Define "Supremacy"

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

During apostolic times, John is still alive on Patmos, Clement of Rome is settling sedition in Corinth of the bishops there. What of the other Church’s you mention in the East? Why didn’t they step in to settle this? If this East West issue was Sooooo clear, and Rome wasn’t considered the “presider” as Ignatius calls her, the Church which all must agree, Irenaeus, and the Chief Church, the chair of Peter and source of priestly unity, as Cyprian says then Corinth should have turned East for their resolution. But they didn’t… They went to Rome.

“From this, some have inferred that, even at this early date (96 AD or, some think, earlier), when the Apostle John was perhaps still alive, the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman congregation over every other congregation of the Christian Church was already universally conceded. However, a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation is that the congregation at Corinth, torn by division, had agreed to settle their disputes by inviting another congregation, or the head of another congregation, to act as arbitrator. This would be a reasonable thing to do, and the choice of Rome as that congregation was natural, partly because of the prestige of the city, and the prestige of one of the largest congregations in the Church, and because the Corinth of Clement’s day had been built as a Roman colony, with a special dependence directly on the city of Rome (a civil relation that might affect the habits of thought of the Corinthians on matters ecclestiastical as well), but also because Rome was far enough away so that it could be assumed to be impartial and not affected by local personalities.”

Full article at
satucket.com/lectionary/Clement_Rome.htm

And it must be mentioned that Corinth was founded by the Apostle Paul and it is believed that St Clement was a disciple of the same Apostle. This naturally gave him a strong connection to Corinth and a man to be respected by them, as a bishop taught by their own founder. So it was quite understandable for the Corinthians to turn to an arbiter who shared the same connection with the Apostle Paul

**Merry ** Christmas!

 

[twf]

Merry Christmas everyone!

Father: There are a couple problems with your theory. First off, it is not just this incident, but many others like that, in which churches appeal to Rome…and not just the city of Corinth. Secondly, Clement speaks as one having authority over the Corinthians…not as a friend giving advice that they may choose to take or ignore. (Ignatius speaks more as a friend/advisor…being a bishop with no jurisdiction over the churches to which he writes). He warns them of the dangers of disobeying the words he speaks to them…and claims that the Spirit of God spoke through him (Clement) to the Corinthians.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

twf:

Merry Christmas everyone!

Father: There are a couple problems with your theory. First off, it is not just this incident, but many others like that, in which churches appeal to Rome…and not just the city of Corinth. Secondly, Clement speaks as one having authority over the Corinthians…not as a friend giving advice that they may choose to take or ignore. (Ignatius speaks more as a friend/advisor…being a bishop with no jurisdiction over the churches to which he writes). He warns them of the dangers of disobeying the words he speaks to them…and claims that the Spirit of God spoke through him (Clement) to the Corinthians.

Some clarification is needed.

In the first place the letter is actually not from Clement but from “The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth…”

Clement is not mentioned in the letter nor is there any claim that it is coming from the bishop of Rome, although it has always been attributed to him and the Orthodox believe it comes from his hand.

But all the same, it is not a claim by Clement that he, as an individual, has some control over another Church. It is not: “I am the Pope of Rome to whom your Church is subordinate.”

The letter is a ‘communal’ effort from one Church congregation addressed to another Church congregation.

Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

**Merry ** Christmas!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

During apostolic times, John is still alive on Patmos, Clement of Rome is settling sedition in Corinth of the bishops there. What of the other Church’s you mention in the East? Why didn’t they step in to settle this? If this East West issue was Sooooo clear, and Rome wasn’t considered the “presider” as Ignatius calls her, the Church which all must agree, Irenaeus, and the Chief Church, the chair of Peter and source of priestly unity, as Cyprian says then Corinth should have turned East for their resolution. But they didn’t… They went to Rome.

If what you are saying is the truth then what of Saint John and his Apocalypse? It was written during the time of the third, or fourth, or even the fifth bishop of Rome.

If Rome was, as you contend, at this time in control of all the Churches of the East and these Churches accepted Rome as the centre of their church life, then we would expect to find that the bishop of Rome had received the Apocalypse of Saint John and that he had sought Rome’s approval - a sort of primitive Imprimatur.

But we find no evidence at all that Saint John submitted his writings to Rome for approval. That means one of two things:

1. Rome was not recognised by the rest of the Church as being in a controlling authority over the entire Church and the activity of its members, or

1. it means that John was in schism from Rome and did not submit to the authority of the bishop of Rome?

**Merry ** Christmas!

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Aris,

Without going into many other things and staying within the context of what has already discussed here let us use these existing subjects to consider the definition of the word Catholic. Let us look at what is said and then reality which is found in the in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I will answer your question. “Is it in the Creed, one holy orthodox Church? Please confirm this.”

The Orthodox Church will always be the Catholic Church.

Here is the definition of the word Catholic from a Catholic source:

What “Catholic” Means

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

Universal means everyone. Here is the definition of the word Universal within a reliable dictionary.

1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: “This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness”
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers.
3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.
4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects;

comprehensively broad.

1. Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses.
2. Logic. Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Used of a proposition.

The central purpose or point of the Liturgy or “Mass” is the Eucharistic Sacrifice. It stands to reason that within the Catholic Church all members should be allowed to be members and receive the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To deny the Eucharistic Sacrifice to children is renounce Catholicity. Here are the words of the Priest that are said during the Latin Mass.

 TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT:        ACCÌPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES:
 THIS IS MY BODY                           HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEU
 WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.           QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADÈTUR.

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, ACCÌPITE ET BIBITE
AND DRINK FROM IT: EX EO OMNES:
THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINES MEI
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI,
EVERLASTING COVENANT. QUI PRO VOBIS
IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR
AND FOR ALL MEN IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
SO THAT SINS ARE FORGIVEN. HOC FÀCITE
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. IN MEAN COMMEMORATIONEM.

Now all of you would be a Catholic expression. One could say that children before the age of reason having not been chrismated would not be members or full members. Suffice it to say, either way the practices of the Latins preclude the authentic use of the word Catholic. Now these non-Catholic practices are taught and a reality of the Latin episcopacy who are with the bishop of Rome who is considered by the Latins to be infallible when speaking ex-cathedra.

These are not the notions and liturgical practices of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which is the Orthodox Church, for the Orthodox Christ is and will always be the chief cornerstone.

Matthew 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

When a child approaches the Eucharist in the Latin Mass they are denied the Eucharist.

Matthew 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The Latins beleive and that in order to be truly Catholic one must be in communion with the Apostolic see of Rome. But the very sad reality which can be seen in many Latin Churchs is that a child not having reached the age of reason can not recieve the Body and Blood of Christ.

This reality is the result of the adusting the original order of the sacraments by the Latins.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Matthew_P]

I accidently double posted.

 

[steve_b]

“From this, some have inferred that, even at this early date (96 AD or, some think, earlier), when the Apostle John was perhaps still alive, the authority and jurisdiction of the Roman congregation over every other congregation of the Christian Church was already universally conceded. However, a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation is that the congregation at Corinth, torn by division, had agreed to settle their disputes by inviting another congregation, or the head of another congregation, to act as arbitrator. This would be a reasonable thing to do, and the choice of Rome as that congregation was natural, partly because of the prestige of the city, and the prestige of one of the largest congregations in the Church, and because the Corinth of Clement’s day had been built as a Roman colony, with a special dependence directly on the city of Rome (a civil relation that might affect the habits of thought of the Corinthians on matters ecclestiastical as well), but also because Rome was far enough away so that it could be assumed to be impartial and not affected by local personalities.”

Full article at
satucket.com/lectionary/Clement_Rome.htm

And it must be mentioned that Corinth was founded by the Apostle Paul and it is believed that St Clement was a disciple of the same Apostle. This naturally gave him a strong connection to Corinth and a man to be respected by them, as a bishop taught by their own founder. So it was quite understandable for the Corinthians to turn to an arbiter who shared the same connection with the Apostle Paul

**Merry **Christmas!

1. If one looks at how bishops operate, they are responsible for their own areas. And bishops know not to go into another bishops area and overstep their juristictions. So Clement saying what he did to the Corinthian bishops, in a completely different country, would be hihanded on Clements part, wouldn’t you agree, unless the bishop of Rome was already looked on in the way Ignatius saw him, writing a decade or so later, as the presider over the other Church’s.
2. The Church even in Rome was underground at this time. Starting with Nero’s persecutions, it wasn’t popular to be a Christian in Rome. Therefore, we need to make a distinction between “Rome” the pagan city and empire, and “Rome” where the Church was headquartered, agreed?.

I’ll be visiting a friend in Florida for the next 10 days. She is suffering from terminal brain cancer. I won’t be on the internet during that time, so I wish you a happy new years and I ask for your prayers for my friend. Thanks

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

If what you are saying is the truth then what of Saint John and his Apocalypse? It was written during the time of the third, or fourth, or even the fifth bishop of Rome.

If Rome was, as you contend, at this time in control of all the Churches of the East and these Churches accepted Rome as the centre of their church life, then we would expect to find that the bishop of Rome had received the Apocalypse of Saint John and that he had sought Rome’s approval - a sort of primitive Imprimatur.

But we find no evidence at all that Saint John submitted his writings to Rome for approval. That means one of two things:

1. Rome was not recognised by the rest of the Church as being in a controlling authority over the entire Church and the activity of its members, or

1. it means that John was in schism from Rome and did not submit to the authority of the bishop of Rome?

**Merry **Christmas!

Let’s not get carried away with this. My point is, John who was on Patmos, was alot closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome. Yet it was Clement who intervened as a result of word sent to Rome.

Well, I’m off to Florida to see my very sick friend. Back Jan 4th or so. Happy new year.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. If one looks at how bishops operate, they are responsible for their own areas. And bishops know not to go into another bishops area and overstep their juristictions. So Clement saying what he did to the Corinthian bishops, in a completely different country, would be hihanded on Clements part, wouldn’t you agree, unless the bishop of Rome was already looked on in the way Ignatius saw him, writing a decade or so later, as the presider over the other Church’s.

You may be hoist on your own petard here

We know that Peter was residing in Rome at the time Paul addressed his Epistle to the Romans.

If we follow your reasoning it would mean that Paul acted outside his jurisdiction and in a highhanded way. The fact that he wrote to the Church of Rome, and with such a presumption of his own authority, proves, by your reasoning, that he was considered superior to Peter in Rome.

Thank you for confirming this

I pray that God brings healing of soul and body to your friend.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Let’s not get carried away with this. My point is, John who was on Patmos, was alot closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome.

While John was exiled in Patmos he would have been unable to have much to do with affairs in other parts of the Roman Empire. But it is likely that at the time of the upset in Corinth he had been released from his Patmos exile and was back in Ephesus where he died. He was already a very old man and communication between Ephesus and Corinth would not have been easy.

On the other hand, Corinth had been built as a Roman colony, with a special dependence directly on the city of Rome and enjoyed easy and unhindered communication with Rome.

Yet it was Clement who intervened as a result of word sent to Rome.

Not really. Firstly it was the “Church which sojourns at Rome” which sent the epistle and secondly, it was sent without a previous request from Corinth but on the initiative of the Church at Rome.

 

[twf]

Father:

1. St. John is one of the Twelve. The Twelve are not ordinary bishops by any means. The Catholic Encyclopedia accords the Twelve the charisma of infallibility (which only the pope and the college of bishops as a whole have today) and extraordinary jurisdictional authority. Clement was Peter’s successor, but certainly, while John would honour him and submit if necessary, John would not need his approval, as one of the Twelve, to distribute revelations straight from Christ. Clement may have been the head of the Church on earth, but John also had jurisdiction to distribute such revelations. Today public revelation has ceased, and no bishop other than the Pope has universal jurisdiction and personal infallibility. It is a very different situation.
2. It is true that the Church of Rome, as a group, claims to be the author of the letter. This does not take away from the argument.
   Clement was the Bishop of Rome, and even as an Orthodox Christian, you would admit that he had full authority over the Roman Church. Such being established, it follows that anything done by the authority of the Roman Church is ultimately also done by the authority of the Roman Pontiff. If the Church of Rome had the authority to bind Corinth, as is implied, it follows that the Bishop of Rome had the authority to bind Corinth, as St. Ignatius clearly teaches that the bishop acts in the place of God among the congregation.

God bless.
In Christ,
Tyler

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Father Ambrose,

In an attempt to pacify somewhat and not be regarded as only mentioning Orthodox sources for information I thought I’d reference an encyclopedia, I should mention that I always prefer the Orthodox sources.

Dear Tyler,

Well, you know Rome actually listened to Saint Polycarp when it was in error. (According to tradition, he was a disciple of John the Evangelist who is identified with one of the first twelve Apostles.)

(The Catholic Church itself puts forth a particular sense of the term in the present context. In 1864 the Catholic Church issued a letter asserting that
“the Catholic Church alone is conspicuous and perfect in the unity of the whole world and of all nations, particularly in that unity whose beginning, root, and unfailing origin are that supreme authority and ‘higher principality’ (St. Irenaeus [1] (catholic-forum.com/saints/sainti06.htm), 3, 3Against heresies (ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7317_1944667)) of blessed PETER, whom they call “prince of the Apostles”, and of his successors in the Roman Chair.” Their interpretation is that no Church is Catholic except the one which, founded on the one PETER, grows into one ‘body compacted and fitly joined together’ Eph 4:16 (drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=004&l=16)]… (Denziger §1686).

The Roman Catholic interpretation is not the only possible reading of the passage from Ireneus. His specific language mentions “Peter and Paul” together in regards to the foundation of the Roman community of Christians, not giving primacy to Peter over Paul in the foundation or administration of Rome’s community. Likewise, while Ireneus does list a short succession of Rome’s Bishops, he also makes the effort to point out that St. Polycarp of Smyrna was in no way deficient in authority nor in doctrine in comparison to Rome, and actually brought correction to Rome when it fell into error.)

Since Saint Polycarp of Smyrna was not one of the Twelve with the charisma of infallibility according to your understanding how could Saint Ireneus point out that Saint Polycarp of Smyrna was in no way deficient in authority nor in doctrine in comparison to Rome, and actually brought correction to Rome when it fell into error?

The Latin infallibility notions are very recent and as I think I mentioned to Father Ambrose, even the most learned of Catholic theologians are not comfortable with such developments. They have to be if they are truth loving.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Aris]

prodromos:

No

Only Cardinal Humbert and those with him were excommunicated.

John.

Merry Christmas, Christ is born, Rejoice!

Fr. ambrose - Welcome back.

John, you should also have corrected Fr. ambrose posts a few posts back.

No.

Only the patriarch and those with him were excommunicated not the whole Eastern Church.

Happy New Year!

 

[Aris]

Matthew P.:

The Latin infallibility notions are very recent and as I think I mentioned to Father Ambrose, even the most learned of Catholic theologians are not comfortable with such developments. They have to be if they are truth loving.

If this were true then the Church was already in error as early as the first Century. Notions?
Matthew,
Please refer again to my post. It was not answered correctly and before one could say “Surprise!” we get sidetracked into a lesson in History where the only sure thing was that both sides were to blame. Emphasis on new comments.

"1. Correct. They were types and yet Christ did not say He will destroy the old covenant but fulfill it. That is why we still have priests. Because if you hold to the protestant view that Christ already did away with the Old Covenant, then you would have to believe that there is no more need for priests. So the leaders of the old covenant is fulfilled in Christ and his stewards. (The Pope, Bishops, Priest and laity) (there seems to be no disagreement here. The Orthodox would just like to have the leadership stop at the Patriarch level. But that does not give the Church a visible unity as the Body of Christ.)
2. Christ is not absent, yes, but Christ works through men and hence Leaders will be needed and will be there.
3. Matthew 16:18 the gates of hell will not prevail upon it. The Church which was Catholic remains as Christ’s Bride. (You woul have to say that the Church erred something that will not happen right?)
4. Christ is the head of the Church. No contest. We’re not saying he is not. But you need to go back to # 1 and #2.
5. Peter was definitely the leader of the Church. Jerusalem respected his position even Paul recognized Peter’s position. (Is this not recognized by the Orthodox?")
6. Orthodox? That position is taken only by the Orthodox after having split from Rome. Emphasis on split from. Actually even after 1054AD, the Orthodox reunited with Rome. It was only after encountering pressure from the Turks and Muslims did the Orthodox finally split from the Catholic Church. (The Orthodox did split from the Catholic Church. see comment below. Also Cardinal Humbert did not excommunicate the Eastern Church as Fr Ambrose would like us to believe.)

If Orthodox is to be used as a standard, why was it only after this period did the Orthodox start calling themselves Orthodox? Before this period there was only the Catholic Church. Is it in the Creed, one holy orthodox Church? Please confirm this. (John has already confirmed this. There was only one Church, the Catholic Church)
By default it is the Catholic Church that is the standard by all. Just take a look at definitions. You would not see anti-Protestant or anti-Orthodox. But anti-Catholic? Well, that is how they measure themselves."

 

[prodromos]

Aris:

John, you should also have corrected Fr. ambrose posts a few posts back.

No.

Only the patriarch and those with him were excommunicated not the whole Eastern Church.

No Aris, Father Ambrose is correct. All of the Eastern church fell under the terms of Cardinal Humbert’s anathema. They all have married priests, they all use leavened bread in the Eucharist and they all have removed the “filioque” from the creed.

John

 

[Aris]

Please take a look again.

The bull only excommunicates Patriarch Cerularius not the whole Eastern Church.

 

[twf]

Fr. Ambrose and Matthew have both mentioned (Matthew now, and Father in the past) that St. Irenaeus argues the primacy of Rome due to its foundation of BOTH Peter and Paul. Paul, however, never served as bishop of Rome, and was not given the “keys to the kingdom”. The Pope receives his primacy primarily from Peter. Paul’s role in the foundation of the Roman Church, however, seemingly increases it’s dignity and authority as he was a very important apostle, with extraordinary authority and dignity of his own right. Father Ambrose, in another thread, stated that after the first few centuries, Paul’s role was dropped from all arguments for the primacy of the Roman bishop, however, it seems that this is not completely true. In a secondary sense that I do not fully understand, Paul seems to have a role in the primacy of Rome. I’m basing this upon indirect implicit evidence, not an explicit statement, which I have included below:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we proclaim, declare and define as dogma revealed by God: the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven. (Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov 1, 1950)
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Pope speaks on behalf of the entire College of Bishops in such ex cathedra statements?

 

[prodromos]

Aris:

Please take a look again.

The bull only excommunicates Patriarch Cerularius not the whole Eastern Church.

It may only name him but since all bishops of the Eastern Church believe as Cerularius they all fall under the anathema of Humbert

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

prodromos:

It may only name him but since all bishops of the Eastern Church believe as Cerularius they all fall under the anathema of Humbert

Here, for interest, is the document of 1967 which lifted the Anathemas.

praiseofglory.com/lifting.htm

A point of interest is that this papally approved document designates the Roman Catholic Church several times as just that - the *Roman * Catholic Church. So it becomes inexplicable to me why we now hear this term *Roman Catholic * decried as an insult which is said to have its origins with the Anglicans!! Pope Paul VI uses the term and obviously does not feel that he is applying to his own Church any insult. One must give the Pope sufficient credit to know what was the official designation for his Church in official documents - the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Why are you always making trouble? Can’t you keep a topic to one thread?

God bless,

Greg