So can President/Queen/Prime Minister be a dictator? Yes, they can but when a system is in place, no, they are not dictator nor they can be dictator. Similary, they can be criticized. It is untrue that they are above criticism.
Subject to no higher power?
Unanswerable?
Overrule a papal declaration?
Remove a corrupt, incompetent or heretical Pope?
Well you may have been Catholic for a while now, but you still proof text like a Protestant
No Pope is impeccable, however it does not follow that St. Peter’s name is conditional or that it is revoked every time he, or his successors, did/ do something not according to God’s will. Name changes are significant in Sacred Scripture and they mean something (Jacob → Israel, Abram → Abraham). I cannot think of one instance where the name was abandoned due to the personal faults of the one who bears the name.
Nothing. Sacred Scripture is clear that Simon went on being St. Peter. The Apsotles went on calling him Peter, the Fathers did, the Councils did; we do. I certainly don’t make out of it what you appear to be implying; that due to his denial he ceased to be the “Rock”.
Acts 17:2
What do you make of the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the NT authors to call him Cephas eight times and Peter (“Rock”) 75 times after that?
Some of you need to trust God and the promises in Sacred Scripture.
I am amused (okay, not really) to see that you misread the quotes which were NOT from Fr. Meyendorff but from Orthodox theologians whose work was quoted in Meyendorff’s book, The Primacy of Peter.
Would it not be better if the comments in this thread matched in their tenor these words of Pope Francis, rather than attempts to trip one another up or catch others out or make others look foolish? Do the Pope’s words not lack that air of triumphalism so evident in this thread?
If I might jump in here, converts from protestantism are an even larger issue than you indicate, at least according to:
The above is the subject of the OP, I suggest we stick to it.
No Eastern Orthodox theologians questions the fact that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, or that Rome held a primacy of honor in the ancient Church. Where we differ is on what exactly that meant and what authority and powers St. Peter and his successors in Rome should have. Pope Nicholas I wrote, "it is immediately clear that the judgements of the Apostolic See, than which there is no greater authority, cannot be handled by any other tribunal, nor is it permissible for any to sit in judgment upon its decision. In the letter given to Patriarch Michael I in 1054, Pope Leo IX wrote, “as a hinge remaining unmoved, opens and shuts a door, so Peter and his successors have an unfettered jurisdiction over the whole Church, since no one ought to interfere with their position because the highest See is judged by none…” We cannot accept that anyone in the Church could or should have that kind of power. Instead, we believe that every Patriarch or Pope must be accountable to first the Holy Synod of his Patriarchate, secondly to the other Patriarchs, and finally to an Ecumenical Council.
Have I not accurately expressed the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church and is subject to no higher power than himself? It it not true that papal decisions are not subject to review by a higher body, like our Holy Synods, or even an Ecumenical Council? Did not the 1st Vatican Council state that “ex cathedra” statements by the Pope are “infallible,” “And therefore, that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves – and not by virtue of the consent of the Church-- are irreformable.” I mean no respect here, but am simply repeating what the documents state themselves. I do not believe that anyone is infallible or that any authority is above the Church. I believe that all decisions must be subject to review by a higher authority even the decisions of a Patriarch.
I do not mean to insult anyone. However, it is rather difficult to read the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council or the letter that Pope Leo IX wrote to Patriarch Michael I in 1054 and find a way to describe the papal claims that you do not find offensive. The documents claim that all power belongs to the Pope and that the Pope is unanswerable to no higher authority, not even an Ecumenical Council. What should I call such a system that is not deemed offensive?
Have you ever read Unam Sanctam issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII? It is rather difficult to read it and not believe that Pope Boniface had something else in mind that simply servant of the people of God. He claimed authority not over the Church but also the state. “Truly he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, misunderstands the words of the Lord…” The document ends with “Furthermore, we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”
If the See of Rome only held a “primacy of honor”, and the See of Constantinople was elevated to “her level” and “take second place after her” (Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon), then would that mean that Constantinople held only a primacy of honor? If so, why does the same canon give it jurisdictional authority? Why has Constantinople held real authority in the Orthodox Church? I would like to see in the fathers where they viewed primacy as exclusively a matter of honor.
Luke 22:
From an historical perspective, do the Miaphysites of today claim Dioscorus to be a saint, and if they do, how is this possible when he was a monophysite? I think that some of the things brought up by Mark Bonocore make sense from an historical standpoint, i.e., why do they deny Chalcedon if in essence we are expressing the same theology albeit using different terminology?Thanks for posting that, Randy. After reading that, I think there’s just one question that you need to ask yourself: do you want to stand with the magisterium (including, but not limiting to, the three recent popes), or do you want to adopt the approach of catholicbridge.com?
For me, it’s an easy choice.