Define "Supremacy"

[GAssisi]

Canon 333- 3 says, “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
This is a very notable feature of all dictatorial systems, including those within living memory.
This is an example of hypocrisy. For ones who condemn Catholics as heretics because they supposedly added to the Creed, this canon gives pause? Try another one! In any case, this canon implies that all other ecclesiastical remedies have been exhausted, and that the Pontiff’s decision is arrived in due course as the court of FINAL appeal. It is patently inconsistent to appeal to the Pope as a highest court of appeal and then say, “I want to appeal to someone else” if someone does not agree to that decision. Such a mob rule system does not even happen in democracies, for heaven’s sake! Why should people accede to such a travesty to all good order, as if there was no court of final appeal in Christianity? What example can you give wherein the ex cathedra decision of a Pope has ever been contested or refuted by an Ecumenical Council? History itself has demonstrated the truth underlying this canon.
Canon 338-1 states: “It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.”
One man *alone *has power to convene, dissolve, approve or not approve any and all Council decrees! In what Eastern European countries have we found this thinking implemented in our life time? Why is this dictatorial? This is no less the prerogative of every patriarch in his respective See! Further, the word “alone” is attached to many prerogatives of bishops. For example, only a Eucharist is valid where the bishop or one he appoints presides; or only the bishop of a certain region alone can ordain or depose a priest in that region. Non-hierarchical Christian communities would regard even the Orthodox system as dictatorial. Why do you judge the Catholic Church for something which you can easily be judged for? I recall a wise man once said that for the judgment you have judged others, by that you will also be judged.

In any case, you have yet to answer one of my questions: why is not the relationship of a bishop to his priest not considered dictatorial? It certainly has all the rudiments for dictatorship, according to your rationale? Please do answer this question.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

I gave my reasons for believing the title primus inter pares is applicable to the Pope in a P.S. in post #8.

What you say, in #5 and #8, is that it is your personal opinion that the Pope is *First among Equals * because you can substantiate it negatively. Because nobody has challenged your opinion that the Pope is First among Equals.

Really, Greg, this won’t convince anybody. You need to provide some authoritive statements from the RC Magisterium or all we have is your own private predeliction which, as other Catholics have pointed out to you in another thread, is contrary to modern Catholic ecclesiology.
See
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…27&postcount=10

As I wrote four days ago:

I think that until it is determined whether your belief that the Pope is “first among equals” is Catholic teaching or not, this thread is rather bogged down in uncertainty.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

prodromos:

Father Ambrose…Chronia polla! (many years) and may you have a blessed feast day today

Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, pray for us and save us.

Dear John,

Thanks muchly. I am a Paleohimerologite, so I am holding off with the allnight vigilling and celebration for two more weeks

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,
How can my references in the P.S. of post #8 be regarded as negative inferences?
Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Dear Father,
How can my references in the P.S. of post #8 be regarded as negative inferences?
Greg

Here is what you wrote…

P.S. Just to assuage your questioning heart, check out CCC:1555 thru 1560, containing pertinent excerpts from Lumen Gentium and Fidei Donum (Pius XII), where it states that all bishops are vicars of Christ, that the office of bishop is the highest order in the Church, that all bishops are entrusted with solicitude for the entire Church, and that their prerogatives are by divine institution as successors of the Apostles.

If this meant that the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Bongaigaon are equals then I would rejoice. But we both know that to draw such an inference from the Canons you reference would be naive and misleading. There is NO equality between Pope John Paul II and Bishop Pulloppillil.

The Pope is NOT First among Equals. He is First, No Equals.

As I wrote, I’d love to know where you learned that the Pope is First among Equals. Where have you picked up this belief? It must have come from somewhere - is it something you’ve been ‘taught’ from your Church sources?

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,
Didn’t I specify in my very first post “in these categories,” referring to the levels of bishop and Patriarch? Why does this confuse you so? Ask anyone here if, on the level of bishop and Patriarch, the Pope is equal to his fellow bishops and Patriarchs.

It is only in his particular Petrine office wherein he exercises his prerogatives for the good of the entire Church as universal pastor that the Pope has no equal.

Once you can get beyond this little mental block, perhaps we can continue this discussion on why you feel the papacy is dictatorial - preferably in rejoinder to my own response to your citations of those canons.

God bless,
Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Didn’t I specify in my very first post “in these categories,” referring to the levels of bishop and Patriarch? Why does this confuse you so? Ask anyone here if, on the level of bishop and Patriarch, the Pope is equal to his fellow bishops and Patriarchs

These are word games. There is NO equality between the Pope and the Patriarchs.

Catholic teaching is clear-

402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

Note the words “supreme power.” There can be no equality when someone is in possession of supreme power.

Have you been able to substantiate your contention that the Pope is “First among Equals”? Is there a Canon from any of the Catholic Councils? Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II?

Why won’t you back up your statement?

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

So far, the only thing you have been able to come up with is to call an inference from the canons I mentioned as “naive and misleading.”

Why would it be “naive and misleading” I might ask you. There is obviously a certain predilection in our respective thoughts on the issue. However, by your remark that it would be “naive and misleading,” you admit that such canons can be interpreted that way.

Thus, I would like to repeat my question: “Why would it be naive and misleading to view these canons as implying that the Pope is first among equals?”

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Thus, I would like to repeat my question: “Why would it be naive and misleading to view these canons as implying that the Pope is first among equals?”

Well, the Patriarchs of the Byzantine Catholic Churches are not so naive nor so easily mislead by any attempts to pretend that they have an equality with the Pope!

Here is the Catholic Melkite Patriarch protesting very strongly about the lack of equality. Since these Patriarchs are the ones for whom you are claiming “equality” with the Pope, the words of the Melkite Patriarchate carry weight and he is certainly not in agreemnet with you.

Here we have an instance of the Catholic Melkite Patriarch boldly claiming equality with the Pope, both for himself and for other Catholic Patriarchs. From his words **it is very plain that this equality does not exist ** at this time.

This is from the Vatican website
vatican.va/news_services…ese/b10_02.html
vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html
(close to the bottom of the webpage)

H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a “particular honor” given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, “servatis servandis”, in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

[00119-02.03] [in096] [Original text: French]

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Thank you so much for the article! It amply demonstrates my position. Even the article you present makes it clear that the equality of Eastern Patriarchs is enshrined in the constitution of the Catholic Church. As the Melkite Patriarch plainly states:
“We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.”
It seems it is a matter of the Eastern Patriarchs getting out of a certain mentality which keeps them “second class” Patriarchs compared to the Pope.

God bless, and thank you once again!
Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Thank you so much for the article! It amply demonstrates my position

I am concerned when you write of “my position.” *Your * position seems to be out of line with Catholic teaching. The Pope is NOT “First among Equals” as you say. He is “First, No Equals.”

I would rather hear from others who offer the true position of the Catholic Church than the private opinion of individuals at variance with the teaching of the Magisterium.

 

[GAssisi]

Avoiding the issue, once again, I see. Why don’t you address the substance of what I wrote?

God bless,
Greg

 

[prodromos]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear John,

Thanks muchly. I am a Paleohimerologite, so I am holding off with the allnight vigilling and celebration for two more weeks

Where is the “smacking his forehead” smiley when I need it

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Avoiding the issue, once again, I see. Why don’t you address the substance of what I wrote?

Because I am not interested in debating an opinion (that the Pope is First among Equals) which is not Catholic teaching or is at best fringe Catholic teaching.

Now you are backtracking from your original assertion that the proof that he is First among Equals can be demonstrarted by a negative inference (i.e., nobody has denied it). Rather than admit that you were mistaken you have gone on to muddy the waters with a new slant, saying that the Pope is equal to a Patriarch “up to the level of a Patriarch.” Well, he is also equal to an altarboy “up to the level of an altarboy.”

Since there in no consistency in what you have written and you are inclined to change your ground there is precious little to address.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,
How am I now changing my position when everything that I am now discussing and claiming was set in virtual ink in my very first post?
Sigh! Just answer the question, will you?
God bless,
Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I’m still fascinated by GAssisi’s claim that the Pope doesn’t have supremacy, and surprised that it hasn’t got a bigger reaction from the Catholics here.

The CCC was greatly influenced by Pope John Paul II and carries his stamp of authority as definitive Catholic doctrine. CCC 882 and 883 are carefully worded to convey the exact doctrine of papacy.

If GAssisi doesn’t accept this then he is making a definite stand against papal claims.

This is quite extraordinary.

I’ve never come across an RC who denies papal supremacy. Is he agreeing with the Orthodox that the papacy is a heresy?!

---

“Who is this coming up from the desert like a column of smoke, perfumed with *myrrh * and incense made from all the spices of the merchant?” ~ Song of Solomon 3:6

 

[twf]

Fr. Ambrose: You are correct in that the Church does teach papal supremacy. I can, however, see the Pope as a “First Among Equals” in a certain sense. The other bishops are not equal in authority to him, but in dignity they are all bishops and successors of the apostles. The papacy is not a special fourth degree of Holy Orders. He is a bishop. So as far as his sacramental consecration is concerned, he is not greater than other bishops. It is only in the extent of his apostolic authority that he is greater.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

twf:

Fr. Ambrose: You are correct in that the Church does teach papal supremacy. I can, however, see the Pope as a “First Among Equals” in a certain sense. The other bishops are not equal in authority to him, but in dignity they are all bishops and successors of the apostles. The papacy is not a special fourth degree of Holy Orders. He is a bishop. So as far as his sacramental consecration is concerned, he is not greater than other bishops. It is only in the extent of his apostolic authority that he is greater.

I suspect that you are introducing elements which are not authorised teaching and it is the same liberal slippery slope as GAssisi - downplaying the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.

CCC 883 is quite clear that “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff…” It does not mention (or I have not been able to find?) ideas such as the Pope is not greater then the other bishops by his sacramental consecration. Such a statement seems to be opening up the possibility of restricting the papal power of “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church.” CCC 882.

 

[hlgomez]

Fr. Ambrosio,

I will not argue too much with you. Orthodox Church can never be Catholic unless they become united with Peter’s successor. Sorry, even our present time attest to the Catholicicity of the Catholic Church. Almost in every nation of the world there is no ambassador named to the Orthodox church. I haven’t even heard of the orthodox church speaking in the UN regarding moral issues for every nation that is a concern of the Catholic Church. It is only in the Catholic Church that truly reflects the universality of her mission to every nation. You should wake up from the old accussations and mostly twisted historical claims of the schismatic orthodox churches regarding the supreme authority of Peter’s successor the pope.

Pio

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

It is certainly not the case that Catholics who admit the Pope is primus inter pares up to a certain point in the ministry somehow obfuscates the papal primacy. From my very first post, I have made evident that “the Pope has another prerogative which no other bishop has” which is utilized under restricted circumstances.

Your statement from CCC 883 is taken out of context, as have all your criticisms about the Catholic Church. If you will bother to read the context from Vatican II from which CCC 883 is taken, you will discover that this phrase “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff…" refers specifically to those extraordinary circumstances which require the convocation of the college of bishops, namely the Ecumenical Council. Under NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the bishop indeed has full plenary, immediate and ordinary authority in his own jurisdiction.

So far, it seems your view of the papacy is colored by a prejudice which does not do justice to the actual definition of the Pope’s prerogatives, and you have not presented any evidence so far to show how my and TWF’s view is inconsistent with Catholic orthodoxy.

God bless,

Greg