Author Topic: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?  (Read 1731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2017, 02:57:28 AM »
Not sure what review was "patronizing", Volnutt, and why it was deemed offensive. Soloviev was a tireless advocate of Holy Unia with Rome and, as a a Russian theologian and Orthodox by birth, urged his fellow theologians to seriously consider the historical and dogmatic evidence showing the primacy of the Roman Church. I only cited the reviews to show Soloviev's work is one of first-rank scholarship, to answer the OP question. At any rate, Fr. Adrian Fortescue's works, some of which can be read in the Catholic Encyclopedia, are also excellent. Then there is Dom John Chapman et al, "Studies on the Early Papacy". Luke Rivington's "The Primitive Church and the See of Peter" is also an outstanding read. Ebook here for those interested. http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/LukeRivingtonPrimitiveChurchSeePeter.pdf

The fact of Petrine primacy is writ large on the page of history, from the very beginning of Christian ages, where Pope St. Clement of Rome plainly exercises supreme jurisdiction over the Church of Corinth. Speaking in tones of supreme authority, the Sovereign Pontiff, while St. John the Apostle was still alive, reverses their decision and commands all in Corinth to receive Rome's decision as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This is a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction, such as the Church of Rome has always exercised in the Church Catholic, which the canons of the Council of Sardica presided over by St. Athanasius would later make formal, and which must needs be pacifically received by all prelates who wish to remain in full Catholic communion. Fr. Rivington writes, "such was the first recorded act of the Church of Rome ... it is spoken of in terms of enthusiasm by St. Irenaeus ... it is also alluded to by St. Ignatius on his way to martyrdom." One by one, Father demolishes the Protestant(in particular, Anglican)/Orthodox objections to the plain texts of the Fathers of later ages.

It's the whole "separated brethren" rhetoric. "Oh you poor, cute little confused Orthodox! We love you so much and you're so important to us even though you're a bunch of rebellious punks! Please come home to Rome so we can hug you and kiss you and give you cookies! :-*" It's smarmy and backhanded and gross. The fact that Soloviev is there to play Uncle Tom (Didymus) doesn't make it any better.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,260
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2017, 11:44:53 AM »
I can't take seriously any apologist who argues that the universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope was "plainly" or "clearly" taught since the time of the Apostolic Fathers. I've read their writings in full, and the passages the apologists quote mine are either filled with confirmation bias or are way off the mark.
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,260
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2017, 11:47:56 AM »
I'm not sure how catholics are satisfied with this doctrine of papal primacy(assuming this includes the doctrine of Papal infallibility). What if the pope teaches a error & makes the church adopt it as dogma? Does RCC  theology leave any room to "override" a popes decisions?
According to Vatican I, the Pope cannot error if he speaks "ex-cathedra," i.e. if he teaches something as a binding dogma of the Catholic faith. So according to the Catholic model, this is not even theoretically possible.
What that means practically and epistemologically, though, is another question...
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 11:48:21 AM by byhisgrace »
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,611
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2017, 03:19:48 PM »
I'm not sure how catholics are satisfied with this doctrine of papal primacy(assuming this includes the doctrine of Papal infallibility). What if the pope teaches a error & makes the church adopt it as dogma? Does RCC  theology leave any room to "override" a popes decisions?
According to Vatican I, the Pope cannot error if he speaks "ex-cathedra," i.e. if he teaches something as a binding dogma of the Catholic faith. So according to the Catholic model, this is not even theoretically possible.
What that means practically and epistemologically, though, is another question...
True that. One is crescently obliged to apply some Occham's razor there, which makes some traditional Catholics to preserve the necessary premise of infalibility by discarding the applicability of particulars to either one of three:
  • materially modernist assertions are not formally binding because the Popes aren't real
  • materially modernist assertions are not formally binding for other characteristics (e.g. "Vatican II wasn't binding")
  • formally binding assertions are not materially modernist under good interpretation (e.g. "Amoris Laetitia isn't that bad")
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2017, 02:06:06 AM »
What if the pope teaches a error & makes the church adopt it as dogma? Does RCC  theology leave any room to "override" a popes decisions?
According to Vatican I, the Pope cannot error if he speaks "ex-cathedra," i.e. if he teaches something as a binding dogma of the Catholic faith. So according to the Catholic model, this is not even theoretically possible.
Never mind, of course, history, for example, Honorius I and John XXII.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2017, 02:08:47 AM »
Not sure what review was "patronizing", Volnutt, and why it was deemed offensive. Soloviev was a tireless advocate of Holy Unia with Rome and, as a a Russian theologian and Orthodox by birth, urged his fellow theologians to seriously consider the historical and dogmatic evidence showing the primacy of the Roman Church...
Methinks that there is universal agreement on the primacy of the Roman Church.  What's never been agreed to, except by Rome alone, was that it meant that rule and oversight of the other Churches by a supreme and infallible pontiff.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,260
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2017, 03:45:55 AM »
What if the pope teaches a error & makes the church adopt it as dogma? Does RCC  theology leave any room to "override" a popes decisions?
According to Vatican I, the Pope cannot error if he speaks "ex-cathedra," i.e. if he teaches something as a binding dogma of the Catholic faith. So according to the Catholic model, this is not even theoretically possible.
Never mind, of course, history, for example, Honorius I and John XXII.
Whether Honorius I was a "formal heretic" or not is debatable, but my thoughts remain that all those RC attempts to explain away questionable Papal statements all comes down to just a No True Scotsman definition of "Ex Cathedra" and "Infallibility."
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 03:53:56 AM by byhisgrace »
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2017, 04:12:45 AM »
Whether Honorius I was a "formal heretic" or not is debatable, but my thoughts remain that all those RC attempts to explain away questionable Papal statements all comes down to just a No True Scotsman definition of "Ex Cathedra" and "Infallibility."
It doesn't matter whether Honorius I was a heretic of any kind, but that, according to Vatican I, it was impossible for him to teach heresy.  However, to state that a letter from the Pope of Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinople is not ex catedra is absurd.  But, yes, most of the other attempts are splitting Scotsman's hairs.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 506
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2017, 09:10:25 PM »
Whether Honorius I was a "formal heretic" or not is debatable, but my thoughts remain that all those RC attempts to explain away questionable Papal statements all comes down to just a No True Scotsman definition of "Ex Cathedra" and "Infallibility."
It doesn't matter whether Honorius I was a heretic of any kind, but that, according to Vatican I, it was impossible for him to teach heresy.  However, to state that a letter from the Pope of Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinople is not ex catedra is absurd.  But, yes, most of the other attempts are splitting Scotsman's hairs.

I personally liked Michael Whelton's line of reasoning in this defense.

The Patriarch of Constantinople was not asking for just a personal opinion about dogma - he was asking for Papal support about an innovation of the Faith. Why would the Patriarch ask for the private opinion of the Pope, if there was really such a Petrine idea of Roman Catholicism at the time?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 09:10:46 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2017, 11:52:50 PM »
The Patriarch of Constantinople was not asking for just a personal opinion about dogma - he was asking for Papal support about an innovation of the Faith. Why would the Patriarch ask for the private opinion of the Pope, if there was really such a Petrine idea of Roman Catholicism at the time?
Exactly!  To write off this event, which an Ecumenical Council weighed with utter gravity and charity before declaring Honorius I anathematized, as a mere personal exchange of letters, as if Honorius had signed it with XXXOOO, is more than pathetic, but dishonest.

And Pope FI is being as dishonest by affirming the heresy of bishops in Malta and Buenos Aires, in regards to the reception of Holy Communion by people committing adultery, through letters.  Still, like Pope Honorius I, Pope FI doesn't sign such letters with XXXOOO, but with PP Francis.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline ErmyCath

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 239
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #55 on: December 07, 2017, 08:56:46 AM »
The idea that the pope can only be declared a heretic if he teaches his heresy ex cathedra is put forward because it’s proponents further argue that a pope cannot teach error ex cathedra because any statement by a pope that isn’t in line with tradition, by definition, cannot be ex cathdedra.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,607
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #56 on: December 07, 2017, 10:47:31 AM »
I'm not sure how catholics are satisfied with this doctrine of papal primacy(assuming this includes the doctrine of Papal infallibility). What if the pope teaches a error & makes the church adopt it as dogma? Does RCC  theology leave any room to "override" a popes decisions?
According to Vatican I, the Pope cannot error if he speaks "ex-cathedra," i.e. if he teaches something as a binding dogma of the Catholic faith. So according to the Catholic model, this is not even theoretically possible.
What that means practically and epistemologically, though, is another question...
True that. One is crescently obliged to apply some Occham's razor there, which makes some traditional Catholics to preserve the necessary premise of infalibility by discarding the applicability of particulars to either one of three:
  • materially modernist assertions are not formally binding because the Popes aren't real
  • materially modernist assertions are not formally binding for other characteristics (e.g. "Vatican II wasn't binding")
  • formally binding assertions are not materially modernist under good interpretation (e.g. "Amoris Laetitia isn't that bad")

The phrase I see bandied about is "prudential judgement."
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 321
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #57 on: December 07, 2017, 11:04:09 AM »
The Patriarch of Constantinople was not asking for just a personal opinion about dogma - he was asking for Papal support about an innovation of the Faith. Why would the Patriarch ask for the private opinion of the Pope, if there was really such a Petrine idea of Roman Catholicism at the time?
Exactly!  To write off this event, which an Ecumenical Council weighed with utter gravity and charity before declaring Honorius I anathematized, as a mere personal exchange of letters, as if Honorius had signed it with XXXOOO, is more than pathetic, but dishonest.

And Pope FI is being as dishonest by affirming the heresy of bishops in Malta and Buenos Aires, in regards to the reception of Holy Communion by people committing adultery, through letters.  Still, like Pope Honorius I, Pope FI doesn't sign such letters with XXXOOO, but with PP Francis.
It seems many threads in this subforum need a side blow referencing AL.
At least the RC church recognizes the need to have this kind of discussion rather than blessing second and third marriages in the first place.
Mentioning the topic in this context could easily lead to shooting oneself in the foot.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 11:05:09 AM by Lepanto »
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,607
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #58 on: December 07, 2017, 11:07:21 AM »
The Patriarch of Constantinople was not asking for just a personal opinion about dogma - he was asking for Papal support about an innovation of the Faith. Why would the Patriarch ask for the private opinion of the Pope, if there was really such a Petrine idea of Roman Catholicism at the time?
Exactly!  To write off this event, which an Ecumenical Council weighed with utter gravity and charity before declaring Honorius I anathematized, as a mere personal exchange of letters, as if Honorius had signed it with XXXOOO, is more than pathetic, but dishonest.

And Pope FI is being as dishonest by affirming the heresy of bishops in Malta and Buenos Aires, in regards to the reception of Holy Communion by people committing adultery, through letters.  Still, like Pope Honorius I, Pope FI doesn't sign such letters with XXXOOO, but with PP Francis.
It seems there cannot be a thread in this subforum without a side blow referencing AL.
The footnote that toppled a Church, amirite?

Quote
At least the RC church recognizes to need to have this kind of discussion rather than blessing second and third marriages in the first place.
Right. The hierarchy basically says, "We need to have a conversation, and it's kind of delicate because of some of our past stances, but this is a pastoral issue," and everybody freaks out. But a real solution does need to be found, one way or the other, that doesn't end in lifelong excommunication for the millions of people affected.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 11:07:34 AM by Agabus »
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline Lepanto

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 321
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #59 on: December 07, 2017, 11:13:27 AM »
Rest assured that AL did not topple the church  ;D
But people on this forum decided that AL could be interpreted a sign of weakness from the RC church
and do not spare punches - ad nauseam.
Yawn.
una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro et Antistite nostro et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicæ et apostolicæ fidei cultoribus

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,607
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #60 on: December 07, 2017, 11:15:59 AM »
Rest assured that AL did not topple the church  ;D
No kidding. It's a mostly unnoteworthy document, but reactionaries gotta react. If something isn't the end of the world, is it anything?

Quote
But people on this forum decided that AL could be interpreted a sign of weakness from the RC church
and do not spare punches - ad nauseam.
Yawn.
Indeed.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline byhisgrace

  • AOCB
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,260
  • Memory Eternal to my Younger Brother
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #61 on: December 07, 2017, 11:26:10 AM »
Rest assured that AL did not topple the church  ;D
But people on this forum decided that AL could be interpreted a sign of weakness from the RC church
and do not spare punches - ad nauseam.
Yawn.
AL is not my circus. I’m just tired of the dishonesty of apologists from both sides of the schism.
Oh Holy Apostle, St. John, pray for us

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,524
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #62 on: December 07, 2017, 11:45:14 AM »
Either Apostle Peter was first bishop of Rome or went to Alexandria to share authority among brethren.
Learn meditation.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 574
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?
« Reply #63 on: December 08, 2017, 01:16:03 AM »
At least the RC church recognizes the need to have this kind of discussion rather than blessing second and third marriages in the first place.
Does it?  One of the five cardinals gave up waiting for the discussion on his questions and died.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ