Of course there are other types of unity. But I am talking of a pacific type.
the type of unity you’s reject is what I meant by hierarchical unity. An actual hierarchical unity of he hierarchy.
That is certainly a specious argument. That the noun ἐπισκοπὴν in Acts 1:20 should be translated more properly as office is given by the fact that this verse is quoting from the Septuagint, Ps. 108:8 (109:8) which when translated from the Hebrew gives us, “Let his days be few; Let his office another take.” The Apostles were not simply bishops, as bishops, unlike Apostles do not have any itinerant ministry. Bishops are traditionally attached to serve out their ministry in a particular place (including the Bishop of Rome, believe it or not), whereas Apostles had no particular place attached to their ministry. This is why saints who were bishops are usually referred to as St. of , whereas Apostles traditionally did not have place names affixed to their names (hence while we affix ‘of Rome’ to St. Clement, we do not do traditionally do the same for St. Peter or St. Paul, even though many Fathers believed both to have died in Rome).
The headmaster in such a scenario though would be Christ, in whose highpriestood all bishops are participants. According to the thought of early Christians writers on this topic, such as St. Cyprian, the unity of the Church is found the very unity of the episcopacy (in a metaphysical sense), the unity of baptism, and the unity of faith.
Only a validly ordained Bishop can validly ordain Bishops. Jesus is “the Shepherd and Bishop of souls” (1 Peter 2;25) and ordained the 12 apostles who in turn ordained other Bishops.
That is a nonsensical argument. EVERYONE knows Jesus is the head of the Church even protestants.
So do you agree then that the Apostles by virtue of their itinerant ministry were not merely bishops but something more? It seemed as if you were using Acts 1:20 to argue otherwise.
I have no idea what you mean by “the location argument.” I was not making any argument but merely stating a fact that the ministries of the Apostles differed from the ministry of bishops insofar as the Apostles had itinerant ministries whereas bishops do not by virtue of their attachment to a certain place.
No, I very much guarantee you that I am not. Bishops exercise their ministry with reference to some particular place, even if that place is a titular see, as is the case with some auxiliary bishops. The immediate ordinary jurisdiction of bishops over their sees from our perspective is alone given from divine law, with all other types of jurisdiction (extraordinary, mediate ordinary, vicarious, etc.), being a product of ecclesiastical law.
You sure do seem awfully exasperated by my mentioning the fact that unity is found in the unity of the Episcopate as participation in Christ’s high priesthood (St. Peter is indeed the type of this unity), in the unity of baptism, and in the unity of the faith. It was good enough for St. Cyprian; so too is it good enough for me.
But we have already said to you that the visible sign of unity is found in the diptychs and liturgical commemorations of bishops. The diptychs since ancient times have been the visible sign of unity amongst the bishops. That the diptychs could differ between Churches itself presents no issue for unity, for even when a church might cease to commemorate another church (as was done often in ancient times in response to some grievance), there exists a canon of communion between those churches, by virtue of their mutual communion with other churches.
I do not find this to be the case at all, having been both raised Protestant, converted to Orthodoxy, and finally Catholicism, and having studied theology on the graduate level with Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. Rather, what I find, is that in discussing these issues, different groups approach the matters from different perspectives and with different presuppositions about Holy Scripture and the interpretation thereof, the role of tradition, and church authority. Some people (and they can be found in all groups) are unaware of that, or can’t accept that, or simply refuse to respect other’s perspectives , and then the discussions become entirely fruitless.
The example you give as type 2, if you intend to offer that an analogy to unity among the Orthodox, is crude at best. Unity among Orthodox bishops is more than teaching the same things (although that should never be trivialized or downplayed, since the Church has always held that teaching and believing the truth is of great importance) and having cordial relations. Unity among Orthodox bishops is about sharing the same Eucharist (the body and blood of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ), which, to quote a Catholic teaching, is “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). There is no form of Christian unity that is more significant, or actually more unifying, than that of Eucharistic sharing.
Not “merely” as in not “only”, they had something more also, but that moreness simply meant they could do things like give us divine revelation, eg… write scripture etc… However their authority does not come from that “moreness” but from them being Bishops.
Some of the apostles were Bishops of a certain place eg… James. I’d say the reason some apostles had authority not assigned to a location at first was because Peter probably would have allowed them too and it probably wasn’t recorded.
diptychs are documents, things like saying prayers and “being nice” to each other are all well and good, but they are not the type of unity I am talking about
I agree with them having type 1 unity, the ONLY reason I said I didn’t want to hear about it was because in THIS PACIFIC conversation I am talking about type 2, therefore mentioning type 1 is of the topic and distracting away from the obvious reality. I ALREADY know they have type one and that the Eucharist etc is a type of unity so I never needed that to be mentioned even once
welldone
As I’ve attempted to point out to you before, the inclusion of other patriarchs in the diptychs of one’s Church represents a reality that is far greater than a mere document. Furthermore, that reality really has nothing to do with “being nice to each other.” That reality is nothing less than shared communion in the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of our Lord, which is the “source and summit of Christian life.” No, they are not the type of unity that you’re talking about, and I think everyone knows that. However, the reality that they represent, the unity of Eucharistic sharing, is the most important type of unity that exists in the Church. There is no greater unity found among men than that of Eucharistic sharing, as it is sharing in the Body and Blood of our Great Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, and the sacrament itself “makes the Church.”
I don’t need them to point the obvious out though
What the papal legates were saying is what the Church believed, i.e., they were not politely ignoring what was false, what hogwash, i.e., there is nothing within or outside of that council that suggested that Rome did not hold the primacy or that the bishop of Rome was not the direct successor to Peter, hence the reason I quoted the council. You can talk all you want about what the meaning of the primacy is, but I am simply arguing that the primacy always belonged to Rome and that it held the primacy because it was the successor to Peter. SACRED TRADITION UPHOLDS THIS VIEW.
Bull, the Second council of Constantinople is a perfect example of CAESAROPAPISM, i.e., Emperor Justinian held Vigilius for more than 10 years in order to get him to condemn the Three Chapters, if his opinion of the pope was so low or no more different than any other bishop than why imprison him for more than 10 years (even after the 2nd council of Constantinople had dismantled)?
It seems that YOU have made the untrue statement (because I have already provided you with a council that states that Rome holds the primacy because of Peter), “canon 28” was not ratified by the whole of the universal church (so it was not universally binding), neither was it drawn up by the council per se, i.e., a rump of bishops (150 out of 650 bishops that participated at Chalcedon) from Constantinopolitan sees outside of Chalcedon, did.
Constantinople was not an apostolic (Petrine) see like Alexandria and Antioch were, so it’s no wonder that the church in Constantinople proclaimed Rome held the primacy for imperial reasons, i.e., it was the only way they could supercede Alexandria and Antioch. Pope St. Leo in a letter written to Emperor Marcian stated: