Topic: Best arguments for Petrine primacy?

[Agabus]

Catholics:

I'm looking to read what books Catholics think is actually the best arguments for Petrine primacy. I'm not looking to disprove or be convinced of it, but after a somewhat frustrating conversation online today in which a Catholic apologist just hurled a bunch of verses at me and insisted, "Now it's self evident," I was wondering which Catholic writers and their apologia you think best distill the pro-papacy argument. I've interacted with this theological line for 15 years without ever being convinced there's a serious case to be made outside of the strict historical argument, which is itself way messier than pop apologists will admit.

I'm a smart enough fellow, so don't be afraid to throw something tough my way.

[Luke]

[xOrthodox4Christx]

I think Stephen K. Ray was the best one I've ever read. But most books about how "Catholicism is right" hardly even make an effort in the way modern apologists like Catholic Answers do.

[Agabus]

I think Stephen K. Ray was the best one I've ever read.

Upon this Rock?

[Iconodule]

The most compelling thing I've seen is Newman's essay on the development of doctrine.

[Antonis]

I think Stephen K. Ray was the best one I've ever read. But most books about how "Catholicism is right" hardly even make an effort in the way modern apologists like Catholic Answers do.

In my experience with Catholic Answers, they are extremely underqualified (sometimes to a humorous extent) in all areas except philosophy.

[Agabus]

The most compelling thing I've seen is Newman's essay on the development of doctrine.

I read it years ago but don't recall much about it other than the core thesis.

[Volnutt]

The most compelling thing I've seen is Newman's essay on the development of doctrine.

The idea being that Petrine primacy is there in an embryonic form in authors such as St. Cyprian even if they themselves would not have thought of it as such and by providence it evolved into the robust current form?

[Vanhyo]

Maybe you mean universal supremacy and personal infallibility ? Because we do have primacy in the Church.

[Rohzek]

In terms of a pro-Catholic, although more balanced assessment, see The Shepherd and the Rock by Archbishop J. Michael Miller. Seems like it is out of print tho. In terms of more standard apologetics, albeit better argued ones than most, Upon this Rock by Stephen K. Ray and Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler et al. This is how Fr. Laurent A. Cleenewerck, author of His Broken Body, ranks them at least.

[LivenotoneviL]

I have "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys," and I personally thought that this book was pretty lacking, especially when compared to Newman's "development of doctrine." - from what I remember reading, all it does is quote mines the Church Fathers anecdotally and tries to use Old Testament quotes to prove the Papacy. The book was also not organized that well; it's structured in a Q and A type fashion. Although, to be fair, the book seems more aimed at Protestants than Orthodox inquirers.

It didn't even compare to Michael Whelton, who in his book "Two Paths, Papal Monarchy and Collegial Tradition" fundamentally just shatters the premises by accusing Catholics of anticipating their own conclusion whenever they find a quote from the Church Fathers referring to Peter, as well as accusing the Catholics of using Sola Scriptura and trying to create some backwards Old Testament typology rather than simply looking into history or what the Church has taught historically.

[dreuter032003]

Catholics:

I'm looking to read what books Catholics think is actually the best arguments for Petrine primacy. I'm not looking to disprove or be convinced of it, but after a somewhat frustrating conversation online today in which a Catholic apologist just hurled a bunch of verses at me and insisted, "Now it's self evident," I was wondering which Catholic writers and their apologia you think best distill the pro-papacy argument. I've interacted with this theological line for 15 years without ever being convinced there's a serious case to be made outside of the strict historical argument, which is itself way messier than pop apologists will admit.

I'm a smart enough fellow, so don't be afraid to throw something tough my way.

Yep. All the Catholic books on primacy are what you say. Hurl as many quotes as possible from as many church fathers or saints as possible. Then put on Peter goggles and interpret them to the hilt. This creates the appearance "it was self-evident to everybody." You know the drill.

With that said, try this one from 1837: "The Primacy of the Apostolic see, and the Authority of General Councils, Vindicated" by Francis Patrick Kenrick, a bishop who played a part at Vatican I.

Older Catholic apologists, such as Orestes Brownson, would refer all doubters to this book as if it was case closed after that. So, there's a book Catholics think good enough to settle the matter.

[RaphaCam]

Since I unfortunately always prefer fantastic arguments rather than rational, my favourite ones non-ironically are:

• the Acts of the Apostles begin in Jerusalem and end in Rome because they show the see of the Church being taken from Jerusalem to Rome
• the Donation of Constantine
• the continuity of the OT High Priests as vicars of God to his flock

[Sharbel]

It didn't even compare to Michael Whelton, who in his book "Two Paths, Papal Monarchy and Collegial Tradition" fundamentally just shatters the premises by accusing Catholics of anticipating their own conclusion whenever they find a quote from the Church Fathers referring to Peter, as well as accusing the Catholics of using Sola Scriptura and trying to create some backwards Old Testament typology rather than simply looking into history or what the Church has taught historically.

I'm ashamed to say that I wore such glasses wholeheartedly, until I really studied Church History.  Interestingly enough, the most influential author on my research was a Dominican friar, Fr. Aidan Nichols, whose integrity in his scholar works greatly motivated me to expand my research to all the most important issues between the Eastern and the Western Churches.

[LivenotoneviL]

Maybe you mean universal supremacy and personal infallibility ? Because we do have primacy in the Church.

The Roman Catholics equivocate the terms "supremacy" and "primacy" as one in the same.

[Volnutt]

Since I unfortunately always prefer fantastic arguments rather than rational, my favourite ones non-ironically are:

• the Acts of the Apostles begin in Jerusalem and end in Rome because they show the see of the Church being taken from Jerusalem to Rome

That's... depressing that someone would believe that. I mean, I know you don't. But that somebody would.

• the continuity of the OT High Priests as vicars of God to his flock

Doesn't Orthodoxy also have a form of this belief?

[Volnutt]

Catholics:

I'm looking to read what books Catholics think is actually the best arguments for Petrine primacy. I'm not looking to disprove or be convinced of it, but after a somewhat frustrating conversation online today in which a Catholic apologist just hurled a bunch of verses at me and insisted, "Now it's self evident," I was wondering which Catholic writers and their apologia you think best distill the pro-papacy argument. I've interacted with this theological line for 15 years without ever being convinced there's a serious case to be made outside of the strict historical argument, which is itself way messier than pop apologists will admit.

I'm a smart enough fellow, so don't be afraid to throw something tough my way.

Yep. All the Catholic books on primacy are what you say. Hurl as many quotes as possible from as many church fathers or saints as possible. Then put on Peter goggles and interpret them to the hilt. This creates the appearance "it was self-evident to everybody." You know the drill.

With that said, try this one from 1837: "The Primacy of the Apostolic see, and the Authority of General Councils, Vindicated" by Francis Patrick Kenrick, a bishop who played a part at Vatican I.

Older Catholic apologists, such as Orestes Brownson, would refer all doubters to this book as if it was case closed after that. So, there's a book Catholics think good enough to settle the matter.

Welcome to the forum! Why do you think Fr. Kenrick is no longer cited?

[Asteriktos]

Since I unfortunately always prefer fantastic arguments rather than rational, my favourite ones non-ironically are:

• the Acts of the Apostles begin in Jerusalem and end in Rome because they show the see of the Church being taken from Jerusalem to Rome

That's... depressing that someone would believe that. I mean, I know you don't. But that somebody would.

I'd agree, though I'm not sure it's much worse than the common argument having to do with St. Peter dying in Rome.

[Volnutt]

Since I unfortunately always prefer fantastic arguments rather than rational, my favourite ones non-ironically are:

• the Acts of the Apostles begin in Jerusalem and end in Rome because they show the see of the Church being taken from Jerusalem to Rome

That's... depressing that someone would believe that. I mean, I know you don't. But that somebody would.

I'd agree, though I'm not sure it's much worse than the common argument having to do with St. Peter dying in Rome.

Yeah, that is a weird one. Though tbf they also add in St. Paul dying there as being a part of it AFAIK. Though, I'm not sure it makes it much better.

I'd have much more respect for Catholic apologetics if they;d just admit that it was because Rome was the most important city in the Empire at the time. Nothing wrong with that, I could buy the idea that it was God's will for the Church to be headquartered where the most people and the seat of governance were (though I suppose it would open Catholics up to the question of why, by the same logic, didn't the Apostolic See switch to Ravenna or Aachen once they became more important cities in the West?)

[Agabus]

(though I suppose it would open Catholics up to the question of why, by the same logic, didn't the Apostolic See switch to Ravenna or Aachen once they became more important cities in the West?)

Because Avignon is so lovely in the springtime?

[byhisgrace]

@Agabus
I think one of the strongest arguments for Papal Supremacy is that at least a few of the Fathers have unambiguously taught at least some elementary form of that doctrine. Yes, there are plenty of those bad Patristic quote-mining fueled by a host of non-sequiturs, combined with the Peter-syndrome. Yes, there are many quotes that are ambiguous and leave room for either a pro-Orthodox or a pro-Catholic interpretation. But a select few, in my opinion, leave little to room for any other rational interpretation other than Papal supremacy. Irenaeaus and Optatus comes to my mind. A few Father's opinions does not make doctrine, but I wonder why they have not been rebuked by other Christians back then, if what they said was unorthodox. Have they just ignored them? Possibly, but it's also just as possible that they silently agreed with them.

[Volnutt]

@Agabus
I think one of the strongest arguments for Papal Supremacy is that at least a few of the Fathers have unambiguously taught at least some elementary form of that doctrine. Yes, there are plenty of those bad Patristic quote-mining fueled by a host of non-sequiturs, combined with the Peter-syndrome. Yes, there are many quotes that are ambiguous and leave room for either a pro-Orthodox or a pro-Catholic interpretation. But a select few, in my opinion, leave little to room for any other rational interpretation other than Papal supremacy. Irenaeaus and Optatus comes to my mind. A few Father's opinions does not make doctrine, but I wonder why they have not been rebuked by other Christians back then, if what they said was unorthodox. Have they just ignored them? Possibly, but it's also just as possible that they silently agreed with them.

Well, there's the idea of Rome's moral authority as the most steadfast See in terms of its orthodoxy that gave it the ability to be a "court of last appeal" in inter-patriarchal disputes. I believe this is what is sometimes referred as Rome "presiding in love." I don't think that's an idea that is controversial in Orthodoxy, but it's a far cry from universal ordinary jurisdiction, Rome being the only truly "Apostolic See," etc.

[Porter ODoran]

@Agabus
I think one of the strongest arguments for Papal Supremacy is that at least a few of the Fathers have unambiguously taught at least some elementary form of that doctrine. Yes, there are plenty of those bad Patristic quote-mining fueled by a host of non-sequiturs, combined with the Peter-syndrome. Yes, there are many quotes that are ambiguous and leave room for either a pro-Orthodox or a pro-Catholic interpretation. But a select few, in my opinion, leave little to room for any other rational interpretation other than Papal supremacy. Irenaeaus and Optatus comes to my mind. A few Father's opinions does not make doctrine, but I wonder why they have not been rebuked by other Christians back then, if what they said was unorthodox. Have they just ignored them? Possibly, but it's also just as possible that they silently agreed with them.

You'd really have to provide citations for your Iranaeus and Optatus allusion for this to become a useful argument.

[Asteriktos]

I would agree that certain Fathers did seem to believe in something akin to papal supremacy (though I'm not sure that St. Irenaeus was among them, based on the quotes I remember seeing). Regarding people responding, this is a popular argument and makes sense in some contexts (like John 6), but I'm not sure it does here. The overwhelming majority of stuff written down from that time has perished; it's possible this or that Father did respond, in writing or in person, but we simply don't have a record of it.  Since such claims had little practical impact (e.g., the Pope didn't simply get his way in the Eastern controversy), even those who were aware of such claims probably wouldn't have been much bothered by them up through the 9th-10th centuries. It's not that Rome was silent before that, but up till that time other sees (especially Constantinople and Alexandria) were also engaging in partisan jockeying for position with each other. It was only when this stuff started to have practical implications (changing the creed, affirming the filioque, sparring missionaries in the Balkans and E. Europe) that Rome started trying to throw its weight around with a more dogmatic tone, and that forced the East was to respond more loudly and directly. I would also point out that sometimes Fathers contradicted themselves as far as Roman primacy--St. Cyprian, for example, is often quoted as having a lofty view of Rome, yet when he found himself in disagreement with Rome he very readily treated Rome as though it were like any other foreign local church: worthy of respect when orthodox but not obligated to be obedient.

[byhisgrace]

@Agabus
I think one of the strongest arguments for Papal Supremacy is that at least a few of the Fathers have unambiguously taught at least some elementary form of that doctrine. Yes, there are plenty of those bad Patristic quote-mining fueled by a host of non-sequiturs, combined with the Peter-syndrome. Yes, there are many quotes that are ambiguous and leave room for either a pro-Orthodox or a pro-Catholic interpretation. But a select few, in my opinion, leave little to room for any other rational interpretation other than Papal supremacy. Irenaeaus and Optatus comes to my mind. A few Father's opinions does not make doctrine, but I wonder why they have not been rebuked by other Christians back then, if what they said was unorthodox. Have they just ignored them? Possibly, but it's also just as possible that they silently agreed with them.

Well, there's the idea of Rome's moral authority as the most steadfast See in terms of its orthodoxy that gave it the ability to be a "court of last appeal" in inter-patriarchal disputes. I believe this is what is sometimes referred as Rome "presiding in love." I don't think that's an idea that is controversial in Orthodoxy, but it's a far cry from universal ordinary jurisdiction, Rome being the only truly "Apostolic See," etc.

I would agree that certain Fathers did seem to believe in something akin to papal supremacy (though I'm not sure that St. Irenaeus was among them, based on the quotes I remember seeing). Regarding people responding, this is a popular argument and makes sense in some contexts (like John 6), but I'm not sure it does here. The overwhelming majority of stuff written down from that time has perished; it's possible this or that Father did respond, in writing or in person, but we simply don't have a record of it.  Since such claims had little practical impact (e.g., the Pope didn't simply get his way in the Eastern controversy), even those who were aware of such claims probably wouldn't have been much bothered by them up through the 9th-10th centuries. It's not that Rome was silent before that, but up till that time other sees (especially Constantinople and Alexandria) were also engaging in partisan jockeying for position with each other. It was only when this stuff started to have practical implications (changing the creed, affirming the filioque, sparring missionaries in the Balkans and E. Europe) that Rome started trying to throw its weight around with a more dogmatic tone, and that forced the East was to respond more loudly and directly. I would also point out that sometimes Fathers contradicted themselves as far as Roman primacy--St. Cyprian, for example, is often quoted as having a lofty view of Rome, yet when he found himself in disagreement with Rome he very readily treated Rome as though it were like any other foreign local church: worthy of respect when orthodox but not obligated to be obedient.

These are very good counter-points, yes.

[LivenotoneviL]

@Agabus
I think one of the strongest arguments for Papal Supremacy is that at least a few of the Fathers have unambiguously taught at least some elementary form of that doctrine. Yes, there are plenty of those bad Patristic quote-mining fueled by a host of non-sequiturs, combined with the Peter-syndrome. Yes, there are many quotes that are ambiguous and leave room for either a pro-Orthodox or a pro-Catholic interpretation. But a select few, in my opinion, leave little to room for any other rational interpretation other than Papal supremacy. Irenaeaus and Optatus comes to my mind. A few Father's opinions does not make doctrine, but I wonder why they have not been rebuked by other Christians back then, if what they said was unorthodox. Have they just ignored them? Possibly, but it's also just as possible that they silently agreed with them.

You'd really have to provide citations for your Iranaeus and Optatus allusion for this to become a useful argument.

Optatus, Against the Donatists:

1:10
"Now there is another question: For what purpose have you mentioned those who have not the Sacraments which you and we alike possess? Sound health does not clamour for medicine; strength which is secure in itself does not need outside help; truth has no lack of arguments; it is the mark of a sick man to seek remedies; it is the sign of a sluggard and a weakling to run in search of auxiliaries; it belongs to a liar to rake up arguments. To return to your book, you have said that the Endowments of the Church cannot be with heretics, and in this you have said rightly, for we know that the churches of each of the heretics have no lawful Sacraments, since they are adulteresses, without the rights of honest wedlock, and are rejected by Christ, who is the Bridegroom of One Church, as strangers. This He Himself makes clear in the Canticle of Canticles. When He praises One, He condemns the others because, besides the One which is the true Catholic Church, the others amongst the heretics are thought to be churches, but are not such. Thus He declares in the Canticle of Canticles (as we have already pointed out) that His Dove is One, and that she is also the chosen Spouse, and again a garden enclosed, and a fountain sealed up.

Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with which we read that the Fountain has been sealed; nor is any heretic one of those to whom that Garden belongs in which God plants His young trees. Concerning these men, that which you have written at length (although it has nothing to do with our present business) is abundantly sufficient."

2:2
"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal chair, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate chairs, so that he who should set up a second chair against the unique chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner."

2:4
"It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter's chair? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter's 'Shrine,' against the precept of the Apostle who writes.....

Behold, in Rome are the 'Shrines' of the two Apostles. Will you tell me whether he has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where----as is certain----are these 'Shrines' of the Saints."

[LivenotoneviL]

Irenaeus

(Against the Heresies, 3:3)

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

[Xavier]

I would strongly encourage this work, it is one of a kind and peerless, it was written by a former Russian Orthodox theologian, a man of the highest repute, named Vladimir Soloviev. He was a tireless advocate for his fellow Orthodox theologians to strongly consider reunion with Rome. In case someone doesn't want to take just my word for it, a few sample reviews from Amazon,
https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/product-reviews/1888992298/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_txt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&sortBy=recent#RR1KSPFSX281F

"A valuable challenge to those who dismiss the claim of Papal headship in the Body of Christ. Soloviev is a compelling writer of deep erudition married to passion for the truth.", "In this abridged volume of the original work Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev makes a creative and compelling case for why the Russian Orthodox Church should reunite with Rome to experience the true fullness of the apostolic, Christian faith ... Soloviev's work is well worth reading for anyone wanting to learn more about Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I have read and re-read it now several times and find that it - like a bottle of wine - gets only better with time."...

"As a person of partly Greek ancestry, and Protestant upbringing, when I contemplated conversion to Roman Catholicism, I asked the priest why I should not become Orthoodox. He smiled and said that would be going in the right direction but why not come all the way home. He gave me this book. Indeed I became a Roman Catholic.

I count as kin and the best of friends and brothers in Christ many Orthodox. I am thankful and do believe that I understand them and their religion better than ever for reading this book. Though it condemns certain errors, Soloviev speaks with a true voice of love for the Orthodox. This personal note is all I can add to the excellent reviews that have gone before mine. I do recommend this book especially to Orthodox Christians who are so very important to the future of all Christendom."

"Soloviev's 'The Russian Church and the Papacy' is an absolutely brilliant tour de force apologetic work in defense of the papacy and easily the very best I've ever read. A must-read for non-Catholics who still maintain that the papacy is an invention of the Roman Bishops or that the Pope has a 'primacy of honor' only."

[Volnutt]

I would strongly encourage this work, it is one of a kind and peerless, it was written by a former Russian Orthodox theologian, a man of the highest repute, named Vladimir Soloviev. He was a tireless advocate for his fellow Orthodox theologians to strongly consider reunion with Rome. In case someone doesn't want to take just my word for it, a few sample reviews from Amazon,
https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/product-reviews/1888992298/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_txt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&sortBy=recent#RR1KSPFSX281F

"A valuable challenge to those who dismiss the claim of Papal headship in the Body of Christ. Soloviev is a compelling writer of deep erudition married to passion for the truth.", "In this abridged volume of the original work Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev makes a creative and compelling case for why the Russian Orthodox Church should reunite with Rome to experience the true fullness of the apostolic, Christian faith ... Soloviev's work is well worth reading for anyone wanting to learn more about Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I have read and re-read it now several times and find that it - like a bottle of wine - gets only better with time."...

"As a person of partly Greek ancestry, and Protestant upbringing, when I contemplated conversion to Roman Catholicism, I asked the priest why I should not become Orthoodox. He smiled and said that would be going in the right direction but why not come all the way home. He gave me this book. Indeed I became a Roman Catholic.

I count as kin and the best of friends and brothers in Christ many Orthodox. I am thankful and do believe that I understand them and their religion better than ever for reading this book. Though it condemns certain errors, Soloviev speaks with a true voice of love for the Orthodox. This personal note is all I can add to the excellent reviews that have gone before mine. I do recommend this book especially to Orthodox Christians who are so very important to the future of all Christendom."

Do you have any idea how patronizing that kind of talk comes off as? I'm not even Orthodox and it makes me want to throw up.

I'd rather be told I'm a hellbound heretic than pat on the head and told what a mischievous little scamp I am.

[Sharbel]

I would strongly encourage this work, it is one of a kind and peerless, it was written by a former Russian Orthodox theologian, a man of the highest repute, named Vladimir Soloviev. He was a tireless advocate for his fellow Orthodox theologians to strongly consider reunion with Rome. In case someone doesn't want to take just my word for it, a few sample reviews from Amazon...

Not everything that echoes so pleasantly in a Catholic echo chamber sounds as well outside of it.  As a fellow Catholic, I understand how this rings to you, but you have to consider the persons reading you if you want to be compellingly persuasive.  Oftentimes we Catholics come across as if pulling rank or throwing the book or reading the riot act to those without Catholic ears.  And, no, coming to the Catholic Church is not a matter of training ears, but of changing hearts, even stubborn hearts.

[Sharbel]

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." (Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus)

St. Irenaeus wrote to Christians in the West and I wonder if he's using a hyperbolic figure of speech to bring the heretics back to the Apostolic See in Rome to whom they owe their faith. 

[ErmyCath]

As for St. Irenaeus, I may be off-base, but it seems to me erroneous to equate “Church of Rome” solely with the person of the pope. The Church of Rome in the quote is a body of people. If he’d intended to refer to the singular person of the bishop, he’d have said so. There are many logical inferences one must make in order to get from what he says to the person of the pope.

[byhisgrace]

"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." (Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus)

St. Irenaeus wrote to Christians in the West and I wonder if he's using a hyperbolic figure of speech to bring the heretics back to the Apostolic See in Rome to whom they owe their faith.

As for St. Irenaeus, I may be off-base, but it seems to me erroneous to equate “Church of Rome” solely with the person of the pope. The Church of Rome in the quote is a body of people. If he’d intended to refer to the singular person of the bishop, he’d have said so. There are many logical inferences one must make in order to get from what he says to the person of the pope.

Yeah, fair enough. I can concede to that.

[RaphaCam]

That's... depressing that someone would believe that. I mean, I know you don't. But that somebody would.

I'm afraid there are much weirder beliefs thriving under the World Christianity umbrella.

• the continuity of the OT High Priests as vicars of God to his flock

Doesn't Orthodoxy also have a form of this belief?

How so?

[Volnutt]

That's... depressing that someone would believe that. I mean, I know you don't. But that somebody would.

I'm afraid there are much weirder beliefs thriving under the World Christianity umbrella.

Well, yeah, obviously. Cryptojew as I am, I just don't like to see Christians denigrate Jerusalem.

• the continuity of the OT High Priests as vicars of God to his flock

Doesn't Orthodoxy also have a form of this belief?

How so?

Isn't that the basis for the Orthodox priesthood? I could've sworn I saw Mor say as much.

The altar is divided from the people as a continuation of the Temple, isn't it?

[RaphaCam]

Isn't that the basis for the Orthodox priesthood? I could've sworn I saw Mor say as much.

The altar is divided from the people as a continuation of the Temple, isn't it?

oh, I see

[Mor Ephrem]

• the continuity of the OT High Priests as vicars of God to his flock

Doesn't Orthodoxy also have a form of this belief?

How so?

Isn't that the basis for the Orthodox priesthood? I could've sworn I saw Mor say as much.

Where?

[Volnutt]

• the continuity of the OT High Priests as vicars of God to his flock

Doesn't Orthodoxy also have a form of this belief?

How so?

Isn't that the basis for the Orthodox priesthood? I could've sworn I saw Mor say as much.

Where?

John the Baptist may have taken a Nazerene vow, and was probably a priest.

What basis is there for saying this? Nothing of the sort is said in scriptures. Josephus lumped him in with the Essenes.

Why would the Scriptures need to specify that John the Baptist was a priest?  His father was the high priest.  As for the Nazirite hypothesis, it's not explicit, but there are similarities between the requirements for living according to this vow and the words of the archangel Gabriel to John's father.   

I can see the latter, at least to the extent the commands of the angel evoke the ancient purity of the Nazarites. I can also grant the former on a technicality, that John would without doubt have been eligible for priesthood. Thanks to you and William for following up on this.

"Eligible for priesthood"?  It was hereditary.  He was the only son of his high priest father. 

Our friend Vanhyo's zeal to prove Jesus was a priest in order to erect a protective hedge around his long hair to keep the heretics away was a bit misguided, but in the liturgical traditions there are allusions to the passing on of the priesthood to Christ from John when the latter placed his hands on the Lord's head at his baptism in the Jordan.  That allusion may be more poetic or allegorical than anything else, but the implication is that the priesthood is one, stretches back from Moses until today, and the Christian (i.e., Orthodox) priesthood is the only legitimate heir of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.  But you couldn't make such an allusion at all if John wasn't a priest in the first place.

Emphasis mine.

[Mor Ephrem]

Emphasis mine.

Thanks.  I don't see "vicars of God" in that quote, though.

[Volnutt]

Emphasis mine.

Thanks.  I don't see "vicars of God" in that quote, though.

Ok, I was just thinking of the idea of the Orthodox priesthood as a continuation of the Levitical one.

But, doesn't the whole idea that the priest needs to look like Jesus (long hair, beards, no physical blemishes, etc) imply a sort of vicarhood?

[Mor Ephrem]

Emphasis mine.

Thanks.  I don't see "vicars of God" in that quote, though.

Ok, I was just thinking of the idea of the Orthodox priesthood as a continuation of the Levitical one.

But, doesn't the whole idea that the priest needs to look like Jesus (long hair, beards, no physical blemishes, etc) imply a sort of vicarhood?

Priests do not need to have long hair.  It's not even a "good thing to seriously consider adding to your life", let alone a requirement. 

Re: "physical blemishes", I'd have to know what exactly you have in mind.  There are canons that require candidates for ordination to be without certain physical conditions, but that has more to do with ensuring the candidate is able to perform the duties of the ministry than it does with "looking like Jesus". 

[Volnutt]

Emphasis mine.

Thanks.  I don't see "vicars of God" in that quote, though.

Ok, I was just thinking of the idea of the Orthodox priesthood as a continuation of the Levitical one.

But, doesn't the whole idea that the priest needs to look like Jesus (long hair, beards, no physical blemishes, etc) imply a sort of vicarhood?

Priests do not need to have long hair.  It's not even a "good thing to seriously consider adding to your life", let alone a requirement.

Alright. My mistake.

Re: "physical blemishes", I'd have to know what exactly you have in mind.  There are canons that require candidates for ordination to be without certain physical conditions, but that has more to do with ensuring the candidate is able to perform the duties of the ministry than it does with "looking like Jesus".

I can see how dwarfism or having only one arm or leg, or being in a wheelchair would interfere. But I've also heard that grievous facial scaring or having only one eye is a disqualification and I don't see how either of those would really interfere with performance of the priestly duties (being blind in both eyes, sure).

[ZackShenouda439]

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?

[Mor Ephrem]

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?

An assassination followed by a conclave in which a successor is elected who will reverse the predecessor's decisions without reversing them so that they're reversed without having been reversed, but it's the Orthodox who are confused. 

[Xavier]

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.

[Volnutt]

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.

[byhisgrace]

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.

[byhisgrace]

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...

[RaphaCam]

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")

[Sharbel]

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.

[Sharbel]

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.

[byhisgrace]

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."

[Sharbel]

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.

[LivenotoneviL]

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?

[Sharbel]

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.

[ErmyCath]

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.

[Agabus]

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."

[Lepanto]

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.

[Agabus]

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?

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.

[Lepanto]

Rest assured that AL did not topple the church 
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.

[Agabus]

Rest assured that AL did not topple the church 

No kidding. It's a mostly unnoteworthy document, but reactionaries gotta react. If something isn't the end of the world, is it anything?

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.

[byhisgrace]

Rest assured that AL did not topple the church 
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.

[WPM]

Either Apostle Peter was first bishop of Rome or went to Alexandria to share authority among brethren.

[Sharbel]

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.