Talk:Papal primacy/Archive 1

old comment

 * "The primacy of the Roman Pontiff is the bishop of Rome's monarchical authority ..."

That's what it said. I changed it. As I read it, I thought it's saying the primacy ... is the bishop of something. The bishop of what? Well, whatever it is stated to be the bishop of, it is incorrect; the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is certainly not the bishop of anything.

Q: The bishop of what?

A: Of Rome's monarchical authority.

That's what it said. Now it took all of two second's before I realized an alternative parsing was intended. That is why I changed it. Michael Hardy 22:33, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article seems to be a defence for the popes primacy, and does not reflect current knowledge of the early church (who was governed by presbyters) or our current knowledge of the so called primacy of Peter. Peters primacy is violently denied by Paul, who claim there are no apostels who have any authority over him. Furthermore when we read both acts and Pauls letters we can read that the first leader of the church was James the just, the brother of the lord. He calls both Paul and Peter to meetings, and he always get the last word in all discussion. When we read acts we will discover that Peter is only mentioned early and dissapear from the scene, it is Paul who seem more likely to have primacy in the church after James. If we read the church fathers we would discover that the popes did not have any primacy outside Italy in the fist centuries of the church, not until Leo this claim was made. Jesus says in the bible when asked who should be their leader, and he replies that there should be none. The first shall be the last. Peter is in the bible given the job of converting jews, and it is Paul who converts gentiles. Paul writes that the church was already in Rome when he got there the first time. So neither Paul nor Peter founded the church in Rome. In Pauls letter to the romans he greets many people in Rome, but he does not mention Peter at all. There are no evidence at all for Peter ever even being to Rome. According to early chuch tradition he was bishop in Antioch. Furthermore the famous renaming of Peter is an insertion into the bible. All mentioning of a church from Jesus must be doubted. There was no church before the crucificton.How could Peter understand what Jesus was meaning. This is an catholic insertion to bolster it claims for primacy. It is really dissapointing to read articles like this, i thougt this site would be objectiv and follow simple scientific guidelines like being true to your sources and not rehash the priests lies. Your salvation comes from within and no church or priest can give it to you. OH 62.113.158.66 03:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of them opt to give the primacy of honor to Constantinople's Patriarch instead.
Why does you mention Saint John Chrysostom as a defender of papal authority. You might as well mention Paul as an advocate against the papacy. The early church leaders did not accept any primacy from Rome. When the roman bishops started making such claim they were rejected by close to all priests and bishops. The clementines is not written by Clement, the alleged fourth pope (according to some catholic sources he is the second pope). Letter of Clement to the Corinthians is an anomyous letter and does not claim to be written by Clement, this is a claim with no historical foundation only a late claim made by the catholic church. The popes primacy was established during the middle ages by pious lying. The Vatican had forgers who worked around the clock to forge anything from the will of Constatine to the Bible itself. The only comfort is that their hatred of learning meant that they did not do a very good job. OH 62.113.158.66 03:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird statement
This statement: The Saviour never introduced Peter to the other disciples by saying: 'See, I have appointed Peter as My successor; receive him as your Pope and head of the Church, call him Holy Father, honour and obey him.' On the contrary, Jesus made the following positive declaration, which is diametrically opposed to Roman teaching: 'But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shalt exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.' Matthew 23:8-12.

Sounds odd, unencyclopedic, and POV. It also seems like it could fall under original research too. It should probably be changed. - DNewhall 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the statement above because it was added by the person who wrote those rants earlier in the page (OH/62.113.158.66). The statement seems was just adding some of those rants to the article. - DNewhall 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

POV reference to Chrysostom?
The phrasing of the following statement in the introduction seems trying to slide in POV under the guise of objectivity.
 * The present Eastern Orthodox churches, contrary to the teaching of, amongst others, Saint John Chrysostom, consider that the Bishop of Rome has a mere primacy of honor that, since the East-West Schism, is no longer in force.

The "contrary to the teaching of ..." clause is inappropriate here. The way this is phrased comes off sounding like "This is what these guys thought even thought nobody credible agreed with them." It serves no useful purpose in an introduction. Such discussions would be appropriate in a section discussing controversies. --Mcorazao 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire article is one big POV essay of "hard-line" Catholic apologetics that isn't even supported by modern Catholic scholarship, as exemplified, ironically enough, by the Schatz book in the references. Any changes you make to ameliorate this POV will greatly improve the article.  -- Cat Whisperer 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Disscussion
I have noticed that the comments on this page are rather negative and not very befitting a Neutral encyclopaedia. Too many people it seems live in communities or phantasy worlds where the only common link between individuals is Anti-Catholicism. Why this kind of hate speech is tolerated is beyond me but I do notice that is a Catholic were to place anything otherwise objectionable to there fanatics then it is immediatly removed. Does anyone else here the words bias and religous discrimination floting in the air?

If some kind person would like to improve this article with factual information then here is a free tidbit. Technically speaking, the authority of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome rest with him not because he is the bishop of Rome but because of his person. What this means is that should the Bishop of Rome decide to for whatever reason to leave Rome and appoint another Bishop in his place, that new bishop would not have the authority of the Pope and would not be a successor to Peter. The fact that the Pope resides in Rome is incidental. Following this line of thought, suppose the Pope were to not take up another see but were to be a wanderer. In such a case, no city would have a claim to the temporal head of the Church but of course Catholics can very well choose a new Pope. Suppose, as was originally the case with Rome itself, that the Pope leave Rome and go to a city that did not have a Bishop and established himself there. Then the Bishop of Rome would no longer have the authority. Then if the Pope were to die in the new city, then the next bishop of the new city would have the authority of the Pope. Now you may be thinking that you understand and that there is no need to go on but let me put one more situation on the table so that everyone, even my Greek friends, will see clearly the thinking that surrounds this doctrine of the Catholic Church. Suppose that the pope were to move to a city that already had a bishop but the Pope decided to take the see for himself. This of course would be very rude but is possible for the Pope to do so. This exact thing in fact happened when the Pope moved back to Rome from France. Suppose the Pope were to move to Constantinople. Certainly the the Greek leaders there would not recognize his authority but Catholics the world over would. Then suppose the Pope were to die, Catholics would have to elect a new Pope. One option, which is always avaliable in fact, is to elect the Greek leader to the post as he is already established in the city. If such an event were to occur then the Greek Patriarch would become the Pope and would remain Pope either until he died or told the Catholics that he specifically did not want the job or the title. Suppose the Pope and the Greek Patriarch were to die on the same day, then the interesting question would be if the synod that elects the new Patriach is also electing the new Pope or if Catholics would have to hold a seperate election for a new Pope.

Oh how the mind can wonder. Of course almost none of this is likely to happen any time soon. My point with all of this is to illistrate as effectivly as I can in a language that is not my native language that this page really should be combined with the page on the Primacy of Peter and his Successors. The Primacy of Rome is incidental and can change at the will of the Pope. If one of the Patriachs of one of the Eastern Catholic Rites is elected as Pope then he could very well keep his see that he is already in and not move to Rome or celebrate the Latin Rite. In such a case, the head of the Latin Rite would be a different person then the Pope. If any of these suggestions were to happen, it would probably mean the splitting of titles of the pope. The Pope is bishop of Rome as long as he is the Bishop of Rome but if he moves then that changes. He is the Patriach of the west or the Latin Rite but if he changes then he would have to give that title to someone else.

Of all the titles that the Pope has, only the one that says he is the successor to Peter grants him the authority he excersises. All of the other titles really could be considered transferable to another person besided the Pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates content from History of the Papacy
A substantial amount of the content in this article is exactly the same as History of the Papacy. Perhaps they should be merged in some way? Kwertii (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Primus inter parTes?
Surely it should be "Primus inter pares", i.e. "First among equals". NickS (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Early belief in the Church is that Jesus granted Peter jurisdiction over the Church
Where is the proof for this claim. Both Jesus and Paul calls Peter Satan. Paul tells us that no other apostel is more important than he is. Paul even rebukes Peter in public. The Bible tells us that when the disicples asked for who their leader should be, Jesus answered that they should all be the same. Furthermore the leader of the church after Jesus death was James the Just, the brother of the lord. The clementines are catholic forgeries probably from the second century and gives no truth about the conditions in the first century. This uncritical use of catholic forgeries is not at all reassuring. How can we trust this site if it only tells catholic pious lies, a term invented by the catholic church.OH

First of all, where does it say that James was the leader of the church? Now, I don't care about the Apocrypha and all that stuff. According to the KJV New Testament, it is Peter that is the one who is the Pastor. Multiple, multiple times it was Peter who was the moderator of the services. He was the mouthpiece of the church.

The only problem with all this is, there is no "leader" of the Church, except Jesus Christ. He does not need an "earthly leader," he's the Son of God! And, for the record, according to the New Testament, all members are equal. In fact, it says that the Bishops (Pastors, Ministers) would be the least of them. So, if James was the so-called "most important," then he would be the last to lead.

And, by the way, when Jesus "called" Peter Satan, he wasn't claiming that Peter was really Satan in disguise, he was telling Satan to leave Him alone, and not to speak through Peter anymore. Joshua Ingram (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Weird statement
My statements might seem strange and unfamilar to a catholic. But this article is totally biased. There is no mentioning of the common protestant arguements against the primacy of the Roman pontiff. I just copied and pasted a short insertion with maybe a little biased viewpoint against the Catholic church, but i really think this article at least should mention Matthew 23: 8-12 'But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shalt exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.' Matthew 23:8-12. and the fact that Peter is not mentioned in any of Pauls letters to the romans. Paul greets relatively many christians in Rome. In the following comments i will copy and paste from other Wikipedia articles. The Didache is mentioned in the article as proof of a hierarchical church in first centuries. But if we look in your article about the Didache we will find this statement: The Didache is unique amongst early Christian texts by its emphasis on itinerant ministers, which it describes as apostles and prophets; while it provides for a local ministry of bishops and deacons, these are described in far more detail in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome. Why doesnt the text reflect that this is not information commonly found in first century christianity. Here is your comments about the local ministery: The local ministers are bishops and deacons, as in Paul's epistle Philippians (1:1) and Clement. Presbyters are not mentioned, and the bishops are clearly presbyter-bishops, as in Acts, 20, and in the Pauline Epistles. But when Ignatius wrote in 107, or at the latest 117, the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons were already considered necessary to the very name of a Church, in Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome. It is probable that in Clement's time there was as yet no monarchical episcopate at Corinth, though such a state did not endure much past Clement's time in any of the major Christian centers. On this ground, the Didache is most likely set either in the first century or a rural church. The itinerant ministry is obviously yet more archaic. In the second century prophecy was a charisma only and not a ministry, except among the Montanists. Why doesnt this article reflect the nature of the bishops in the first century. My next point is the alleged letter of Clement to the Corinthians. In your article about Clement, the fourth pope, i found this under writings: Clement is perhaps best known by a letter to the Church in Corinth, often called 1 Clement. It is not clear that it was written by Pope Clement I, as is traditionally believed. This letter doesnt even claim to be written by Clement as is it anonymous. The following comments are taken from: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

Information on First Clement On the internal evidence for the dating of 1 Clement, Welborn writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 1060):

The epistle is customarily dated to the end of the reign of Domitian (95 or 96 C.E.). In the first sentence of the letter, the author explains that the Roman church has been delayed in turning its attention to the dispute at Corinth by "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1). This statement is usually interpreted as an allusion to a persecution through which the church at Rome has just been passing. Since chap. 5 speaks of the Neronian persecution as something long past, the sporadic assaults of Domitian must be meant. But the langauge of 1:1 is so vague that one may doubt whether it refers to persecution at all (Merrill 1924: 160); and the evidence for a persecution under Domitian is tenuous (Merrill 1924: 148-73). In letters and speeches on concord, one often finds an apologetic formula like that which introduces 1 Clement; it was customary for one who gave advice on concord to excuse his delay by reference to personal or domestic hindrances (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.2; Aelius Aristides Or. 24.1; Socratic Ep. 31).

Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):

Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.

Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, "These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us." Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of "bishops and deacons" (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be "a rule of succession" for bishops and deacons who have "fallen asleep" (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.

Alvar Ellegård has argued for a date as early as the sixties of the first century for a few reasons in his Jesus: the Temple cult is mentioned in the present tense (pp. 38-39), Peter and Paul are mentioned as of "our generation" (pp. 39-40), and the letter seemed to have been written during a persecution, perhaps that of Nero (p. 40). On the other hand, as is pointed out with Hebrews, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE. The reference to "our generation" is simply a contrast between the Christian era and the previously mentioned era of ancient Judaism. Finally, the supposed reference to persecution may be a literary device, as pointed out by Welborn. Besides, there were also persecutions under Domitian, Trajan, and other emperors.

The author writes because certain factions in Corinth have not given proper respect to the bishops and deacons and have set up new leaders in their place. On the occasion of the epistle, Welborn states (op. cit., p. 1059):

Whatever the causes of the conflict in Corinth, money seems to have been involved. Contrasting the former humility of the Corinthians with the ambition which has now given rise to strife, the author states that the Corinthians had once been 'satisfied with the provision (ephodios) of Christ' (2:1). Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to Soter, observed that it had been the custom of the Roman church from the beginning 'to send contributions (ephodia) to many churchs in every city' (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.23.10). From the Roman point of view of Clement, the younger generation of leaders at Corinth are dissatisfied with the provision for their church. What role did this play in the revolt against the presbyters? Were the established presbyters accused of embezzlement? Did the new leaders seek another contribution, to replace the funds their predecessors stole? Polycarp reports that the presbyter Valens was deposed from office for "avarice" (Ad Phil. 11). The unrest of the 1st and 2d centuries almost always had economic causes; and the agreements which brought strife to an end usually included concrete provisions which served the interests of all parties.

This is only some of the points where this article dont give a fair description of its sources. At the very least normal arguements against the primacy should be incorporated to the texr. I accept that mine insertion probably wasnt the best way, but it seems i got somebodys attention. Matthew 23: 8-12 should at least be mentioned. OH

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Peter, Paul, James, and all those, maybe they ran the Church that Jesus started, and then someone broke off from the original, real Church and started calling themselves the real, true church? That maybe the Catholics are a breakaway of the true Church? Has anyone read the characteristics of the true Church from the New Testament? If you look closely, they don't come anywhere near matching any kind of church but one: Old Time Missionary Baptists. Joshua Ingram (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Data From A Church Historian
Writing about Pope Leo I, church historian Ernest Trice Thompson states the following: None of the early church fathers interpreted Jesus' words to Peter to mean that to Peter and to his successors, the bishops of Rome, full authority in the church had been granted; this, however, was the claim of Leo. It was a claim that bishops in the older parts of the [Roman] empire would never accept.

Quote Source: Thompson, Ernest T. (1965). Through The Ages: A History Of The Christian Church. The CLC Press.

Dodo David 22:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Dodo David


 * Does Mr. Thompson site anything to prove this? Any scholar can push his/her opinion by stating anything they want, after all. Evidence is needed to back up his statement, his statement is worthless.Glorthac (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The articles are about the same thing, and the Petrine doctrine page is orphaned. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, sorry but I disagree. The Petrine doctrine is a small part of this article.  If you merge that article in here, it serves to make this article bigger and it's getting pretty big as it is.  This article should reference Petrine doctrine.  --Richard (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind. How about having an article titled Historical development of the doctrine of Papal Primacy?  The new article would factor out the historical portion of this article thus leaving the scope of this article to deal more with the current status of the doctrine.  Petrine doctrine could be merged into the new article since it is mostly historical in content.  --Richard (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Papal supremacy are same thing. Srinivasasha (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Lima (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support :Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Papal supremacy are same thing. Perhaps the merged title should contain a bracketed phrase like "Papal supremacy (claimed)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support :Ooh, can I support this too? =) Glorthac (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Papal supremacy are not the same thing. The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff is as dogmatic, theological and juridical concept of the munus petrinum based on the ecclesiogical title of Successor of the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ. Papal supremacy is only a political concept. Mikejos.ssp (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejos.ssp (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Disagree with Mikejos above. While he's correct in saying that the phrase "Papal supremacy" is mainly political, nevertheless, it derives its force and claimed legitimacy from the "Primacy of the Roman Pontiff" doctrine. Without this doctrine, "Papal supremacy" could have no force. It is no more than saying that the pope claims supremacy in both spiritual and temporal matters. In which case, the two should be merged into the same article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Disagree with Laurel above. The "Papal supremacy" was founded in the Donation of Constantine (Donatio Constantini or Constitutum Constantini) who is a false document for the recuperation of the patrimonium Petri. Never the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff was founded in this document. The dogmatic foundation was in the Petrine doctrine of the Primacy of saint Peter expressed in the New Testament (see Math 16:18; Lk 22,32; John 21,15-17). It is based on the munus petrinum and expressed by the dogmatic constitution of Pastor aeternus in the First Vatican Council. The Constitutum Constantini has a relative value in political thinking of the Papacy. We must distinguish between Papacy (Papatus) and Primacy (Primatus).Mikejos.ssp (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejos.ssp (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

POV (unrelated to the 5 October 2011 POV tag
There is a huge POV issue in one section which talks about the primacy in the 6th century. It uses D'Aubigne with an incomplete citation. Upon further review I discovered that this book was a polemical Protestant one often used by Seventh Day Adventists. I therefore edited the section to eliminate the POV and to be more objective.97.114.178.44 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am talking with a colleague about the title "Rector" for the Pope. There is no citation given. I have found this mentioned on Seventh Day Adventist websites, but nowhere else. We will look around and see if we can find any reference.97.114.178.44 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Latin overload
The lead has become vitually unreadable. nobody but Curial officials and Latin anoraks could understand most of those arcane Latin terms. Simple English needs to be applied to the lead. Let the arcane Latin terms appear in the main body (if they really really must).Let the lead be more accessible for mere mortals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)