Define "Supremacy"

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Dear Father,

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

God bless,

Greg

I have reviewed some of your posts on some threads. Tangential material is not unknown. And neither should it be - we are humans after all and not narrowly focused machines or computers. Topics flow into other topics from time to time, usually only for a few posts and then there is a return to the main theme. Perfectly normal and acceptable. And this Forum is not composed of topnotch professional theologians but of us ordinary people. There are other Forums where one can find the strict kind of policing such as you seem to favour but I would not survive on them for a day

Btw, did you ever define “supremacy”? I think you started this thread to do that? But here we are at Post #199 and I cannot recall the appearance of a definition

 

[twf]

Father: What’s in a name? It is not the name that defines the Church. Names can change over time, without the essence changing. Did the Pope refer to the entire Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church? I’m not sure. Perhaps he meant only the Latin Church, and was not referring to the Eastern Churches? Either way, the term should not be used today, unless one is referring specifically to the Latin Church. (But in that case, it is simply confusing, as people are use to referring to the entire Church as the “Roman Catholic Church”, and may not realize that one is using it to designate the Latin Church alone).

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Thanks for your light-hearted response. I should let you know right now I very very rarely use smileys because my computer is so slow. Thus, I appreciate it when my humor is noticed though it is not obvious.

You did not find an apparent definition of supremacy from me because I wanted the non-Catholic definition of it. But I think you can infer my own definition from my posts. Basically, “supremacy” is not equivalent to dictatorship (really, one of the main points of my starting the thread). “Supremacy” in the Catholic Church is utilized for the good and edification of the body of Christ, not to put anyone down (which is the non-Catholic assumption). Supremacy manifests itself in the authority to reprove, rebuke, and teach.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Dear Father,

Thanks for your light-hearted response. I should let you know right now I very very rarely use smileys because my computer is so slow. Thus, I appreciate it when my humor is noticed though it is not obvious.

You did not find an apparent definition of supremacy from me because I wanted the non-Catholic definition of it. But I think you can infer my own definition from my posts. Basically, “supremacy” is equivalent to dictatorship (really, one of the main points of my starting the thread). “Supremacy” in the Catholic Church is utilized for the good and edification of the body of Christ, not to put anyone down (which is the non-Catholic assumption). Supremacy manifests itself in the authority to reprove, rebuke, and teach.

God bless,

Greg

Is this the limit of the Pope’s supremacy - to reprove, to rebuke, to teach? I imagine that within their own Churches the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Episcopalian Primate in the US both have more powers than this.

If these are the boundaries of papal supremacy the Orthodox should have no problems with this type of supremacy. Reproof may be argued and deflected, rebuke may be ignored, teaching may be questioned.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

It is not merely the ability to reprove, rebuke and teach, but the authority to reprove, rebuke and teach. It might be well to question authority, but what happens (theoretically speaking) if the authority that is reproving, rebuking, and teaching is infallible? I guess that is the real issue at stake – the infallibility of the papacy. I recall that Dom Chapman, in his book on Vatican I, opined that he thought the supremacy issue was more important than the infallibility issue. But our discussion here seems to reveal that all roads eventually lead to the infallibility issue. If you want to discuss infallibility, we should probably start a new thread.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

. “Supremacy” in the Catholic Church is utilized for the good and edification of the body of …
Supremacy manifests itself in the authority to reprove, rebuke, and teach

One cannot help but notice that throughout this thread your messages portray a watered down and minimalist understanding of papal supremacy which is not in step with that of the Pope.

I do not understand why you apparently reject Pope John Paul’s officially sanctioned definition as unhindered supreme power over all the church except that you really might not want to believe it?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose:

One cannot help but notice that throughout this thread your messages portray a watered down and minimalist understanding of papal supremacy which is not in step with that of the Pope.

I do not understand why you apparently reject Pope John Paul’s officially sanctioned definition as unhindered supreme power over all the church except that you really might not want to believe it?

piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff

Tinyurl – tinyurl.com/3rja6

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
. . .

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: **let him be anathema. **​

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I know the chronology, better than the Encyclopedia which is outdated and biased.

Oh really !!!
Fr Ambrose:

What reasons were cited in the Bull of Excommunication?

You mentioned it first, therefore I presumed you knew the reasons stated in the document. Are you saying you don’t?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

We are all familar with the history of bickering between Rome and Constantinople.

But these are only peripheral things.

The crux of the matter is -

– What were the theological points which justified Rome excommunicating the Eastern Catholics?

– Of what heresy did the Easterners stand guilty in the eyes of the Supreme Pontiff?

– Is there *any *real basis at all for Rome’s excommunication?

This is the only vital point and it is the one to which you will not make a response

If you already know the answers to these questions, don’t ask the questions. State the reasons as you know them, and let’s go from there.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

The “Roman” qualifier took on a particular significance during the Protestant revolt. One needs to know how someone is using the term.
cin.org/users/james/questions/q072.htm

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

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

True.
Fr Ambrose:

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 don’t confirm your misunderstanding, and disagree completely with your conclusion. The Church of Rome was built by Peter AND Paul. So there is no problem here. Paul was an apostle. .

Before Paul visited Rome, their faith was reported all over the world, as was their obedience of faith, and as Paul says, he wanted to visit Rome so that he could impart some spiritual gift, and that he and Rome could be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. [Rm 1:5-11].

My point to you was referring to bishops today. Not to the original apostles who also were bishops.
Fr Ambrose:

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

Much appreciated

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

The “Roman” qualifier took on a particular significance during the Protestant revolt. One needs to know how someone is using the term.]

Well, the Pope, writing in this document of 1967 is happy enough to use “Roman Catholic Church” repeatedly, so obviously he wasn’t too stressed by the Protestant revolt.

It is really part of recent Catholic urban legend to downplay the use of “Roman Catholic” and nothing to do with the Reformation or the Anglicans or the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The new distaste for the word “Roman” seems to stem from the post Vatican II period when the national Conferences of Catholic Bishops were hell bent on emphasising “collegiality” and their new found freedoms vis-a-vis control from Rome. So they removed “*Roman * Catholic” from their letterheadings, their telephone directory entries, their noticeboards outside churches, the names of educational institutes, etc.

All the same if you do an internet search you will find that some diocese are still proudly proclaiming themselves as “Roman Catholic.” Guess their bishops, like the Pope, are not too concerned about the Protestant Reformation

As an example, have a look at the webpage for the “**Roman Catholic ** Diocese of Phoenix”
diocesephoenix.org/

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

1. John may have been old, but not too old to write the book of revelation AFTER Clement writes to Corinth
2. Communication between Corinth and Rome wasn’t easy either. Clement eludes to the calamities befalling them, i.e. severe persecutions of the Church by pagan Rome, starting with Nero.
3. No matter how old John was, he is still an apostle of sound mind. And he was a whisker away from Corinth, compared to Clement over in Rome…

Fr Ambrose:

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.

We’re talking Church not state. Two completely different entities. Especially at this time in history
Fr Ambrose:

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.

1. The bishop is the one who represents the Church. Therefore it was Clement of Rome writing as the Church at Rome.
2. Corinth requested Rome’s help. It was NOT initiated by Rome. My point was, since John was alive in Greece, why didn’t Corinth go to John the apostle instead of Clement for settling the sedition?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Corinth requested Rome’s help. It was NOT initiated by Rome. My point was, since John was alive in Greece, why didn’t Corinth go to John the apostle instead of Clement for settling the sedition?

Good point!

And another one… why were all the Seven Ecumenical Councils not convened in Rome at the Head Quarters of the Church where the centre of all Christian authority had been divinely established and where the Supreme Pontiff resided?

Why were they all held in cities of what is now modern day Turkey? Orthodox land

The first time an Ecumenical Council was ever held in Rome was not until 1123, the First Lateran Council. That was the very first time that a Pope presided over a Council. And it wasn’t much of a Council either, but focused on very worldly matters such as whether or not a prince could carry a crosier.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Good point!

And another one… why were all the Seven Ecumenical Councils not convened in Rome at the Head Quarters of the Church where the centre of all Christian authority had been divinely established and where the Supreme Pontiff resided?

Why were they all held in cities of what is now modern day Turkey? Orthodox land

The first time an Ecumenical Council was ever held in Rome was not until 1123, the First Lateran Council. That was the very first time that a Pope presided over a Council. And it wasn’t much of a Council either, but focused on very worldly matters such as whether or not a prince could carry a crosier.

What made each council ***Ecumenical ***was the pope. Not the city where each council was held. Now back to the original question.

Corinth requested Rome’s help. It was NOT initiated by Rome. My point was, since John was alive in Greece, why didn’t Corinth go to John the apostle instead of Clement for settling the sedition?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Corinth requested Rome’s help. It was NOT initiated by Rome. My point was, since John was alive in Greece, why didn’t Corinth go to John the apostle instead of Clement for settling the sedition?

John was pushing 90. He died about the year 100. His sphere of activity was confined to Asia Minor. Would any decent person go and badger an old man about their silly church squabbles?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

What made each council ***Ecumenical ***was the pope.

That is wrong. One of the things that each of the Councils did was to affirm the validity of the Council which had preceded it. This is the first Act recorded from each Council. Read their preambles. Council ratifies Council. None of them mention that a preceding Council has validity because of any sort of ratification from the Pope of Rome.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

That is wrong. One of the things that each of the Councils did was to affirm the validity of the Council which had preceded it. This is the first Act recorded from each Council. Read their preambles. Council ratifies Council. None of them mention that a preceding Council has validity because of any sort of ratification from the Pope of Rome.

If the Pope does not validate the council, then it does not become an ecumenical council or binding on all of the Church.

You would have to argue why the council still sent the letters or documents of the council to the Pope, if the Pope was just a mere bishop or Patriarch and had no jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

If the Pope does not validate the council, then it does not become an ecumenical council or binding on all of the Church.

This is the later understanding of the Church of Rome, but it does not accord with that of the Universal Church.

Aris:

You would have to argue why the council still sent the letters or documents of the council to the Pope, if the Pope was just a mere bishop or Patriarch and had no jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs.

I think that you are speaking of Chalcedon? Pope Leo took a special interest in this Council and as you know he contributed a Tome to it which the Council Fathers examined and pronounced to be a thorough expression of the Catholic faith. So under the circumstances it was natural enough that they sent to him the Acts of this particular Council. They may even have sent the Acts of the other Councils to Rome -after all Rome was one of the five Patriarchatea and of immense importance and due every respect. But I am not really aware that the Council Fathers sent the Acts of other Councils to Rome?

 

[prodromos]

2. Communication between Corinth and Rome wasn’t easy either. Clement eludes to the calamities befalling them, i.e. severe persecutions of the Church by pagan Rome, starting with Nero.

Communication between the colony of Corinth and Rome was not the problem as there would have been boats sailing between them on a regular basis. The church in Rome had been slow in responding because they had been struggling to survive at the time the request came from Corinth

1. No matter how old John was, he is still an apostle of sound mind. And he was a whisker away from Corinth, compared to Clement over in Rome.

Alas, Superfast Ferries had not yet begun regularly scheduled trips between Pireus and Patmos. The only boat travel to Patmos was from the mainland of what is now Turkey, so getting from Corinth to Patmos would have been rather a lot more involved than getting to Rome. Geographically, Patmos is closer, but travelwise by the standards of those days, Rome was much quicker to get to.

1. The bishop is the one who represents the Church. Therefore it was Clement of Rome writing as the Church at Rome.

You said yourself that they were delayed in their response due to the persecution of the church under Nero which places the writing of the letter in A.D. 69 This is confirmed by Clement referring to the ongoing sacrifices in the Temple at Jerusalem which was not brought to an end until the Temple was destroyed in A.D 70… However, Clement was not Bishop of Rome until the twelfth year of Domitian’s reign, A.D. 93, so he could not have written the letter as bishop of Rome.

1. Corinth requested Rome’s help. It was NOT initiated by Rome. My point was, since John was alive in Greece, why didn’t Corinth go to John the apostle instead of Clement for settling the sedition?

As I mentioned above, it was easier to get from Corinth to Rome, and as been mentioned earlier Clement was a close companion of Paul who had founded the church in Corinth, so they naturally had a closer affinity to him. It is quite possible that they knew him personally.

John