Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[RedFan]

1. We don’t know whether St. John was still alive circa 96 C.E. If he was, we don’t know his mental state. Most importantly, we don’t know that some Corinthians didn’t reach out to him (perhaps even some of the same Corinthians who reached out to Rome for advice).
2. We don’t know whether some Corinthians also reached out to Athenian bishops. Perhaps those Athenians were actually behind the effort to depose the Corinthian presbyters. I can’t speculate on the churches of any other cities as having been consulted or not consulted – or by which Corinthian factions. (I note in passing that Antioch is no closer to Corinth than Rome is.) Perhaps the answer is as simple as the Corinthians having had a relationship with Clement from his travels through the area with Paul (Philippians 4:3 mentions a Clement as Paul’s co-worker).
3. While they were certainly in communion with each other, the various dioceses and archdioceses (not churches within a diocese) WERE autocephalous at this time, in the sense that no See could impose its will on another. (The Epistle of Clement would have been worded very differently if it were otherwise, commanding rather than urging.) And that state of affairs continued for several more centuries. In the middle of the third century, Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage, at which Cyprian stated: “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

At some point various sees – Rome, Antioch, Alexandria – had authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy as between themselves, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch had no deference to Rome. In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these three sees. http://www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/

Not to mention, bishops don’t interfere with other bishops, nor do they have authority over other bishops. Except for the successor to St Peter. That bishop is the bishop of Rome. And everybody understands that from the beginning, and that he has such authority.

You may think this was understood “from the beginning.” But the evidence of that is scant.

 

[Vonsalza]

I find that many people I come across more readily see the connection between Peter’s primacy —> Rome’s primacy —> The Pope —> Papal infallibility. This may not be the case for you.

That last jump is the hardest for practically every non-Catholic out there. Which is chiefly why they’re non-Catholic.

But many people who see Peter’s primacy AND Roman primacy end up seeing the natural result of Catholic ecclesiology.

And an increasing number don’t, in fairness. Which begs the question as to whether it’s actually “the natural result”.

I don’t think the peculiarities make much of a difference, because I recognize that EVERY aspect of the faith, ecclesiastical institution, liturgy, practice, and discipline has developed. Everything.

Excellent. Now you only have to make the jump to “Hmmm, maybe some of it developed wrongly?”

I simply trust the organic development of the papacy as I do with the liturgy, Trinitarian doctrine, and the nature of the episcopacy (to continue themes mentioned above).

We all agree that the Church cannot err in matters of salvation, but it quite obviously can err (see “Galileo”, among many, many, many others).

There are some (many) who think that the “organic development” of the papacy is consistent with the sinful desire of men to increase their power. As such, the present function of the office is inconsistent with the scriptural model of doctrinal dispute being seemingly resolved via council rather than papal fiat.

Power just seems to naturally want to grow and concentrate…

But, because I see in Christ’s words in Matthew 16:18 a true divine intent for the church — a pattern that was recognized at Rome in connection to Peter early on — then I trust that the “gates of hell will not prevail against the church.”

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the gates of hell prevail when Peter’s necessary heir is over-invested with power. Similarly, I don’t think hell prevailed when the Holy Office found Galileo suspect of heresy when he proposed that the earth went around the sun and not-the-other-way-around.

“If we’re wrong about something, then hell ‘won’ and Christ is a liar!” seems to be an unreasonable standard, given the history of the fallible men (and popes) who have served the Catholic Church. But YMMV, I guess.

And many Protestants claim St. Augustine

Ugh! They do and I don’t understand it… The honors program at the Baptist seminary I used to lurk around is the “Augustinian Scholars Program” or something like that.

And to be fair, I think that supports my point of interpretive skepticism.

 

[Vonsalza]

In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these three sees. http://www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/

I’ve seen that canon tossed around quite a bit and I just want to point out that too many folks try to make it say things that it doesn’t say.

Does the sixth refute papal primacy? Of course not. There is no language in there that does that and there’s too much ante-Nicene testimony to rationally deny it.
But does the sixth damage the notions of supremacy and, particularly, immediate jurisdiction?

Yeah. Yeah it does.

 

[steve-b]

1. We don’t know whether St. John was still alive circa 96 C.E. If he was, we don’t know his mental state. Most importantly, we don’t know that some Corinthians didn’t reach out to him (perhaps even some of the same Corinthians who reached out to Rome for advice).

The same source you use below (new advent) also says t John’s death being ~100 a.d. He was on Patmos, then returned to Ephesus. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm

RedFan:

1. We don’t know whether some Corinthians also reached out to Athenian bishops. Perhaps those Athenians were actually behind the effort to depose the Corinthian presbyters. I can’t speculate on the churches of any other cities as having been consulted or not consulted

we have Clement’s letter which you also speculate about.

RedFan:

1. While they were certainly in communion with each other, the various dioceses and archdioceses (not churches within a diocese) WERE autocephalous at this time, in the sense that no See could impose its will on another.

why did Corinth feel the necessity to seek help from Clement if everybody is equal? Corinth isn’t going to ask for help from someone who has no authority to help.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, says in his letter to the Church of Rome, that Church holds the presidency. Does Ignatius say that about himself and his See of Antioch? NO
Does he say that about any other Church? NO

RedFan:

And that state of affairs continued for several more centuries. In the middle of the third century, Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage, at which Cyprian stated: “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

that was really over rebaptism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

scroll down to the section Rebaptism for the explanation. Pope Stephen prevailed.

RedFan:

At some point various sees – Rome, Antioch, Alexandria – had authority over neighboring provinces or otherwise associated bishoprics, but with complete autonomy as between themselves, i.e., Alexandria and Antioch had no deference to Rome. In 325 the Council of Nicaea produced, aside from its famous Creed, about twenty canons, the sixth of which suggests if not confirms the equal standing of these three sees. http://www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/

consider Canon Broadsides | Catholic Answers

 

[pablope]

well…do you see anything wrong with “development”? You do not expect it to stagnage, stuck in time, do you?

Development in and of itself?

No. It’s a fine thing, I guess. Or at least it can be.

Are you Orthodox, by the way? With the new forums, it is hard to tell nowadays…

Anyways…do you see such “developements” under divine guidance to allow the church to respond to the times?

But perhaps it developed in a way where the pope solely assumed some of the power that Christ meant to always be shared among the other apostles.

Could you provide an example?

Additionally, the Vatican I proclamations about papal supremacy are difficult to find echos of the further you get from 19th century Rome; both chronologically and geographically.

I guess it depends on what is meant by papal supremacy, isn’t it?

And I am not well versed with Vat 1, but I do not recall V1 declared papal supremacy, but only infallibility, here I stand corrected if not the case.

 

[MichaelP3]

Power just seems to naturally want to grow and concentrate…

I believe George Orwell wrote a book about something like this.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think for many, the only thing that will prove papal authority is a 1st century document written by the Apostles under divine inspiration explicitly saying “The Pope is the successor of Peter in his capacity as shepherd and leader of the church, and as leader is spokesman and guaranteed infallible with speaking for the Faith of the church.”



As for me, I just trust Christ didn’t want knowing the faith to be so complicated. He didn’t (only) give us a book to consult. No, he gave us a living church with teachers and shepherds that help to safeguard the faith that has been passed on from Apostolic times.

 

[pablope]

I think for many, the only thing that will prove papal authority is a 1st century document written by the Apostles under divine inspiration explicitly saying “The Pope is the successor of Peter in his capacity as shepherd and leader of the church, and as leader is spokesman and guaranteed infallible with speaking for the Faith of the church.”



As for me, I just trust Christ didn’t want knowing the faith to be so complicated. He didn’t (only) give us a book to consult. No, he gave us a living church with teachers and shepherds that help to safeguard the faith that has been passed on from Apostolic times.

Well…others think the Bible should contain everything…not realizing the Bible is just a very small snippet and just gives a tiny window to what was occurring at the early days…and do not want to read the historical accounts later.

 

[Vonsalza]

Are you Orthodox, by the way? With the new forums, it is hard to tell nowadays…

Not presently. When I picked Catholicism over Orthodoxy, the deciding factor wasn’t theological. It was practical.

Anyways…do you see such “developements” under divine guidance to allow the church to respond to the times?

It’s hard to discern what’s divinely guided and what isn’t, to be frank.

I think all we can agree on here is that she can’t “develop” in a way that negatively affects salvation and The Deposit.

Could you provide an example?

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church.

I guess it depends on what is meant by papal supremacy, isn’t it?

Voltaire nailed it. “Define your terms”.

And I am not well versed with Vat 1, but I do not recall V1 declared papal supremacy, but only infallibility, here I stand corrected if not the case.

As “primacy” is the springboard for “supremacy”, “supremacy” is the springboard for “infallibility”. But at that point, perhaps I was being over-vague.

However; “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority…”

I think for many, the only thing that will prove papal authority is a 1st century document written by the Apostles under divine inspiration explicitly saying “The Pope is the successor of Peter in his capacity as shepherd and leader of the church, and as leader is spokesman and guaranteed infallible with speaking for the Faith of the church.”

I think it’s progress in that this is an implicit admission that such a thing doesn’t exist.

I just trust Christ didn’t want knowing the faith to be so complicated.

Oh I think Catholicism is plenty complicated…

Well…others think the Bible should contain everything…

Sure, but this doesn’t describe any of the expressions of Christianity that claims to be just as old and historically continuous as Catholicism, in fairness.

 

[MichaelP3]

Oh I think Catholicism is plenty complicated…

I wanted to say this.

I mean just take a google search and you will find more than 2000 points put together and called the Catechism. I am willing to bet half the world haven’t even read that much during the course of their lifetime.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Oh I think Catholicism is plenty complicated…

I wanted to say this.

I mean just take a google search and you will find more than 2000 points put together and called the Catechism. I am willing to bet half the world haven’t even read that much during the course of their lifetime.

Not to mention to myriad of little guides on points of etiquette such as “How to Properly Enter and Exit a Pew”.
I’m not saying this as a negative critique of a beautiful faith. I’m just evidencing the notion that Catholicism is pretty complicated…

I want to repeat that so everyone knows; I think Catholicism - particularly the more traditional presentation of it - is beautiful.

 

[Spyridon]

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

I think it’s because the Pope is, first of all before anything else, the Bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Rome did not start out in the 1st century as the modern Papacy.

The role of the Pope became better understood as centuries went on, until the modern papacy was fully recognizable in the 5th century papacy of St. Leo the Great.

Then after the Leonine papacy, power became more centralized in Rome and entangled with the State until the medieval papacy was born at the dawn of the 9th century.

For the next millenium the See of Rome ruled it’s own worldly Empire as well as being the spiritual primatial See of the Church.

Then in the 19th century the temporal power of the papacy was shattered, and outside of the Vatican City enclave the Pope is just a figurehead (temporally speaking, that is).

It’s interesting to see how the 21st century papacy actually resembles the 5th century papacy much more closely than the 15th century papacy resembles the 5th.

Ecclesial power is becoming more decentralized, and now the Pope himself is even stressing and moving toward a more collegial polity for the Holy See - good news, because this is an absolutely essential step to full communion with the Churches of the East, although decentralization is not without its own issues.