Papal Primacy (particularly historically)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ioana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ioana

Guest
Yet again I’d have a question to do with Peter. Recently I’ve been reading Orthodox counter-arguments to Catholic arguments for papal primacy. Can somebody provide a really well-explained step by step argument proving the following (except for premise 1 which I sorted out)
  1. Peter has primacy
  2. This primacy has been transferred through history
  3. This primacy has resided in Rome for a while.
It seems like the church fathers are a bit contradictory or unclear on this one in a lot of cases.

Why is it more rational to hold the view that the Catholic Church currently holds rather than to think that the bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor?

Can somebody explain really clearly and respond to common counter-arguments as well?

A million thanks for any help.

🙂
 
What about St Ambrose of Milan who says that Peter had a primacy of honor or St. Cyprian of Carthage who says: “To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power…the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power…”(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4). I know that technically all these random people aren’t infallible and can write something that is untrue but why favour one position over the other?
 
Ioana said:
What about St Ambrose of Milan who says that Peter had a primacy of honor or St. Cyprian of Carthage who says: “To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power…the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power…”
Click to expand...
Yes. And as I mentioned in another thread, if Peter has universal supremacy over all the other apostles and disciples, why is he mentioned second after James in Galatians 2:9.
 
Well here you go:
  1. Peter’s primacy is straight from scripture when our Lord said “Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church”. The Eastern Orthodox do not deny this.
  2. Peters primacy transfers through history as that is the nature of apostolic succession. Further it is a fact admitted to by the fathers and the ecumenical councils:
  • Patriarch St Ignatius of Constantinople:
    “saying to Peter, the greatest of the Apostles: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” And again, “I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be bound in Heaven.” For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince [εξαρκος] of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him he transmitted them to all who, after him as his successors, were to be made chief pastors and divine and sacred pontiffs of elder Rome.”
  • St Jerome:
    “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”
  • St Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna:
    “We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.”
  • The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon:
    “The great and holy and universal Synod…in the metropolis of Chalcedon…to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo … being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all …and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness …”
    “After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo! ”
  • Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus:
    “O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed."
 
Last edited:
  • Fathers of the 3rd Council of Constantinople:
    “But the highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see, who also had set forth in his letter the mystery of the divine word [θεολογίας]. For the ancient city of Rome handed you a confession of divine character, and a chart from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness manifest, and Peter spoke through Agatho”
  • St Theodore of Studion;
    “I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
  1. Well that’s proven above. However more proof is the Greeks at Florence admitted Rome’s divine primacy and the pope as the Vicar of Christ and Successor of Peter provided he renounce the filioque. Even Mark of Ephesus.
 
Last edited:
Ioana said:
Peter has primacy
Click to expand...
Caesarea Philippi and the Rock of Peter
Pictures of Caesarea Philippi and an explanation of the theological significance of the huge rock there that Christ compared to Peter, the real rock.
Ioana said:
This primacy has been transferred through history
Click to expand...
_

Apostolic Succession

_
Ioana said:
This primacy has resided in Rome for a while.
Click to expand...
The bones which were excavated from under the high altar at St. Peter’s Basilica, in Rome, were positively identified as being the bones of St. Peter.
Read more at

The Bones of St. Peter, by John Evangelist Walsh.
FREE On-Line. Read fascinating account of how they were able to prove that the bones they found under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome were that of the Apostle.

Blessings,
John
 
Who knows.
I never understood why just because it’s where he died that’s where the Church is. Peter spent much more time as the bishop of Antioch. And the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch calls him their first patriarch. Both sides have their arguments, I’m Catholic but I have to be honest I have many times found myself thinking the Orthodox may have been right on the whole thing.
Why did the Bishop of Rome order all Greek speaking churches in Rome to be closed? And why did he go in and sac Constantinople like that? People usually put the date of schism at 1054 which it technically was but it went back much further and really the 1204 sac of Constantinople was the end when it could be said the two were not in any way one church anymore. The decades following the schism there was dialogue but then the Latins go in and do that and really treated them terribly. To the point that when the Ottomans were about to take Constantinople the Patriarch said he’d rather be under Islam occupation than ask for help from the Latins.
 
I don’t see where the context alters the fact that Peter was mentioned second after James in Gal 2:9?
 
James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Some believe he was very respected even among Jews. Actually Josephus speaks of his death and speaks of him highly where as no other apostles are ever even mentioned. Some wonder why such a prominent devout Pharisee such as Paul wouldn’t have been mentioned once by him. He mentions Gamiuel his teacher and many other people from the era.
 
jas84173 said:
And why did he go in and sac Constantinople like that?
Click to expand...
The Pope did NOT order nor condon the sacking of Constantinople.

The Venetians did that on their own. Remember, Venice was its own Republic back then, and was NOT part of the Papal States.

The Pope cried when that happend because it’s not what he wanted to see and because he knew the horror and damage that was done.
 
The oversaw different regions. It’s right there in the thread.
 
jas84173 said:
James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Some believe he was very respected even among Jews. Actually Josephus speaks of his death and speaks of him highly where as no other apostles are ever even mentioned. Some wonder why such a prominent devout Pharisee such as Paul wouldn’t have been mentioned once by him. He mentions Gamiuel his teacher and many other people from the era.
Click to expand...
1st of all, Josephus was a Jew. I doubt would have intended to document as much Christian history has he did.

Also, he’s known in academia for not necessarily dotting his i’s and crossing his t’s.
 
Wait does the bishop of Antioch claim to have succession from Peter? Does anybody else except for Rome claim that?
 
AlNg said:
I don’t see where the context alters the fact that Peter was mentioned second after James in Gal 2:9?
Click to expand...
The first shall be last and the last first, or something to that effect, since only two are named.

😉

I mean if you can grasp at weak and tenuous points, you need to permit others to do so, as well, no?
 
Orthodox? But which Orthodox? They are tied to ethnicity and geography. They are not all in agreement as to the number of councils to accept. Because of this fracturing, they cannot be the One True Church. As good, as honorable, as historic, as traditional, as beautiful as their liturgies are, they are not unified.

As to the early Church and Peter in particular, watch the first half of this video.
 
Last edited:
All Orthodox Churches agree on 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Your apologetic is a liar who uses half-truths, and quotes out of context to try to slander Orthodox Church, because more and more People know about Her and are interested in Her.
Many People disagree with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is moving towards Protestantism in it’s Liturgical and ascetic life, instead towards Orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top