Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[JaneFrances]

Quite significant. Irenaues say’s Rome has authority,

So, you recognize, at least, Irenaeus’ identification of Rome’s prime authority within the universal Church. That’s a step in the right direction!

Though this it is controversial He felt this way as did others.

I am not sure what “controversy” you are talking about. For instance, I would be interested if you had any documentation suggesting another seat of central authority in the early Church.

From the perspective of historical Christianity, the Church of Rome, built up by “the most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” claimed and retained authority in matters of tradition and faith. And further, Irenaeus clarifies: “For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies [3, 3, 2])

Again, I would be interested to know of the contemporary controversy that would have provided a strong case opposing Irenaeus’ account of Church authority residing in Rome.

It isn’t that Peter had a specific successor

Then, you are entirely missing the point of the early Church’s interest in documenting the office of the Roman episcopate. The point is EXACTLY that Peter had a specific successor. This is precisely why we know their names.

but they adhered to the Apostles teachings (per the bible)

No one is arguing this point. Of course the successors adhered to the Apostolic tradition. They are Apostolic successors. The papacy is an office and a ministry. The fact that the successors of the Roman episcopate adhered to the Apostolic tradition, maintained it, and passed it on through Apostolic succession is entirely the reason the Church still looks to Rome, as the early Church did.

And your definition of “Apostles teachings (per the bible)” is not accurate. While, surely, Sacred Scriptures would have been under the charge of Church authority, Scriptures do not have a monopoly on the Apostolic tradition. Nor do they claim one.

HMMM… Peter and Paul again

Indeed, it makes Rome a pretty important place!

I would suggest that you re-read post #97, which should help you understand better how Peter AND Paul’s authority focused in Rome actually strengthens the case for Roman primacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

MFM-

This is not my “area” of apologetics so I’m not going to get too involved in this discussion. However, I’m wondering if you are not reading too much into the statement you quoted.

The passage reads in part:For "no one can be in doubt, indeed** it was known in every age** that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, See that comma after “race”? That seems to be the end of the section that deals with “it was known in every age…”. it certainly stands to reason that men in every age would know of this Petrine story just as men in “every generation” call Mary “blessed”.

It does not seem logical that the next section could be true, however, for how could people living in the first few centuries have anticipated that the Church or even the world would survive until the time of Vatican I. Indeed, some in the early church thought Christ’s return was eminent. They stopped working! Paul had to correct them in one of his letters!

Let me parse this another way, and tell me what you think.For “no one can be in doubt,[comma] indeed **it was known in every age **that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, [comma]and [additionally, no one reading this document can be in doubt] that to this day and for ever he lives” and presides and “exercises judgment in his successors” the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood I’ve inserted “additionally, no one reading this document can be in doubt” to illustrate that it ties back to the prepositional phrase begininning with “For”.

Seeing these two sections of the paragraph separated by the MyFavoriteMartinnine comma, illustrates that it would be possible for all ages to understand the Peter got the keys without necessarily understanding the fullness of the developed Papal doctrine.

I know you like to ask the tough questions, but this one seems like a bit of a stretch.

Thoughts?

MFM-

In all charity, I consider you a worthy adversary. You ask tough questions without taking cheap shots. I appreciate that.

However, I note that you did not respond to my analysis of your text. Perhaps you were distracted.

I kinda feel like you’re just sending everyone off on some kind of snipe hunt…asking us to explain or prove a position that appears at first glance to put Catholics on the hot seat but which, from my reading of the passage in question, is not a position that Catholics have taken.

Surely you must have stronger arguments against Catholicism than this. Or are you down to your final straws?

(That’s not likely, is it? )

 

[JaneFrances]

Can I address the argument from silence that Edwin mentioned. I also think we have to be cautious but MFM is.
The topic of Clement’s letter is authority. If someone is talking all about a subject but does not happen to mention the little fact that they are the leader of the entire church in the course of 60 plus chapters, it matters. A story a professor told me once about the “argument from silence”.

Your absolutely right Fredricks and as another apologist said ( his name slips my mind) if the church is going to claim that the papacy was a devoloping thing “acorn to oak tree” a more appropriate way it should be stated would be water melon seed to oak tree.

It seems obvious that you can’t connect the dots from #1 if the #1 was never part of the puzzle.

Then, what is #1?

[/QUOTE]

 

[BrianH]

Is there something different about Clement’s letter to Corinth that would make someone see the role of a bishop in Rome as head of the entire church? Reading early Christian history it seems a common occurence. It is not even as strong as Polycarp, so it certainly would not be the tone.
We have even seen people finding a Papacy in the Jerusalem Council. One sees what one sees. It is not intentional or deceptive but the power of a presupposition.
Brian

 

[mercygate]

antioch is also claiming primacy after alexandria and alexandira after rome, that was before the 2nd Ecumenical council

I have understood that in the Roman schema, it goes Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople . . . I could be in error, but the Eastern Churches generally put Jerusalem at the top of the list before Antioch.

 

[JaneFrances]

Is there something different about Clement’s letter to Corinth that would make someone see the role of a bishop in Rome as head of the entire church?

The difference is in the patristic consensus which recognizes the Roman episcopate as centrally authoritative and prime.

Reading early Christian history it seems a common occurence.

Yes, writing letters was a common mode of communication throughout historical Christianity. Historically, those letters which came from Rome had unique attention and authority among the Church world-wide, because of it’s “superior origin.”

It is not even as strong as Polycarp, so it certainly would not be the tone.

I don’t know of any historical camp which would have challenged Rome’s primacy using Polycarp.

We have even seen people finding a Papacy in the Jerusalem Council.

And how well do those arguements in favor of the Jerusalem Papacy go?

One sees what one sees. It is not intentional or deceptive but the power of a presupposition.

This is exactly the point. I do not believe that the majority of contemporary Protestantism intends to deceive. Instead, they rely on the powerful presupposition rejecting Roman authority which has divided Christians for centuries. They can not see Roman authority because they presuppose it does not exist. And to acknowledge any measure of Roman primacy or authority in history puts their more modern tradition of an autonomous local church on tenuous ground. This is understandable.

 

[mercygate]

This is in response to SPH1’s last post.

If I’m not mistaken, the word pastor means shepherd, right. What about Psalms 23, Genesis 49:24, 1 Peter 5:4, John 10:11 and Hebrews 13:20. Are you saying all these were talking about Peter?

Where are you going with this? Are you serious or are you just verse-sniping?

In a way we could say that these do speak of Peter – and of any pastor. The servant-shepherd image is one Jesus used himself as a model of ministry.

 

[contramundum7]

Mt 16:19- “whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Peter was given the authority to bind and loose over “whatever.” This is properly understood within the context of the Davidic Kingdom. Thus, we go back to the OT to see what Jesus is conferring on Peter. Is 22:22 states, “Then I will set (AD)the key of the (AE)house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will (AF)open.”

Hmmm. Sounds earily similar. As a Catholic I would state that Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and loose doctrine upon the faithful since the context in which Jesus bestows this authority is one of doctrinal clarification.

We see this earlier in the passage when Jesus asked, “Who do people say that (Q)the Son of Man is?”

14And they said, “Some say (R)John the Baptist; and others, (S)Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”
15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are (T)the Christ, ((“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 16;&version=49;#cen-NASB-23689U”))the Son of (V)the living God.”

Thus, Peter’s first pronouncement on doctrinal truth is centered on the nature of the Son of Man, or Jesus. For this reason, Catholics say Peter and his successors have infallible authority of matters of the faith. Infallible naturally follows, because how could God bind or loose something in Heaven that was in error?

 

[contramundum7]

contramundum7:
good point for women not becoming priests. The Church bound us to male priesthood… but it was Jesus doing this through the Chruch…

 

[SoonerServant]

In a way we could say that these do speak of Peter – and of any pastor. The servant-shepherd image is one Jesus used himself as a model of ministry.

Then you are saying that we are all shepherds? I thought you just called Peter the shepherd?

So you’re saying that, because Peter, at that moment, spoke the truth, he alone was infallible. I may be mistaken, but all the Apostles including Paul, spoke infallibly about the scriptures.

Where are you going with this? Are you serious or are you just verse-sniping?

If I am sniping, I’m a pretty good shot. Because all thoughs are talking about Jesus Christ.

 

[mercygate]

If I am sniping, I’m a pretty good shot. Because all thoughs are talking about Jesus Christ.

You mean the Scripture verses that you cited? He is the great Shepherd of the Sheep. Paul uses the word “pastors” in referring to gifts of the Holy Spirit. So how does a reference to Jesus as a shepherd disqualify those who serve him from being shepherds?

Wait: you’re the guy who said he has “barely read the Bible.” How could I forget that, since the evidence is overwhelming.

I am trying not to be exasperated when responding to someone who claims: “Different ppl have different gifts. Mine, I feel, happens to be intereptation of the scriptures. Truth be told, I have barely read the Bible, . . .”

That is a position that states up front that you are not engaging in serious dialogue. How could you when by our own admission you are largely ignorant of our primary resource?

The man who first translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, St. Jerome, used to say: Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Edwin my brother 2 questions.

Do you know for a fact Peter was deceased before Linus assumed bishopric from Peter AND Paul?

Do you know or does anyone for a fact that Peter was martyred in Rome?

I am interested in the answers to these questions as they loom large in the seed theory.

 

[DeFide]

MFM,

…
Do you accept or deny that Peter had a real primacy over the Church?
…

myfavoritmartin,

It’s not a trick question. If you want, I can start a separate thread if you’re afraid it’ll derail your thread too much.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

myfavoritmartin,

It’s not a trick question. If you want, I can start a separate thread if you’re afraid it’ll derail your thread too much.

It has nothing to do with this thread. Whether he was cheif among the apostles or not does not affect the gap between Matt 16 and 200 ad.

 

[JaneFrances]

It has nothing to do with this thread. Whether he was cheif among the apostles or not does not affect the gap between Matt 16 and 200 ad.

I disagree. I think whether Peter was chief among the Apostles is entirely pertinent to whether he had primacy. And Petrine primacy is the foundation of papal primacy, so it relates very well to the OP:

Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

 

[Randy_Carson]

MFM-

This is not my “area” of apologetics so I’m not going to get too involved in this discussion. However, I’m wondering if you are not reading too much into the statement you quoted.

The passage reads in part:For "no one can be in doubt, indeed** it was known in every age** that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, See that comma after “race”? That seems to be the end of the section that deals with “it was known in every age…”. it certainly stands to reason that men in every age would know of this Petrine story just as men in “every generation” call Mary “blessed”.

It does not seem logical that the next section could be true, however, for how could people living in the first few centuries have anticipated that the Church or even the world would survive until the time of Vatican I. Indeed, some in the early church thought Christ’s return was eminent. They stopped working! Paul had to correct them in one of his letters!

Let me parse this another way, and tell me what you think.For “no one can be in doubt,[comma] indeed **it was known in every age **that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, [comma]and [additionally, no one reading this document can be in doubt] that to this day and for ever he lives” and presides and “exercises judgment in his successors” the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood I’ve inserted “additionally, no one reading this document can be in doubt” to illustrate that it ties back to the prepositional phrase begininning with “For”.

Seeing these two sections of the paragraph separated by the MyFavoriteMartinnine comma, illustrates that it would be possible for all ages to understand the Peter got the keys without necessarily understanding the fullness of the developed Papal doctrine.

I know you like to ask the tough questions, but this one seems like a bit of a stretch.

Thoughts?

Hello?

 

[6glargento]

im not sure if this one was mentioned yet but i think that it shows a prettly clear primacy of the see of peter

*“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256). *

 

[DeFide]

It has nothing to do with this thread.

I’m easy. I started a new thread for the question out of respect for your wishes.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1840794#post1840794

Whether he was cheif among the apostles or not does not affect the gap between Matt 16 and 200 ad.

We’ll see.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin my brother 2 questions.

Do you know for a fact Peter was deceased before Linus assumed bishopric from Peter AND Paul?

I know what Irenaeus says, and I believe Irenaeus. How it happened I don’t know. Did Linus start to take over before the Apostles died? Did they designate him as leader when they were arrested? Was he simply the leading presbyter and thus naturally took over? I don’t know.

Do you know or does anyone for a fact that Peter was martyred in Rome?

What does it mean to know something “for a fact”? Is it as certain as that, say, Augustus was emperor? No. But I’d say that from a purely historical point of view it’s more certain than many events narrated in the Bible. All the circumstantial historical evidence points toward it. The tradition is very ancient and there is no counter-evidence that I know of.

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Hello?

Randy,
I am not avoiding this I am struggling to see what your question or point is in regards to the OP, if you want to pm for clarification I’ll do my best to follow up.
Simon