By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
With all constituencies reporting, the Irish citizenry approved a constitutional amendment recognizing gay marriage: Yes 1,201,607; No 734,300.
The Constitution of Ireland permits amendment only by popular vote. A vote of the people for such amendments can provide more legitimacy and acceptance by the public and judging by the margin gay marriage will probably gain acceptance more readily. Nevertheless it does not necessarily engender full acceptance of such partnerships as over seven hundred thousand voters chose otherwise. Some institutions in Irish society will struggle to come to terms with the new direction Ireland is pursuing.
Change has been underway with the Irish government’s approach to the issue. Ireland decriminalized homosexuality twenty two years ago and later in 2010 the state voted to permit same sex civil unions to have same legal status as heterosexual couples. Yet there existed considerable debate as to whether a full marriage would be permitted. In 2013 a constitutional convention formed to explore the possibility of amending the Irish Constitution to allow the right to marriage regardless of gender of either party. In 2014 a referendum was drafted to be posed to the people. Voting occurred yesterday.
Probably the most visible unresolved question will be that of the Catholic Church which is not legally bound presently to perform gay marriages by its clergy or within its facilities. The vast majority of Irish are of the Catholic religion which might put more tradition minded church leaders against a younger demographic which sided with the Yes camp in greater proportions. The higher age demographic was more likely to belong to the No camp.
The issue has the potential to cause a schism within the church because doctrine disallows such marriages and the church’s hierarchy answers to the Vatican which ultimately could set policy contrary to that of Catholic Church in Ireland. The issue of gay marriage has caused fragmentation of protestant churches in the United States.
It is likely that in the afterglow of the passage of the referendum Ireland will experience strong debate while it tries to understand and embrace this change. Time will be ultimately the deciding factor. The younger generation embraces gay marriage. Eventually it will not be a significant matter for controversy but like most controversies first generation likely will be the one to struggle the most.
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Keep judging Inga. As usual, you assume; “If you can’t hear the anguish in this mother’s letter…” without any foundation. As it stands, your opinion is useless to me which of course to any progressive would be taken as “arrogant, condescending, judgmental and rude.” Thanks 🙂
Humility, Olly, you of all people who tell others to show humility are consistently arrogant, condescending, judgmental and rude. If you can’t hear the anguish in this mother’s letter, then you are lacking that quality you hold dear. Hold up that mirror to yourself Olly. Have a blessed day, or perhaps since you’ve practically deified yourself, you can bless yourself too.
Annie,
Show some humility; go look in the mirror and ask yourself the same question.
How do you define better? How do you know anyone you encounter wasn’t something far worse yesterday than they are today? The real problem is you progressives continue to want to mold society into your definition of better and fortunately critical-thinking, self reliant people aren’t accepting it.
Have a blessed day!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freedhearts/2015/05/25/i-am-the-mother-of-a-gay-son-and-ive-taken-enough-from-you-good-people/
“I’m tired of your foolish rhetoric about the “homosexual agenda” and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.
My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.
In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn’t bear to continue living any longer, that he didn’t want to be gay and that he couldn’t face a life without dignity.
You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don’t know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn’t put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it’s about time you started doing that.
At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won’t get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don’t know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.
If you want to tout your own morality, you’d best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I’m puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that’s not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?
You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn’t give their lives so that the “homosexual agenda” could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.
He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn’t the measure of the man.
You religious folk just can’t bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.
How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.
You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.
The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about “those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing” asks: “What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?”
Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?”
**************
Instead of arguing whose religion is better, why not ask yourselves why your religion or belief hasn’t made you a better person?
Thank god for young people.
“This is no different from what happened in 1776 when ‘all men were to be equal’ and the authors of these words kept slaves.”
Isaac,
They also didn’t live under a government chosen by the people to secure inalienable rights. Those self-evident truths are the way civil society should be and they were announcing to the world the vision they had for their future independence.
The next step would be to create the form of government that would lead towards that vision. “In order to form a more perfect union. ” (points back to the vision) Everything done after the DoI is supposed to fulfill the vision.
Cultural transformation takes time and moving towards that vision will always be challenged by people with a different vision. Our greatest obstacle today is the bureaucratic state created over the past 100 years. Unfortunately the only part of that vision most people care about is equality. Most haven’t a clue regarding inalienable rights nor the purpose for government.
If the self-evident truths prove true, eventually the people will have reached the limit on government tyranny and will fight the battle all over again.
we are all personally responsible how we live our lives isaac…and we will all render an account for our behavior and activity when we die…this is also a certainty…people put their faith in all kinds of things…some have faith in the stock market, mutual funds and hunches when picking a horse race…what faith are you affiliated with?
davidm2575,
Amendments require 3/4 of the states for ratification.
You said, “the percentage is 61.2%, less than 2/3rds, which would be 66.7%.”
The problem isn’t the requirement, it’s defeating corruption. Please read the account of the corruption of the 16th Amendment. Who the hell would vote for the income tax? Just the (mis)concept proves corruption –
“Res ipsa loquitur.”
_________________________________________________________________________
“HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY **
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT*
“Bill Benson’s findings, published in “The Law That Never Was,” make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913.
There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states…38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version… Kentucky…acted upon omitted the words “on income”…they weren’t even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state’s approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the “presumptive conclusion” argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment’s trend. You’ve probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you’d be right – they didn’t; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it’s authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota – which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn’t have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).”
it takes no power to run the Catholic Church Isaac…it was vouchsafed from the beginning, when it was created by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said the “Gates of hell Will Not prevail Against it, and He would be with the Church for all-time, unto the consummation of the world! My Church and belief has nothing to do with power, it has to do with servitude and love…forgiveness and living your life for the Creator…power has nothing to do with it…
The only thing you wrote that touches me is your misunderstanding of faith. Some have it and some don’t. I have it. I have always had it. I nurture it and protect it. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the Catholic Church and all their mumbo jumbo, that’s all. Faith is a gift given to all. It is up to the individual to develop that faith. My issue is to develop faith as a personal responsibility and not to simply accept it as developed by others, for power, for whatever, but mostly power. It takes a lot of power to run a religion.
i can’t follow precisely what you are attempting to articulate Isaac, other than you don’t believe in the Catholic Church, or Christianity as a whole…you have a lot of faith in the constitution…good for you…sadly it will only give you a blueprint about the rights and laws that are given to you by this nation…it will not teach you the truths of religion, but than you don’t seem interested in the teaching’s of the Catholic Church, you seem content as your life is now, with what you have discovered and has been provided…as I said, faith is a gift…some have it, some don’t…a mystery…”philosophy and power”…?…
Great Stanton
The only people who believe what you iterated are those that believe. When one chooses to believe one accepts the history of the subject of that belief. I don’t think that I can convince you that what you believe in is founded on philosophy and power and not reality and actual happenings. This is no different from what happened in 1776 when ‘all men were to be equal’ and the authors of these words kept slaves. The issue is the intention and the reality is the moment in time. The intentions of Jesus Christ and his biographers over the past two thousand years has been for the most part an attempt to turn chaos into harmony, whether you like it or not. To do this one must control and to control one needs power and to garner power one must sometimes make concessions to, ‘the devil’. The devil and Jesus exist in the history of mankind and the intentions. This is not about a horned being or a glowing deadman rising to heaven. This is about us.
So, I understand but try to go beyond as well as back before. Along the way I study mankind and nothing as yet has lead be to believe it is anything other than the machinations of mankind.
isaac…a brief response before I commence with barbecuing…these transmission’s do exist…as surely as the people who wrote them and the people who saw them, when they wrote it…many people witnessed Our Lord’s crucifixion, and wrote about it…many people witnessed Our Lord’s resurrection, after his death on Good Friday…people saw it, and wrote about it…you and i weren’t’ at Plymouth Rock, people were, they wrote about it and it has been transmitted as a matter of historical record…you weren’t at Plymouth Rock, but you believe the Pilgrim’s landed on it!…ultimately faith is a gift…some have it, some don’t, why this is, is a mystery…our faith is not based on a series of empiric’s , but on faith…and yet our faith is reasonable, so reasonable in fact, to believe otherwise becomes almost unreasonable!…ultimately Isaac faith is a gift
Great Stanton
I admire your grasp on ecclesiastical history. I have read much myself but not enough to pull it out when I need to make a point. What I am aware of, however, is that “this or that guy ‘writing’ this or that, hundreds of years after the fact in the history of the Church, is more likely to be a revised version of another previous ‘writing’ by another guy. That these guys existed can be proven from third party recordings. What they said has been revised to fit the current doctrine of the Church at various times throughout history. Jesus being married, Mary being a mother, Jesus having a brother, etc regardless of contradictions the history has always been substantiated by a Tertulian or another scribe. The only proof of who wrote what comes from the design of the guardians of the myths.
What is obvious is that historical background or a good story of the origin of a supernatural force is necessary to thread religious power through the populace and time.
David
“It seems a little defective to me to be able to amend a country’s Constitution by a simple majority vote.”
Here you go, in a way that is peculiar to your perspective, making no sense whatsoever. By the way, you got me on the math, but you didn’t score any points in logic.
“Nevertheless, Ireland was smart in making this amendment affect only civil marriages.”
This has been the objective in every country and case where gays wish to participate in the civil workings of the law regarding taxes, inheritance, ‘next of kin’ issues, etc. I have yet to read about a situation where gay equality has forced any religion to admit them, marry them, etc.
“Churches cannot be subject to discrimination lawsuits like they would in our country. This is basically one law for the secular people and another law for the religious. No equality in law is present here at all.”
This is entirely about equality before the law, the only law that dominates and should dominate, the secular law, the law that is the result of a 62% or a 66% majority of opinion, the same law that protects the freedom of and from religion.
“Ultimately, laws like this that do not affect everyone equally will lead to more civil unrest. Ireland has been a boiling pot for such in the not too distant past. I expect more turmoil down the road as people become more polarized toward their own ideologies.”
It was the civil unrest that lead to the legalizing of gay marriage. If anything this will lead to a greater cohesion in the Irish culture. Typically when the people, either in an overwhelming majority as seen here, or through their institutions, make a change in their society it is long over due, well received by the majority, and except in the odd case such as prohibition and demonizing pot, added to the advancement of that society.
David, you have stated that your are not of any specific religion. That is extremely difficult to understand given your narrow and specific perspective on all things human.
thus ends “The Great Stanton’s” transmissions for today gentleman…
Dave fortifies himself with anti-catholic rubbish and obvious debunkable “mumbo-jumbo”…what I have provided is “truth”…and when one continues to study and delve deeper, it is clear, ALL roads lead to Rome…the seat of Christendom
It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome, about the year 43 A.D., then went back to Jerusalem after a few years, for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. St. Peter died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom”. Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt by purely monumental evidence…dave would have people believe that St. Peter was in fact not in Rome, rather he was in the British Isles, despite the obvious fact, that nothing, anywhere would lead historian’s to this false belief, contrived solely by those peddling “anti-Catholic” sentiment…good day gentleman
The Great Stanton wrote:
—–
It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome, about the year 43 A.D., then went back to Jerusalem after a few years, for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. St. Peter died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom”. Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt by purely monumental evidence…
—–
Do you know what plagiarism is? Plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own (OED).
Look what I found on somebody else’s blog:
—–
It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence.
—–
You copy and pasted, not even correcting his omission of an ending quote, and you never gave credit to your source. That is not right.
The Great Stanton wrote: “dave would have people believe that St. Peter was in fact not in Rome, rather he was in the British Isles…”
I never said that Peter was NEVER in Rome. I said that Peter was not the first Pope in Rome, and I pointed out how there is more historical evidence for him being in the actual city of Babylon in Assyria (Iraq) as well as later in the British Isles. I have little doubt that Peter also visited Rome, but he was not established there as the first Pope, as some Roman Catholics like you would like for us to believe.
the word lion means invincible, metaphorically speaking it was used to denote the Church’s invincibility and strengh…sorry, you can’t grasp that concept oily…
The doctrine is contained in Christ’s own words to St. Peter, and the early Church was well aware of this fact. Tertullian about the year 200 A.D. wrote concerning St. Paul’s rebuke of St. peter, If Peter was rebuked by Paul, it was certainly for a fault in conduct, but not in his teaching”. St. Cyprian, about 256, wrote of the See of Rome, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence Apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come”. St. Augustine in the 4th century, gave us the famous expression, Rome has spoken: the cause is finished”. The early popes had little need to insist on often upon a doctrine which was denied by none of the faithful. Then Council of Ephesus in 431 thus expressed it’s firm convictions, “No one doubts, nay, it is known to all ages, the Peter , the chief and head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith and foundation of the catholic Church, received the “keys of the kingdom”from Our Lord Jesus Christ…Peter, who even to these our own days, and always in his successors, lives and exercises his authority”. Again, in 451 Pope Leo wrote his decision to all the Bishops of the Church assembled at Chalcedon, and when the letter was read all cried out, “Peter has spoken through Leo”. Thus ends this transmission…
The Great Stanton wrote: “St. Cyprian, about 256, wrote of the See of Rome, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence Apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come”. St. Augustine in the 4th century, gave us the famous expression, Rome has spoken: the cause is finished”. The early popes had little need to insist on often upon a doctrine which was denied by none of the faithful. ”
Unfortunately, you just believe Catholic propaganda. From your perspective, your church started in 33 AD. From the perspective of the Orthodox Christians, your Catholic Church started sometime around 1054 when the bishop in Rome and the bishop in Constantinople excommunicated each other over the bishop in Rome usurping a position of authority that did not belong to him. The bishop in Rome demanded that all the other bishops and churches submit to him, and hence started the Roman Catholic church.
In regards to your misquotations above, neither St. Cyprian nor St. Augustine said the things you claim, nor did they believe in the papal infallibility that you claim. The seat of Peter was considered extended to all the bishops, not just the bishop in Rome.
Consider the following article for a more thorough knowledge on this matter.
Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example
… …
Cyprian did indeed speak of the “seat of Peter,” in Latin, the “cathedra Petri.” … But it is just here that we learn how important it is to study church history as a discipline, not as a mere tool to be used in polemic debate. … Cyprian (and the North African church as a whole for the span of centuries) believed the “chair of Peter” referred to all bishops in all churches across the world. Cyprian, for example, claimed to sit upon the “cathedra Petri” as did all bishops. For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers (emphasis added).
This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians. Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology, vol. 2, p. 375), “Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a single body.” And a little later Quasten cites the words of an African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL 3, 1, 436).
Quasten then comments:
From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles….No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).
Quasten goes on to note that Cyprian did see Rome as an important see, however,
…even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59,14).
… …
Even less excusable is the constant use of Augustine’s comments in Sermon 131, quoted by Keating as “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” Keating puts these words in quotes, indicating that Augustine actually said this. He places it in the context of Papal Infallibility. It is clearly his intention to communicate to his readers that Augustine 1) said these words, and 2) was speaking about the subject in his sermon.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Augustine never said what Keating quotes. In fact, here is the actual Latin text of the final section of Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734:
Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.
Translated, it reads,
. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.
These comments are in reference to the heresy of Pelagianism, which Augustine had been battling in the church in North Africa. This sermon, delivered September 23, 416, begins, ironically, with an exposition of John 6:53 that is directly contradictory to modern Roman teaching on the doctrine of transubstantiation. Since so few take the time to actually read the contexts of the statements about which arguments are based in patristic sources, I provide the first two sections of this sermon, which show us the direction that Augustine was taking:
… …
http://vintage.aomin.org/Sermo131.html