That's painfully close, but in part painful for reason this capital "P" primacy idea, was an "idea" of men, not of instituted by God, for when Christ walked the earth in human form and was able to answer directly, in more than one place in the scriptures, He warned or led us against considering such things -- in such manner, for although it [the above] does sound nice, not dominating and the like, the very capitalization of the word primacy shows us a much different face, all at the same time, with such as the term operationalized giving away the game -- that game being the same as ever, Rome not giving one inch in regards to it's own demand that it be accepted as foremost among all, for all time. "Period" as has otherwise been much repeated...
No, I cannot agree to things, on terms such as those. If any misled in this regard (I'm shaking my head, at this point wondering), then they can believe what they will, as to their own, and I will yet speak for myself, even as God's own gift(s) allows...and also requires, come what may...
We (the Christian world, as it was) went from some late 3rd & 4th centuries notions of actual and effective primacy being in several places, to primacy+ for one, and then to capital "P" Primacy for only one, with the "only one" pushing for that, doing so not for some other, but for itself/themselves. That's a shorthand version of how the notion of singular primacy flowered (like one of those stink-flowers?) into being.
Better for all to recall that in the upper room, they all sat at the same table with Him. Even there, they dipped their hands to the same dish, Judas too, Christ speaking of Judas doing so having been the manner in which he foretold who it was that be a devil among them. I cannot help but to consider they didn't quite understand at the time, for they had all been sopping from the same dish as it were...
Forgive me for raising objection on this thread, when I had just previous said I would no further -- yet that had been in some acquiescence to just drop the matter, on this thread. But I tell you what. It's not over. No, the things you have "declared" truth (but which many of are not, being untrue for how they are being sought to apply) do not "stand" for some reason that I did not go chasing down all the bunny-trails, capturing each little rabbit (item of argumentation) and wringing all the scrawny necks. Attempting to do so, I know from experience (and from recent dream) leads one to cross paths also with deadly, fanged vipers -- which even if one amputate one's own right hand high at the wrist, can still leave poison enough to kill.
I should have known--- in fact did suspect that it would not be the end of it, and that your previous was something of a polite effort to get me to agree to having one or both hands tied behind my back, while you once again restated you own views, but did not quite expect the wresting of my own agreement to them -- by restating my own "view" in your own words, for you had led me to believe we had both said enough...
While I could offer some thanks for yourself being polite about it, the methodology displayed throughout this thread as on others where we had been continuing this same or similar conversation, itself highlights the difficulties with any type of discussion or hopes of finding agreement with those of Rome --- for by every twist and turn imaginable and then some, it is sought for all to bow to Romish preeminence with nothing holding that in check but as I have previously said --"the goodness of their (Romanist) hearts".
Getting my own views a bit wrong --- though I am condemning the effort for what I see as some aspects of the "getting" --- I can otherwise also forgive you for that, for towards the latter portion of our discussion here, it had turned to some contemplation of rapprochement, that of the Latin Church with all others.
"They" may be able to dictate to those amid their own ecclesiastical community -- but no one else much cares for that, and for good reasons, though those may be mixed in with some not-so-good, which was how the world got into this fix, in the first place -- that very mixing of the holy with unholiness of the worst sort --- which worst is the type engaged in, in God's own name.
Where considerations along lines such as the above may leave negotiations, say between Rome, and those also ancient ekklesia traditions, is anyone's guess.
Yet such as you outlined [highlighted at the top of this note] --- what is it but Rome's current & best pipedream? But with this engaged in when she cannot more simply just swallow them whole? For they certainly do show propensity for that in the manner Ordinariates were established among a few Anglican congregations, a setting up of Romeward tilt within buildings and amongst congregations -- if majority vote of congregation could be secured to lean towards it -- but which will be those persons last say on much of anything beyond management of cupcake/bake sale committee.
Very well then. Here again on these FR RF pages, is The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 Compiled by William Webster, himself adding or declaring such work as his there as being The Most Extensive Documentation of the Patristic Understanding of the Rock of Matthew 16 in the English Language, Spanning the Third to the Eighth Centuries.
The latter above italicized may be bold talk (and I take it Webster not exactly a one-eyed fatman?) but if the boldly declared be not true --- then feel free to show us all (Webster included) differently.
Any other sort of talk focusing only upon those times and places where support for some concept such as Petrine Primacy be passed only to one gathering or location of ekklesia --- only one "church" among the several (or seven? going all the way back to the seven lamps in original sanctuary, with that tent, being much literally inside yet a larger tent of sorts) can be easily enough falsified when going back to the earliest of those who are referred to as Church Fathers.
I added ping to GPH for this last note, for reason that in the flow of things here, this seeming agreement we had between ourselves (to stop arguing?) I do hope didn't lead to his own last reply to yourself be fully ignored, for in that reply there can be foundation found also in information found at the link to Webter's gathering of patristic exegesis of Matthew 16.
As Mel Brooks would say --- intense 'In tents'. bwahahaa
Excellent posts Bluedragon! I figured with his own talk of development, their claims are essentially undone. The Romanists on one hand want us to think Papism went back to Peter, but then they also want us to think, at the same time, that their own confessed contradictions to this claim aren’t fatal.
BlueDragon:
And I understand you can’t agree to my understanding of Primacy. I was recognizing your concerns and trying to address them and my suggestion of a change in the operationalization or Function of the Bishop of Rome with said Primacy with respect to the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. I made no such suggestions as to the Catholic Church and Protestantism. My suggestions were in light of your own recognition that Professor Pelikan, while he went back to his Orthodox Roots, was someone who had wished the Orthodox and Catholic Church had made more progress towards reunion. Again, my suggestions were in the context of Rome and the Orthodox East.
The Anglican Ordinaries, as you mentioned were set up by Rome at the request of those Anglicans and they have been allowed to retain much of their Liturgical Heritage that developed since the 16th century from the form of the Roman Rite that was celebrated then [Sarum-Rite Liturgy]. So, Rome did not impose the Roman-Rite Liturgy on the Ordinariate, rather, it allowed them to keep their Liturgy and only make adjustments at the margins to it to ensure doctrinal consistency with the broader Catholic Church.
Again, we will not agree on this question no surprise. However, as I stated in my last few posts, my “polite” posts were in fact an attempt to dial down the heat in this thread. My last post, as this, were not written in a debate counter point fashion, but as an attempt to make a suggestion as to how Rome and the Orthodox could find reunion, which Prof. Pelikan’s Op-ed clearly was about, as you yourself admitted.
So, I am done with the debate, point, counter point posts in this thread.