Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?


#1

Papal primacy is integral to Catholocism…
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

from there I found this…
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, and 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

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

**My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith…

Show ECF’s prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognised that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop… (we know it happened in antioch) prove it happened in Rome… this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .**


#2

Here are some ECF quotes that allude to the primacy of Peter and the See of Rome in addition to an apostolic foundation of the Church. They date from approximately 30 years of the of the writing of St Paul’s earliest letters to 100 years later [96 AD to 171 AD]:

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

and another


“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).


and another early quote:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

and:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

approximately 100 years later:

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).


#3

Simon:

In your OP you stated that there was no room for development in the Holy Mother Church as far as the Pope goes. IMHO as I watch the world “develop” I can only say Thank God for this lack of “development”

Praying for you and yours.


#4

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

This does not prove a Papacy…the rest of what was clipped out:
Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

the church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

Clip from the first verse and then 59 chapters later? You have removed 59 previous chapters of context. Not that you should have posted such a volume but Clement is pleading, not ordering.

Quote:
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

It does preside over love, it is holy, this is not the Papacy however.

uote:
“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

A dual Papacy?

Quote:

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

Advice


#5

There are plenty of things that are a lot more integral to Christianity than the papacy that you cannot find in the ECFs prior to the year 200, but that doesn’t mean these things aren’t true. That doesn’t mean these things weren’t there, because we have only a very, very, very tiny fragment of what was written left, only a straw compared to a haystack. I could ask a dozen questions just like the original poster which would supposedly disprove all sorts of Christian doctrines which non-Catholics would consider essential.

Of course that wouldn’t matter, because this arguement is an appeal to silence, which a first year logic student can tell you is a fallacious arguement.

That being said, there are plenty of quotations that can be provided, and if people notice this thread, I am certain they will oblige. I myself must leave for Washington, so I cannot help any more than this, unfortunately.

God bless :cool:


#6

This post will prove important, remember you said “thank God for this lack of development”

Simon


#7

You know, the same Fr. Livius who compiled The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries first wrote a book on St. Peter and the Papacy which was along the same lines, except that he had more historical and archaeological data to include along with all the quotes.

Inter-library loan is a wonderful thing.


#8

To Christianity yes, to Catholocism I’d argue that!

Lazer,

There are hundreds if not thousands of writings left, I would even include in the challenge “heretical writings” anyone that recognises Peter alone and the papal primacy

In Him,
Simon


#9

Greetings MFM!

This has been answered at least 10,000 times on these forums and in the articles on the web-site. I suggest a subject search and a little research to help with your truth-seeking, if it is indeed sincere.

Also, may I recommend Eusebius’s History of the Church. I was amazed to read how the early churches (and councils) looked primarily to Rome for confirmation of it’s decisions and assistance in denouncing heretics. Also, the strict-record keeping of the lineage of the Chair of Peter was used to establish the “date” of events. Such as “…[an event] occurred during the episcopate of Soter”. This was done by a bishop from the East! Why would he not just use his own lineage for this purpose? In preparing a History of the Church - why was listing the lineage of the bishops of Rome more important than his own?

Sincerely in Christ,
Corrgc


#10

Then the thread ought to close down right now, because any arguement that can be used against your own position is an ipso facto failed arguement, one that proves nothing other than that the arguer is a hypocrite.

The only other possibility is to accept the conclusions of your arguement, accept the papacy to be false, and then to throw out every other Christian doctrine that cannot be found in the fathers of the Church before the year 200, and if we do that, we may as well throw out Christianity itself.

Lazer,

There are hundreds if not thousands of writings left, I would even include in the challenge “heretical writings” anyone that recognises Peter alone and the papal primacy

In Him,
Simon

There are not nearly so many writings as you would suggest if we are to limit the scope to only those years before 200. However, even if your statement were true, that would only mean that there were thousands or hundreds of thousands more documents that had been lost. Either way, the sample that we are dealing with is a very small fraction - as I said, a straw compared to a haystack - of what once existed and was written in that period.

Look at the current Catholic Church. If we were to take all of the documents from the past 10 years, then easily at least one third of these would not mention the papacy at all, and this is in an age when it is a far more developed office. Certainly we do not have anything close to one third of the documents that existed from the first 2 centuries of Christianity, so even common sense will tell us that it would be insignificant to find not even a hint of the papacy in them - although there are plenty.

I really must be going now or I shall be late. God bless


#11

I just want to see it answered 1 time.
You should do some research it has not been answered.
It behooves all of us to seek THE TRUTH!

If you have read Eusebius, you would know he consistently refers to PETER** AND** PAUL. Not Peter alone.


#12

God bless! It is your church whom states “Known for all ages” and Lazer their is plenty of opportunity in the writings for the papacy to be stated and its not there… These are the Church fathers you guys claim as your own, it is their writings!

Later I’ll share some prime opportunity to claim primacy, and they didn’t.


#13

I can find writers who talk about the church started by Peter AND Paul, if it was KNOWN for all ages that it was from Peter alone, why can’t you cite just 1?


#14

Quite the contrary, few doctrines are more susceptible of development.

According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

Sure, but it wouldn’t take the same forms in all historical periods. Early on it would be expressed through letters of admonition and counsel such as Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. But it always existed. I have no doubt of that–what I question is whether the later developments are entirely valid.

In Christ,

Edwin


#15

#16

What is very clear from scripture is that Peter had a unique position among the Apostles, even the Orthodox acknowledge that. If Jesus felt it necessary to establish this unique position of leadership at the time of the New Testament isn’t it logical that this office would be passed on?

Remember that much of what was written by the ECFs was in response to heresy, just because there are no ECF texts to support the Catholic position up until the 3rd century doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a clear understanding of papal authority before that point.

I think it would be much more appropriate for you to show us where the ECFs state that Peter’s office is not authoritative.


#17

#18

I just recently went back through his letter, here is the perfect opportunity…

Chapter XLII.-The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from177 the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from178 God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,179 then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established180 in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,181 to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops182 in righteousness, and their deacons183 in faith."184

If anything it just reaffirms that each churches are responsible to the apostles that started them. In Romes case you’ll find evidence of Peter AND Paul… In Antioch Peter, so on and so forth. No primacy!


#19

I’m not sure which legal system you operate under, but where I’m from it is incumbent upon the procession to prove his case against the accused.

In this case the Catholic Church is very much innocent until proven guilty.

Actually Eusebius and the Pope Victor quotes would be a strong case for doing just that

Im not familiar with those, care to post an excerpt?


#20

I always liked this one
Eusebius
At that time Clement was still head of the
Roman community, occupying in the same
way the third place among the
bishops who followed Paul **and **Peter.

This seems as though it couldn’t be more obvious, community not universal church?
also, Peter **and **Paul


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.