Can you prove papal supremacy

[truthlovingorthodox]

I was born orthodox but I thought I would hear both sides to the story and this place would be best place to get (name removed by moderator)ut from as many Catholics who are knowledgeable if all could direct a priest to help me or do you recommend I visit priests too.

It is possible irenaeus taught papal supremacy when he said every church must agree with Rome on account of its most preeminent authority but he never mentioned only Peter but Peter and Paul and it may be because that church was most correct at the time unlike other churches because it was where Peter and Paul said bishops should gather to establish doctrine and other churches have to look what was established then or they must not contradict what was already established by Peter and Paul then.

We don’t know it says everyone must agree with Rome the term convierge was used which may mean must go to as it was the capital where orthodoxy was unto that point preserved they should go to obtain the truth from them as irenaeus confirms the Roman church was most orthodox at that time and he would know if polycarp taught him so they only have to agree at that time because it is orthodox.

It is not the source of orthodoxy for they need not agree when it is not orthodox Peter and Paul had already established what is right so in the future they would have to consult that tradition though God would lead the church in all truth yet they need to have the source of the teaching for God to help them come to the knowledge of the truth but the church is not guaranteed to be infallible.

They must consult the infallible teachings of the church from the beginning for it to be able to it is up to everyone to stick to what has already been infallible and not to invent upon tradition of Peter and Paul which all churches now agree on for they keep to the early church fathers before the split but if they didn’t they would have to keep to that tradition as it is most obviously biblical and God ensures what early church kept in Rome was kept forever.

But why did Paul say the divisions based on I am of Cephas and I am of Paul is wrong ? Even if it was because they were saying they were following Peter instead of Christ through peter such as when he errs or if they thought only being baptised by Peter is valid and not by Paul if he acknowledges peter is head how can you prove that that is what the text is saying or that Peter was in fact head there is no where in scripture where Jesus directly says all of you will be ruled by Peter and with his successors either but Jesus said the kings of the gentiles exercise authority but it shall not be so among you

 

[jochoa]

Hello,

I have accepted Jesus giving Peter the Keys as proof, with Peter being the first Pope, and Francis being the current Pope.

However, for yourself, I wonder if the person/group who declared the collection of books you accept as the Holy Bible might help you connect the dots to Papal Supremacy.

The Catholic Faith accepts the Collection of Books declared by Pope Damasus (37th Pope) and the Council of Rome to be the Holy Bible.

Who do you say?

 

[Magnanimity]

I don’t know how tight of a proof you’re looking for, but St Thomas Aquinas addresses this question directly in his summa contra gentiles, Bk 4, ch 76 “ON THE EPISCOPAL POWER AND THAT THEREIN ONE IS THE HIGHEST”

For your perusal, here are some of the arguments that St. Thomas gives. See what you think. I think the arguments are sound. The only realistic suggestion one could make as an alternative is a rule of an odd-numbered set of supreme bishops/patriarchs (something like the U.S. supreme court - where the odd number always guarantees a tie-breaker when the group cannot fully agree).

Although people are set apart according to differing dioceses and states, yet, as the Church is one, so must the Christian people be one. Therefore, as for the specific congregation of one Church one bishop is called for who is the head of that Church; so for the entire Christian people there must be one who is head of the entire Church.

Then, too, the unity of the Church requires that all the faithful agree as to the faith. But about matters of faith it happens that questions arise. A diversity of pronouncements, of course, would divide the Church, if it were not preserved in unity by the pronouncement of one. Therefore, the unity of the Church demands that there be one who is at the head of the entire Church.

No one should doubt, furthermore, that the government of the Church has been established in the best way, since He has disposed it by whom “kings reign, and lawmakers decree just things” (Prov. 8:15). But the best government of a multitude is rule by one, and this is clear from the purpose of government, which is peace; for peace and the unity of his subjects are the purpose of the one who rules, and one is a better constituted cause of unity than many. Clearly, then, the government of the Church has been so disposed that one is at the head of the entire Church.

The militant Church, moreover, derives from the triumphant Church by exemplarity, hence, John in the Apocalypse (21:2) saw “Jerusalem coming down out of heaven”; and Moses was told to make everything “according to the pattern that was shown you in the mount” (Ex. 25:40; 26:30). But in the triumphant Church one presides, the one who presides over the entire universe—namely, God—for we read in the Apocalypse (21:3): “They shall be His people and God Himself with them shall be their God.” Therefore, in the militant Church, also, there is one who presides over things universally.

 

[Genesis315]

But why did Paul say the divisions based on I am of Cephas and I am of Paul is wrong ? Even if it was because they were saying they were following Peter instead of Christ through peter such as when he errs or if they thought only being baptised by Peter is valid and not by Paul if he acknowledges peter is head how can you prove that that is what the text is saying or that Peter was in fact head there is no where in scripture where Jesus directly says all of you will be ruled by Peter and with his successors either but Jesus said the kings of the gentiles exercise authority but it shall not be so among you

St. Paul was speaking about baptism. Jesus says whoever will be the greatest, must be a servant (not lord it over the others). Note, Jesus is saying one will be “greatest” and then saying how that person should act. He doesn’t deny one will be greatest. See also the parable He tells to St. Peter in Luke 12:41-48. Note, in that parable He says a chief servant will be in charge of the Master’s household until the Master returns. Our Master’s (Christ’s) household (the Church) will have a chief servant until He returns.

Jesus makes Peter head of all in John 21:15-17 where He entrusts His whole flock to St. Peter.

St. John Chrysostom explains this passage:

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 88 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

This primacy was never considered to be anywhere other than Rome, even when the imperial seat was moved. The permanence of the primacy in the Church logically necessitates all our other doctrines on the primacy. It ensures the oneness of the Church, being fixed like a rock in the true Church. The EO Churches are a plurality of Churches, not one, as can be seen in the current schism and other past ones where Church X is in communion with Y, Y with Z, but X and Z are not: X=Y=Z ≠X. This is only possible with a plurality of Churches. See also their never ending jurisdictional disputes, like those that derailed the Synod of Crete, which was supposed to be pan-orthodox. Even synodality requires the primacy.

There are plenty of examples of the Fathers speaking of the primacy and Roman bishops claiming it vigorously. The Church never condemned or opposed this and even the Easter Orthodox Churches still celebrate as Saints its most stringent advocates (like St. Leo).

 

[CRM_Brother]

It is possible irenaeus taught papal supremacy when he said every church must agree with Rome on account of its most preeminent authority but he never mentioned only Peter but Peter and Paul

The reason St. Irenaeus put so much emphasis upon Rome with regards to St. Peter and St. Paul does not necessarily have to do with the theology taught by the Church of Rome at the time but rather it is in regards to how the ministries of Peter and Paul had been passed down within the Church of Rome.

Contrary to popular belief, Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. Before Peter’s arrival, Paul had visited the city on his way to Spain (whether he actually made it to Spain, we don’t know). Paul had ordained Sts. Linus and Clement as bishops to oversee the Christians of the area. St. Linus was to care for the community within the walls of Rome and St. Clement cared for those Christians in the surrounding communities. When Peter died at Rome, the Church cast lots to determine who would replace Peter as an Apostle, like St. Matthias’s replacement of Judas. This process was overseen by St. Paul. St. Linus was chosen to take up St. Peter’s place among the Apostles. When St. Paul died, lots were cast again for his spot among the Apostles and St. Clement was chosen.

When Linus died, lots were cast again and Cletus was elected. Upon Cletus’s death, the lots cast among the deacons did not fall on any of the candidates no matter how many times they threw the dice. They appealed to St. Clement for advice on how to proceed in recognition of his office as the successor of St. Paul. Finally, the lot fell on St. Clement and from that point forward, not only did the surrounding countryside around Rome fall under the episcopal authority of the City but the Apostolic ministries of Peter and Paul were united.

It was only after hundreds of years that the recognition of the continuity of the Apostolic Pauline ministry fell by the wayside and only Peter’s ministry was popularly recognized. Despite the concept falling out of public favor, the Church of Rome still recognizes the Pauline aspect of the Papacy.

In the modern world, this Pauline ministry is primarily operated through encyclicals. The first true encyclical was from St. Clement, himself, to the Corinthians. This is one of the earliest writings of the Church outside of the Bible and was actually composed before the book of Revelation.

(post 1 of 3)

 

[CRM_Brother]

(post 2 of 3)

it may be because that church was most correct at the time unlike other churches because it was where Peter and Paul said bishops should gather to establish doctrine and other churches have to look what was established then or they must not contradict what was already established by Peter and Paul then.

It is not. This concept of St. Irenaeus is often taken out of context to provide room for interpretations other than the train of thought which St. Irenaeus lays out in his writings. St. Irenaeus is specifically speaking to the concept of Gnosticism. He says that if there were a ‘secret knowledge’ then it would have been passed down to the Apostles. Irenaeus specifically mentions Rome, not as a city, but as an episcopal and Apostolic lineage. He states that if the Apostles were given ‘secret knowledge’ then Peter, as the leader of the Apostles, would definitely retain this knowledge and pass it down to his successors. He specifically recognizes that the bishops of Rome hold the continuity of not only Peter but also Paul. This continuity of the Apostolic ministry is why he says that the world must turn to Rome, not the city but the Church.

We don’t know it says everyone must agree with Rome

When taken in the sense of an Apostolic and episcopal ministry with which Irenaeus originally wrote, converge’s context is fleshed out. Rome is no longer a place but a Apostolic line. It is not the place where theological orthodoxy is currently most observed but rather the lineage in which theological orthodoxy is preserved.

Even within the Roman Church at this point (including their authority over the surrounding communities and bishops held over from Clement’s election), the external practices of the faith were not completely uniform. It was theological unity which was emphasized. Unity within diversity was the general rule within the Roman Church, not only during this period but continuing until the time of Charlemagne. It was in a theological and ministerial sense which Irenaeus describes the world’s convergence upon Rome.

 

[CRM_Brother]

(post 3 of 3)

They must consult the infallible teachings of the church from the beginning

Yes. Everyone must do this. Irenaeus, however, is stating that the preservation of these infallible teachings of the Church is found within the Church of Rome, specifically the Pope as successor of Peter. The ministry of preservation is found within the Petrine ministry while the teaching ministry inherent in the Papacy is found within the Pope’s Pauline ministry.

The first linking of primacy of the Church of Rome to the city of Rome rather than the Petrine and Pauline ministries was found in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Even then, the primacy the Council is speaking about is specifically regarding Imperial and administrative primacy. It raised the Church of Constantinople to a status which enjoys the same Imperial and administrative primacy within the East but still held that Rome held primacy over Constantinople. The concept of primacy with regards to theological and ministerial primacy was not touched within the Council as it provided the Pope with veto authority over the Church of Constantinople’s ecclesial decisions. It was only after the Great Schism that the Council was held up as proof that Rome had no theological primacy among the Church.

God Bless,
Ben

 

[phoage]

The most compelling argument I have heard is that when there is a split in teaching between two sects, Check to see what both teach after the split.
The major split came in 1054, the so called Great Schism. there had been differences for hundreds of years prior but that event was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Pope and the Patriarch for Constantinople excommunicated each other.

Prior to the split, the eastern Patriarchs considered themselves a council of equals with Rome as the first among equals. After the split, they ignored Rome.

Rome (the Pope) considered himself preeminent before the split and still does to this day. The change in teaching is interesting.

Patrick
AMDG

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

The ministry of preservation is found within the Petrine ministry while the teaching ministry inherent in the Papacy is found within the Pope’s Pauline ministry.

This is fascinating. Could you provide a source for further reading?

 

[CRM_Brother]

I’m sorry, I don’t have any direct sources for this. I learned of this connection which was eventually consolidated under Petrine authority in my Papal History class when I was studying abroad in Rome with the Catholic University of America. Dr. David Dawson-Vasquez was my professor at the time and he specialized in the evolution and development of theology and liturgy. He taught us that this was the distinction made by various Western theologians until the Council of Chalcedon when the emphasis was placed upon the Petrine ministry.

The Pope was not originally known as the Vicar of Christ. All bishops were known as Vicars of Christ as they carried out Christ’s role as head of the Church within their dioceses. To the early Christians, the Popes (from Clement on) were known as the Vicar of Peter and Paul (also know as Vicar of the Apostolic See) as they were the continuity and legacy of that God-given authority. This appellation was of a higher dignity than simply ‘Vicar of Christ’ as it was a sign of Apostolic authority. After Chalcedon, the aspect of Vicar of Paul was absorbed into “Vicar of Peter”.

At this point, the concept of Patriarchy became prominent and Patriarchs were writing letters to their suffragan dioceses in a similar way that the Pope wrote to the Churches of the world. Slowly, diocesan bishops also began to write pastoral letters to their various parishes. It was this regularity of teaching and letter writing that the Pauline aspect of the Papal ministry fell into obscurity as the practice became common-place.

As a side note, Pope Francis has actually stopped officially using the title “Vicar of Christ” as of 2020 and reverted to “Vicar of the Apostolic See” in recognition that the first title denotes any bishop whereas the second denotes the Papal office.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

but he never mentioned only Peter but Peter and Paul

Which even more advocates that it wasn’t Rome-Alexandria-Antioch trio, but Rome alone (because while Peter is associated with all three, Peter and Paul collectively are associated with Rome).

We don’t know it says everyone must agree with Rome the term convierge was used which may mean must go to as it was the capital where orthodoxy was unto that point preserved they should go to obtain the truth from them

Around 1060, one Georgian Orthodox Saint, George the Hagiorite actually came to Constantinople and heard about Great Schism. He told Emperor that they can’t schism from Rome because Rome is “inerrant” (inerrant means that they can not be in error). He was purely Eastern, not Latin and not Roman. It was clearly believed in Georgia that Rome is infallible.

What also convinced me was that Pope St. Gregory the Great (Saint even in Orthodoxy) actually said that he can render Eastern synods “null and void with strike of a pen”. He wasn’t scolded by anyone, he wasn’t corrected by anyone… he claimed it and he even said “Who can doubt that it [Constantinople] is subject to Apostolic See?”

On the other hand what you should know is that Early Church was never centralized. Each Patriarch managed their own things, but Rome could always intervene if necessary. Council of Chalcedon says that Constantinople can re-judge any case (except those judged by Rome) and Council of Sardica further clarifies that Rome can re-judge cases judged in Constantinople (hence Rome having authority over Constantinople if needed). There was not centralization to Rome that was prevalent in Catholic Church until recently. But there was no disconnection of Churches and Primacy as in Orthodox Church either.

Very correct model is what Pope St. Gregory the Great said; “If there is any fault amongst them [all bishops], who can doubt that they are subject to Apostolic See [Rome] ? But if there is no fault, let them be equal”. We can be sure that Pope St. Gregory meant Rome because he was speaking Constantinople and Rome’s relations there. And we can see that if Bishops are not at fault and they are doing great job and upholding True Faith and True Discipline of the Church, then there is no reason for Papal Supremacy. Reason only arises if there are some problems and Pope needs to intervene to protect Church from unfaithful Bishops.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It was only after the Great Schism that the Council was held up as proof that Rome had no theological primacy among the Church.

Also, quite important is that at first, Chalcedon’s decision to elevate Constantinople above Alexandria based on secular grounds was not approved by any other Patriarch (not even Rome at first!). Council was approved but this canon was rejected. However, as often during this time of history, when new Pope came he wasn’t aware that this canon was rejected and while never formally accepted, it became accepted over time because of how Church organized Herself. Later Councils of Lyon and Florence basically introduced this canon into formal acceptance (though they didn’t view it as not accepted at the time).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But why did Paul say the divisions based on I am of Cephas and I am of Paul is wrong ?

Because people started dividing Church between Apostles which was never the case. Church was always governed by Apostles as college with Peter as their head. Later on with Bishops as college with Bishop of Rome as their head (Bishops are successors of Apostles and Pope is successor of Peter).

there is no where in scripture where Jesus directly says all of you will be ruled by Peter and with his successors

John 21:16
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

Word “take care” can also be translated as “shepherd” or “administer” or “govern” (rule). So yes, Bible does say that. This was addressed to Peter alone. Our Lord also said following:

Luke 22:31-32
Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you (plural) like wheat. But I have prayed for you (singular, just Peter), Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.

So Peter’s Faith is somehow special. It won’t fail.

This youtuber is sedevacantist and many of their videos are quite misleading. They have some videos that are just accusing everyone of heresy. However, this one video I will link here is where they prove Papacy from the Bible and without some sedevacantist polemics:

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

I haven’t read it all I will but that quote from John chrysostom does show some in the east believed peter had chief authority I don’t know if they believed he had supremacy or to his successors and I don’t think they believe he had infallibility just that they had to be united to him when he was right which God gave him much knowledge but I don’t know if John chrysostom believed peter is in his successors in Rome only or he is a model of bishops some may have believed that he had supremacy and John chrysostom may have believed that but I would have to see other of his quotes but I don’t think all church fathers in the east believed that for they even set Constantinople as new Rome John chrysostom even says Antioch has Peter they may have believed only in the early church Peter did and all the bishops such exercise the primacy of Peter teaching authority

I will read all and make my decision I can’t reply to all I may decide to reply to one who I think I need more information

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

Perhaps you are right that Constantinople was not agreed among all to be new Rome but I haven’t studied it to be sure but I think it is possible Rome does not have supremacy when it is not orthodox as we see st cyprian seeing that pope Stephen was not orthodox and he even said no one sets himself as bishops of bishops and compels to obedience
The chair of peter may be the orthodoxy of Peter which should be coming first from Rome
As you said Rome should only interfere when orthodox are teaching heresy as a brother but first it has to be fully orthodox itself. Rome is not really needed only as a matter of honour if they are made orthodox first by God
I don’t really believe any church is infallible or that you need to be but God will guide you what you need to know and He will increase your understanding with time but you may not know everything so I believe both churches are wrong. God cares about all the Christians He is the chief shepherd they are just helpers and brothers

 

[kapp19]

I think you could see Paul’s line about divisions as each name mentioned representing a various kind of authority who can be followed immoderately or appealed to immoderately/inordinately (as if “I follow Christ” excuses ignoring the bishop who stands in Christ’s place over the local church). We don’t follow some leaders to the exclusion of others within the right order… Not the missionary who first brought the faith over the current bishop, for instance. We also don’t dismiss the laws and teachings of the local bishop unless they are in direct contradiction of the law or teaching of the Pope, rightly understood (in content and context/order).

Here is a question - if I were to call for a meeting of all the bishops in the world, and some bishops arrived, and they decided, for example, that Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces, would this now be binding as an ecumenical council? Why or why not? (Just a note - I am not the Bishop of Rome.)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t know if John chrysostom believed peter is in his successors in Rome only or he is a model of bishops

If that were case then there would be references to other pious Bishops. Yet Roman Bishops were always associated with Peter and Paul. And Roman Bishops only.

John chrysostom even says Antioch has Peter

Yes, it was Petrine See but ultimate authority rested on Rome as was shown earlier.

I think it is possible Rome does not have supremacy when it is not orthodox as we see st cyprian seeing that pope Stephen was not orthodox

And Cyprian was wrong even according to Orthodoxy. Even East holds that Cyprian was wrong in this dispute (re-baptizing is basically forbidden).

I don’t really believe any church is infallible

Orthodox Church believes that True Church of Christ is infallible. Otherwise there is no reason for Ecumenical Councils. It’s just that Orthodox Church believes that entire Church itself is infallible, while Catholic Church acknowledges that but says that in Primacy there lies special gift of infallibility.

God cares about all the Christians He is the chief shepherd they are just helpers and brothers

Yes. But as Paul says in Scripture, Church is “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. Therefore Church is infallible, not individual Christians. (1 Timothy 3:15)

May God help you on your discernment.

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

Cyprian did not agree they should not rebaptize but he held if church teaches this for according to him it gives the wrong impression God would accept the baptism because the church accepted it

So he never actually said it is absolutely necessary to rebaptize but that it should not accept the baptism but should require a rebaptism but they are still part of the church if they choose to join the church because they are already baptized he didn’t believe they actually need to be rebaptised

Yes the church is the body of believers who are able to discover more truth but they are not guaranteed to. They know as much as necessary to be saved

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

When Paul said some say I am of Christ he may mean some people thought they knew more than the others and the apostles or because they did not accept others who understood differently than them they thought if others differ different to them from a misunderstanding they are not Christians not now when we know what all apostles taught

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Cyprian did not agree they should not rebaptize but he held if church teaches this for according to him it gives the wrong impression God would accept the baptism because the church accepted it

Yes, but Church holds that rebaptizing is a sin. Nicene Creed clearly says “I believe in One Baptism for remission of sins”.

Yes the church is the body of believers who are able to discover more truth but they are not guaranteed to.

Sure not believers, but Church can not be in error because as Scripture says, Church is pillar and foundation of Truth.