There is one capital and one government at a time in the united states, but you have synods in different places at the same time with no head synod.Why must unity be invested in an individual to be considered true unity by yourself?
You’re English, so the unity of your own country is vested in the person of the monarch - but what of the United States? Sure they have a president, but they would say that the unity of their country is from the constitution, (half the country at any given time is opposed to the president). Is that “paper unity”?
Unity does not have to be top-down. The synods are united by sharing the following: the same Lord, the same faith, Eucharistic communion, submission to the same authorities, which are God, Holy Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, and the canons of Church law.Are the dyptychs above the synods? If not then they do not unite synods in the unity I am talking about
That’s not the type of unity I’m talking aboutUnity does not have to be top-down. The synods are united by sharing the following: the same Lord, the same faith, Eucharistic communion, submission to the same authorities, which are God, Holy Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, and the canons of Church law.
No, I actually don’t see the logic in it. If multiple people succeeded how can we be certain that wherever he died is where the keys get passed to? How do we absolutely know that with certainty?Those ordained by Peter are his successors in a certain sense. But only One person can have his SUPREMACY, Successor in a UNIQUE sense.
If Peter with his supremacy died as Bishop of Rome, then it logically follows that the Bishop of Rome succeeds him with that supremacy
It is logical because when Peter moved to the next place the keys moved with him, he obviously didn’t leave them behind.No, I actually don’t see the logic in it. If multiple people succeeded how can we be certain that wherever he died is where the keys get passed to? How do we absolutely know that with certainty?
One could logically conclude that the first successor of Peter would have supremacy over the last.
Therefore, following this logic, there must only be 12 ‘super bishops’ since there was only one of each of the twelve apostles, and all other bishops lack something which only got magically passed on to the last person ordained by each apostle before he died.Because there can only be one successor to the Petrine office (there was only one Peter)
Not according to Pope St Gregory the Greatso even though Peter was once bishop of Antioch, he left Antioch to go to Rome and that is where he remained until his death, leaving behind an empty (Petrine) office in Rome. That and the fact that Tradition holds that his actual successor is in Rome (although Alexandria, Antioch and Rome are all Petrine sees, only Rome held his office)
The statement was made by the papal legate. It was politely ignored by the assembled bishops and it was certainly not a statement by the council.moreover at the ecumenical council of Ephesus in 449 it was stated:
The apostles were not super bishops they were ordinary bishops. The logical does not work in this case because there are complications with saying the Supreme power could pass on to more than one person. But that complication doesn’t exist in the case of the other 11 which is ordinary authorityTherefore, following this logic, there must only be 12 ‘super bishops’ since there was only one of each of the twelve apostles, and all other bishops lack something which only got magically passed on to the last person ordained by each apostle before he died.
The apostles were apostles, not bishops. The bishops were those who they ordained to oversee each of the churches they established. There is no supreme power vested in any one man save Christ Himself.The apostles were not super bishops they were ordinary bishops. The logical does not work in this case because there are complications with saying the Supreme power could pass on to more than one person. But that complication doesn’t exist in the case of the other 11 which is ordinary authority
So he actually said to a person in Rome, “you have the keys now”? Or he simply died there and someone picked em up?It is logical because when Peter moved to the next place the keys moved with him, he obviously didn’t leave them behind.
If there was some special charism that Peter alone had, you would expect that it would pass on to one of the other Apostles who were still alive when Peter died. That makes a lot more sense than it being the bishop who was geographically closest out of those he had ordained.So he actually said to a person in Rome, “you have the keys now”? Or he simply died there and someone picked em up?
All the bishops assembled in an Ecumenical Council would have a higher authority than the synod if a particular Church, but routinely, the synod is the highest merely human authority.Are synods the highest things?
Is there a head synod?
There is no bishop with jurisdiction over the entire Orthodox Church.I mean top-down yeah
The definition of primacy is such:Why?
pri·ma·cy
Only one person can have the primacy (not 2 or 3 just 1), and that primacy belongs to the bishop of Rome because Peter remained and died there, leaving behind his office (it’s very possible that Peter chose his successor before he died).
- the state of being first in order, rank, importance, etc.
Again, you’re doing what other posters have done by re stating the belief.The definition of primacy is such:
Only one person can have the primacy (not 2 or 3 just 1), and that primacy belongs to the bishop of Rome because Peter remained and died there, leaving behind his office (it’s very possible that Peter chose his successor before he died).
P.S. If he wished it to be somewhere else than I’m sure he could have upped and left Rome to seek out another city to perpetuate his office/primacy.
Wasn’t the entire point at this council to address heresy? Wouldn’t that have thrown up a few red flags about the person in question? Why was this issue not worthy of excommunication if it was known to be false?The statement was made by the papal legate. It was politely ignored by the assembled bishops and it was certainly not a statement by the council.
Only one who held his office could hold the primacy and/or have access to the charisms attached to it, and since we know that Peter did not place the primacy on another apostle you’re inference seems rather moot (it was not called a Petrine see/office for nothing).If there was some special charism that Peter alone had, you would expect that it would pass on to one of the other Apostles who were still alive when Peter died. That makes a lot more sense than it being the bishop who was geographically closest out of those he had ordained.
What would have happened if Paul built a Church in Rome first and then Peter died in Paul’s area… Would Paul get the keys?Only one who held his office could hold the primacy and/or have access to the charisms attached to it, and since we know that Peter did not place the primacy on another apostle you’re inference seems rather moot (it was not called a Petrine see/office for nothing).
Did you happen to miss the part of my original post to you that states Sacred Tradition upholds the Catholic conviction of Rome holding the primacy (the council of Ephesus in 449)? Moreover, even if Peter ordained others does not mean that they held his office, i.e., only ONE person could hold his office (a person he probably appointed before his death) and it seems logical and historically sound and in line with sacred Tradition to believe that that person who now retains his office was/is the bishop of Rome. Peter for whatever divine reason felt compelled to go to Rome and stay there until his death, as such who are we to contemplate why he didn’t give it to another apostle or why not to Antioch or Alexandria. . .etc., IT IS WHAT IT IS.Again, you’re doing what other posters have done by re stating the belief.
I know what Catholics believe, not how it works. Why does Peter’s death determine who in what region someone assumes the keys? Peter ordained others, but the geographic location of where Peter died means the keys go to that person in that geographic region? Why? How?
Why didn’t the first person ordained get the keys from him after his death? Why not another living Apostle? And how can you be sure?