things a little more “westerly”?

And again, I have no issue at all with Primacy.

 

[Kei]

Several plants may have been used as a form of terminating or preventing pregnancy.

Silphium - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Church simply is not allowed to teach immoral things such as coitus interruptus being fine.

 

[Vonsalza]

rephrased, pre-schism from the Catholic Church. Those in schism by definition are no longer Catholic.
Answer given previously to @guanophore Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy? - #62 by steve-b

Re: schism, Scripture condemns it as it does those who do it and keep it going.

Sure. A lot of your more hard-line EOs think that very thing about the Catholic “papists”.

The papists should end their hard-heartedness and stiff-neck praise of the Roman bishop, have him submit to the superiority of council, and after a few trial years to ensure conformity, probably restore unto him is position as primus currently held by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The point being, you assume you’re on the right side of the schism. They make the same assumption about themselves, Steve.

steve-b:

Re: “Catholic interpretation of the text”
The NT Scripture was written in, by, for and canonized by, the Catholic Church. It certainly has the right to interpret it’s own work.

Sure. The EO claim to be that Church, Steve. Among others.

steve-b:

Re: “Catholic Church” in history, by name, in writing, properly referenced,
looking at the 1st 4 centuries…

That’s a great resource, Steve.

The issue there is that the EO would argue that such usage is describing them as well.

 

[Vonsalza]

Several plants may have been used as a form of terminating or preventing pregnancy.
Silphium - Wikipedia

The Church simply is not allowed to teach immoral things such as coitus interruptus being fine.

Sure.

"It has been speculated that the plant may also have functioned as a contraceptive, based partly on Pliny’s statement that it could be used “to promote the menstrual discharge”

It was likely an abortifacient, as the science of the female reproductive system was utterly unknown at the time. Plenty of things in the ancient world served that purpose, sadly.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think you undervalue his significance.

He is Christian bishop from the 250s who had his own personal conflicts with the bishop of Rome. He was no hearty papal apologist. And yet, even he confirms that Rome’s primacy involves the necessity to be in communion with Rome.

I’m glad you accept Rome’s primacy. But I think you miss the full implications of this.

Cyprian demonstrates that already in the third century, non-Roman bishops and churches understood that Rome was the “principle church” and source of UNITY — to be in communion with Rome was to be in communion with the Catholic Church. Can an Orthodox Christian believe this today?

 

[Vonsalza]

I think you undervalue his significance.

He is Christian bishop from the 250s who had his own personal conflicts with the bishop of Rome. He was no hearty papal apologist. And yet, even he confirms that Rome’s primacy involves the necessity to be in communion with Rome.

I think most EOs would agree. He’s probably only relieved of this primacy in the EO Church because they think the perversion of it has allowed it to erroneously grow to the point of being a potential danger to the Deposit of Faith/Holy Tradition (if you want to use the EO word for it).

A schism isn’t something planned nor something entered into lightly.

I’m glad you accept Rome’s primacy. But I think you miss the full implications of this.

Sure. It’s the classic issue of "What exactly do we mean by “primacy”?

 

[catholic1seeks]

So then we go back to: Did Jesus mean for Petrine primacy to be a mark of the church? Was it part of the fundamental constitution of the church?

I think so: Jesus makes Peter his royal steward by giving him the “keys of the kingdom.” This is a political metaphor that corresponds to the old Davidic kingdom. Peter’s office is not a dispensable office — anymore than the King, Christ, is dispensible.

 

[Vonsalza]

So then we go back to: Did Jesus mean for Petrine primacy to be a mark of the church? Was it part of the fundamental constitution of the church?

I think so: Jesus makes Peter his royal steward by giving him the “keys of the kingdom.” This is a political metaphor that corresponds to the old Davidic kingdom. Peter’s office is not a dispensable office — anymore than the King, Christ, is dispensible.

Absolutely. For the EO, it’s currently being held by the Pat. of Constantinople.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@Vonsalza

As for contraception, we could be here all day. It comes down to accepting the Church’s ability to teach. I don’t recommend using the issue of contraception to decide your view’s on papal authority. Look to more fundamental issues. Then, maybe contraception will still be hard to accept, but hopefully you can see that the Church led by Peter has the authority to declare what is and what is not of Christ.

Also as gay Christian who seeks to follow Christ and the Church, I find it hard to accept the idea that gay sex is always immoral — and yet also claim that some non-procreative (contraceptive) intended sex is moral. That is what the Orthodox say (according to you) – and some other Protestant churches – and I do not find it consistent at all. This is just an argument from my personal experience, but I think there is some objective truth to it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Not true. Eastern Orthodox do not see Patriarch of Constantinople as the Church’s steward who holds the keys in a more significant way than any other local church or bishop. Confessing that a bishop is the steward is tantamount to saying there is a distinct office.

This office is connected to Peter’s succession.

AND that’s nothing to say of how the ecumenical patriarch’s role is worked out practically. One would think by some accounts that the Russian church is the “principle church”

 

[catholic1seeks]

Also, if the Petrine office is indeed transferable, then who decides when that church/bishop becomes obsolete? And who should receive it next? Why should it be based on the taxis of the 5 ancient patriarchates (though Constantinople is probably not truly apostolic nor ancient, unless you accept the story of Andrew), especially if, as you agree, the Petrine office is of divine constitution?

 

[Vonsalza]

@Vonsalza

It comes down to accepting the Church’s ability to teach.

It’s more specific than that. It seems to come down to the Pope’s freedom to declare authoritatively since his committee concluded quite differently with a strong majority.
It’s the canon lawyers that have the job of retconning a semblance of historical consistency.

I’m only half-joking there…

I don’t recommend using the issue of contraception to decide your view’s on papal authority.

I don’t. I was on the shores of both the Tiber and Golden Horn when I came to Catholicism. The deciding factor was a practical one. My parish is a five minute drive. The OCA Church I attended was an hour away.

Theologically? The schism damaged both of them so none of them have a perfect claim. The pope is almost undeniably primus, but he also almost undeniably enjoys substantially more and more centralized power over the history of the western Church - PARTICULARLY after the divorces with the east (Chalcedonian and Great Schisms).

Also as gay Christian who seeks to follow Christ and the Church, I find it hard to accept the idea that gay sex is always immoral — and yet also claim that some non-procreative (contraceptive) intended sex is moral.

Yet that seems to be the exact claim the Catholic Church makes with NFP. Those couples don’t “embrace” unless they KNOW she’s not ovulating…

Not true. Eastern Orthodox do not see Patriarch of Constantinople as the Church’s steward who holds the keys in a more significant way than any other local church or bishop.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is more accurately referred to as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople because he absolutely is the Orthodox Primus. We just have a raw disagreement as to the facts here, it seems.

AND that’s nothing to say of how the ecumenical patriarch’s role is worked out practically. One would think by some accounts that the Russian church is the “principle church”

I think that’s fair. It’s reminiscent of the situation between Rome and Constantinople when Rome spent roughly 800 years as the old ruin getting sacked by Celts, Goths and Vandals every few generations and Constantinople was The Queen of Cities on Earth.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It’s more specific than that. It seems to come down to the Pope’s freedom to declare authoritatively since his committee concluded quite differently with a strong majority.
It’s the canon lawyers that have the job of retconning a semblance of historical consistency.

I’m only half-joking there…

The teaching would have still be regarded as infallible even if the Pope did pronounce on contraception. It was part of the church’s universal teaching prior.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But the justifications for why Rome should be heard in the first 1000 years, and why Constantinople should be heard today (as ecumenical patriarch) are very different. Oranges and apples. Unless you look back retrospectively, thinking the Pope of the first 1000 years was equivalent to the ecumenical patriarch today.

 

[Vonsalza]

The teaching would have still be regarded as infallible even if the Pope did pronounce on contraception. It was part of the church’s universal teaching prior.

Again, such is our base, axiomatic disagreement.

I don’t think that’s possible as conception and the frustration thereof were new concepts. Ancient writ on the matter simply isn’t possible without conflating other things as “contraception”, which runs risk of being dubiously anachronistic and fallacious.

But the justifications for why Rome should be heard in the first 1000 years, and why Constantinople should be heard today (as ecumenical patriarch) are very different.

No they aren’t. The justification is that the Church Catholic needs a primus that is a final arbiter; not a monarch.

Unless you look back retrospectively, thinking the Pope of the first 1000 years was equivalent to the ecumenical patriarch today.

That is, roughly, the argument.

 

[catholic1seeks]

After the East-West rupture that hardened as a result of the mutual excommunications of 1054 and the brutal sack of Constantinople by Latin crusaders in 1204, two ecumenical councils were convoked by Rome for the purpose of healing the breach. They were held at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439, with Eastern Christendom being duly represented at both councils by bishops and theologians sent from Constantinople. And in both cases these representatives ended up fully accepting, on behalf of the Eastern Church, the decrees, promulgated by these councils, that professed the true, divinely ordained jurisdiction of the successors of Peter over the universal Church of Christ—something much more than a mere primacy of honor. And these decrees were of course confirmed by the then-reigning popes.

Why, then, did neither of these two councils effectively put an end to the tragic and long-standing schism? Basically because the Eastern delegations to Lyons and Florence, upon returning to their own constituency, were unable to make the newly decreed union take practical effect. At Constantinople, the nerve-center of the Byzantine Empire, an attitude of deep suspicion and even passionate hostility toward the Latin “enemies” was still strongly ingrained in the hearts and minds of many citizens—great and small alike. The result was that politics and public opinion trumped the conciliar agreements. The Eastern Christians as a whole simply refused to acquiesce in the idea of allowing that man—the widely feared and detested bishop of Rome—to hold any kind of real jurisdiction over their spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs.

-source here

 

[steve-b]

rephrased, pre-schism from the Catholic Church. Those in schism by definition are no longer Catholic.
Answer given previously to @guanophore Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy? - #62 by steve-b

Re: schism, Scripture condemns it as it does those who do it and keep it going.

Vonsalza:

Sure. A lot of your more hard-line EOs think that very thing about the Catholic “papists”.

The papists should end their hard-heartedness and stiff-neck praise of the Roman bishop, have him submit to the superiority of council, and after a few trial years to ensure conformity, probably restore unto him is position as primus currently held by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

steve-b:

There IS NO primus held by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Don’t take my word for it.

“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

AND there is no more Constantinople either.

Vonsalza:

The point being, you assume you’re on the right side of the schism. They make the same assumption about themselves, Steve.

steve-b:

I already gave you one of my posts giving some highly condensed history for the 1st 4 centuries.

"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #60 by steve-b link 1

"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #61 by steve-b link 2

"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #62 by steve-b link 3

That same Church is still here today. With pope Francis 266th successor to St Peter. The Orthodox can make no such claim.

steve-b:

Re: “Catholic interpretation of the text”
The NT Scripture was written in, by, for and canonized by, the Catholic Church.

It certainly has the right to interpret it’s own work.

Vonsalza:

Sure. The EO claim to be that Church, Steve. Among others.

Vonsalza:

The issue there is that the EO would argue that such usage is describing them as well.

So?

That’s like
Henry VIII saying he went back to the beginning.
John Calvin saying he " " "
Martin Luther saying he " " "
John Smyth saying he " " "
etc etc etc

When
EVERYBODY dies, and everybody will, they will be immediately judged., I have given you evidence all properly referenced for my position. Where’s your proof that your argument that you have been trying to present, is true?

 

[catholic1seeks]

No they aren’t. The justification is that the Church Catholic needs a primus that is a final arbiter; not a monarch.

Who said the Pope ought to be a monarch?

I’m only saying that the bishop of Rome of first 1000 years had much more than a primacy of honor.

 

[Vonsalza]

There IS NO primus held by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Don’t take my word for it.

So I should take a German Catholic Cardinal’s word on the EO instead?

AND there is no more Constantinople either.

Well, sure. And there’s no longer a papal Rome. You have only Vatican City now.

Nonetheless, we usually allow the historical references to be used on all sides.

That same Church is still here today. With pope Francis 266th successor to St Peter. The Orthodox can make no such claim.

Fair enough, Steve.

steve-b:

So?
That’s like
Henry VIII saying he went back to the beginning.
John Calvin saying he " " "
Martin Luther saying he " " "
John Smyth saying he " " "
etc etc etc

When
EVERYBODY dies, and everybody will, they will be immediately judged., I have given you evidence all properly referenced for my position. Where’s your proof that your argument that you have been trying to present, is true?

I wasn’t aware I was making the case for the superiority of Orthodoxy, but merely its possibility.
And with respect Steve, you’ve cited these forums and the musings of a Catholic Cardinal on Orthodox ecclesiology. For a non-Catholic, that’s probably not material recognized as authoritative.

At any rate, I think I can detect a little frustration the those I’m dialoguing with. The discussion quits being enjoyable for all parties at that point. And since this is a Catholic “house”, you good men carry the day!