Today is the feast of the Chair of Peter, celebrating the enduring office of the Papacy that Jesus entrusted to the Church in Matthew 16, John 21, and elsewhere. Non-Catholics often question the Church’s interpretation of these Scriptures, but there’s no denying the reality of papal primacy in how the early Church actually operated in history. The praxis of the early Church from the beginning is eloquent testimony that the Catholic interpretation of the Petrine ministry is the original one.
A great example of this is an incident that arose during the reign of Pope Victor I, circa 198 AD. Some bishops in the Eastern wing of the Catholic Church had been celebrating Easter on a different date than what had been the norm in the West. Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate these prelates from Asia Minor, unless they fell back in line with the Roman celebration of Easter.
Some questioned aspects of Pope Victor’s decision – the great Saint Irenaeus, author of the apologetic masterwork, Against Heresies, for one. But no one questioned his authority to do such a thing – not even the Eastern bishops themselves. The fact that they didn’t is damaging to the non-Catholic view that the Church’s bishops have no leader among themselves. Just as surely as Peter was the captain of the Apostolic band, his successor, the Pope, has always been the leader of his fellow bishops.
As Irenaeus himself so eloquently put it,
Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions (the apostolic succession of bishops) 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) 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 indicating) 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 (Rome) on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere…
– Against Heresies, 3, 3, 2
Julie, thank you for posting your queotisn and response. This has been something that I have been struggling with as well. On one hand I know that the Church sees marriage as joining of 2 souls to become 1 with one of the main focus of that marriage is to have children. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with being able to designate someone you love as being able to make medical decisions for you if you are unable, ability to avoid estate taxes when a person you lived with for 30 years passes away or have someone you can confide in. With the way the laws are set up the only way to achieve this is through marriage (unless you can afford a lawyer to prepare legal documents and this will only take care of some of these issues). The Church is not against love. It isn’t against two people of the same sex living a life together. What it is against is sex between two men or two women because that type of sex is not capable of producing children. So the way I see it is there are really 2 separate issues here that people are confusing as one. The Church is arguing that marriage between 2 men or 2 women is not right in God’s eyes because no children can come of that marriage. Don’t forget we refer to God as Our Father and Mary as Blessed Mother. The gay right movement is focused on the legal benefits of marriage. Being able to visit a partner in the hospital, avoiding tax penalties, provide health insurance to someone they love. I personally believe the gay right movement focusing on marriage and not civil unions is because they feel they would not be treated equally (it would be like a second class marriage). I do see the argument for this. We know how the south was segregated for so many years and how separate but equal was not truly equal. To me the real way to solve this to provide an easy way for someone to designate another that they would like to have the legal ability to make decisions (health, legal or otherwise), ability to designate one person (other then one’s children) that they would like to add to their health care plan, and the right to provide the house 2 people have shared for years to avoid being taxed outrageously when the other person passes. To me this would be more inline with what Jesus would be in favor of. Don’t forget that Jesus told John to take care of Mary after He rose from the dead. In our current legal and health system, John would not have been able to visit Mary if she was in the hospital or make legal decisions if she was not able to do so. I personally don’t think that is what Jesus would have wanted and we should look for a way to provide the benefits that have been attached to those that are married in the government eyes to those that do not fit into the one man/one women marriage role, but to those that are single and want to select their best friend of 20 years or two men or two women that chose to share a life together. As Catholics, we need to stop believing that the best way to stop sin is through the legal system and start looking for ways to support and truly show love to one another.