Define "Supremacy"

[twf]

Fr. A: My position can be supported by the very fact that a bishop is not given a fourth degree of Holy Orders once elected pope, and that a priest, deacon or layman elected pope is pope once he has been consecrated a bishop. This demonstrates that as far as sacramental consecration is concerned, the Bishop of Rome is still a bishop, and in that sense could be deemed “First Among Equals”. Of course, in an extraordinary fashion, his authority is superior to that of the other bishops.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

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.

GAssisi genuinely doesn’t want to believe that supremacy means supremacy as in absolute dictatorship, but the Orthodox arguments against the heresy of papacy require that he read what’s written with the same seriousness we read it - we’re arguing against the dogmaticconstitution of his Church and its claims.

Of course it’s hard for him and others to accept that another Church with proven unbroken continuity to Christ’s personal organisation says they are wrong in claiming ‘petrine supremacy.’ Their rock crumbles and their church of cards collapses. The comparisons to Jack Chick come out when this happens.

What they want, the powers that be, is unity without giving up supremacy. Do they really think that can be achieved if the idea of supremacy is built on dishonesty? It would have no value, no grace, but I can’t see them saying as Aquinas did, that all they’ve written is like straw fit only to be burned… The bottom line is that one of us isn’t telling the truth.

Here’s the references to GAssisi’s last post, plus some extra on the dogma of supremacy meaning supreme authority over every member of Catholic Church.

GAssisi:
What is the non-Catholic definition of papal supremacy? It is not in the language of the Catholic. We admit to papal primacy, but do not see it as supremacy."

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM

These are the two references for CCC 883
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

404 LG 22; cf. CIC, can 336.

Code of Canon Law

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P17.HTM

Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.

1. It is for the Roman Pontiff, according to the needs of the Church, to select and promote the ways by which the college of bishops is to exercise its function collegially regarding the universal Church.

Can. 338 §1. It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside offer it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees.

§2. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
22.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.

Extra explaining supremacy to mean supremacy:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P16.HTM

Code of Canon Law
Art. 1.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them.

1. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law.

 

[Aris]

GAssisi:

Dear Aris and Father,

I gave my reasons for believing the title primus inter pares is applicable to the Pope in a P.S. in post #8. As also noted, this designation only goes as far as the Patriarchal level. Beyond that, the Pope, by divine appointment, has no equal.
(continued)

Hi Greg,

I am in agreement with what you said. However, I was asking how this “First among equals” came to mean that the Pope has no prerogative over the other bishops and Patriarchs.

It seems to me that the “First among equals” meaning the Pope has no jusrisdiction over the other Patriarchs are a recent invention (500 years old?) of the Orthodox to justify their non-union with Rome.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Your method of rhetoric is almost pointless, for you only wish to address particular points taken out of context. For instance, in context, you will realize that I never denied papal supremacy, but only papal supremacy defined as dictatorship. You try to falsely paint my position as being in opposition to the traditional Catholic understanding, yet you have not addressed over half of my first post, focusing only one or two sentences taken out of context. Why do you feel it necessary to take things out of context all the time, Father? Is the Orthodox position so weak that you must resort to such tactics to justify it?

You want to paint the papacy as a dictatorship, yet you have not given any reason for such, at least not any reason that would at the same time cause one to reject the hierarchical order of the Church in general.

Laughably, in order to prove the dictatorial nature of the papacy, you quote from a canon that states that bishops ALSO, in union with the Pope, share supreme power over the Church. Your eisegetic reading of our canons is rather unscholarly.

Please try again. I hope this discussion is not a reflection of the kind of dialog Catholic hierarchs will have to bear in the God-ordained quest for unity.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

For instance, in context, you will realize that I never denied papal supremacy, but only papal supremacy defined as dictatorship.

GAssisi wrote in Message #1: “In cases of doctrine and morals, for the unity of the faith, the Pope can juridically impose a sentence, and his sentence will be infallible, and this not by consent or approval of the rest of the Church, but by the special provenance of God for the Petrine office. The sentence will be theologically infallible without the consent of the Church, but for the sake of the unity of the Church, the sentence will need the agreement of all the other bishops.”

Dictatorship.

You want to paint the papacy as a dictatorship, yet you have not given any reason for such, at least not any reason that would at the same time cause one to reject the hierarchical order of the Church in general

Any laws which give one man SUPREME and unchallengeable powers are dictatorial. The supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff is emphasised again and again the the Canon Law of the Roman Church. Simply refer to all previous posts.

Please try again. I hope this discussion is not a reflection of the kind of dialog Catholic hierarchs will have to bear in the God-ordained quest for unity

There is no quest for unity - there is only the desire of the Roman Pontiff to assert his claimed “**full, supreme and universal power **” over our Churches.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London:

“It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy. Theological encounters and ‘accords’ on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley, for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church.”

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

First, show me from Scripture or Tradition that God’s infallible Truth requires the consent of the Church.

Second, I want to ask: do you interpret “full, supreme, and universal” power to mean that the Pope at a whim for no reason but his mere desire, interfere in the affairs of a sui juris Church? If so, can you please cite documentation to validate this interpretation, or perhaps an example since that definition was given that would support your fearful interpretation of the canon?

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

I hope this discussion is not a reflection of the kind of dialog Catholic hierarchs will have to bear in the God-ordained quest for unity

Here is the Catholic version of the “God-ordained quest for unity” -the conquest of Russia.

Have a look at the picture in the March, 1990
issue of the Catholic magazine 30 Days.

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/vatican_russia.aspx

The picture is one third of the way down on the right.

It shows a horde of Catholic priests and nuns, with John Paul II leading them, marching into Russia, with Russian cupolas and churches in the background.

The caption is:

"Eastern Europe… Ready… Set…!

“The fall of the Iron Curtain has given the Church greater freedom of movement. The first to respond to the opportunity have been the religious orders. Their destination: the former Catholic nations. Their dream: to “conquer” Holy Mother Russia.”

We are still seen as fodder for conversion. Nothing changes.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

example since that definition was given that would support your fearful interpretation of the canon

History amply demonstrates that the Orthodox have no small reason to be justifiably afraid of the Catholic Church. Our two most merciless enemies have been the Roman Catholic and the Muslim religions.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

I have several comments and questions regarding your last two posts:

First, is the 30 Days magazine an official publication of the Vatican like L’Osservatore Romano? If it isn’t I fail to see the relevance of its mention. This is just me, but I wouldn’t trust the clearly anti-Catholic material on Orthodoxinfo.org which is not even an approved site for the Orthodox Church. In any case, the only 30 Days magazine I know of was established in 1993. I don’t know how Orthodoxinfo.org was able to obtain an issue from 1990?! Can’t you distinguish that hackneyed cut and paste photo that is supposedly from the magazine? It seems in the general vein of that website to create falsifications about the Catholic Church.

And exactly what history are you speaking of? Is it the history of the sack of Constantinople which the Pope spoke out against, before and after the event? Is it the history of the sack of Constantinople that details how an Orthodox prince was responsible for turning the Crusaders away from Jerusalem and towards Constantinople in his thirst for power? Is it the history of the use of the Church by secular monarchs to further their goals, something which was done by both Catholic and Orthodox monarchs? Is it that history in which Orthodox propagandists present the sins of Catholics and Catholic monarchs as the sins of the Church herself? Should not the Orthodox hierarchy share in the blame of perpetuating fear among the Orthodox faithful by their distortions of history?

God bless,

Greg

 

[prodromos]

GAssisi:

In any case, the only 30 Days magazine I know of was established in 1993

Dig deeper Greg. Their web site states they were registered with the court of Rome in '93, but 30Giorni have been around for a little bit longer than that.

John.

 

[Orthodoc]

[Is it the history of the sack of Constantinople which the Pope spoke out against, before and after the event? ]

It is the sin of the fact that the Pope spoke out against from one side of his mouth while he took advantage of it by instituting a Latin Patriarchate. And continued to accept stolen bounty that flowed from the Orthodox Churches into the Vatican treasury and western Roman Catholic Churches for the next 60+ years! Words without actions to back them up are meaningless.

Orthodoc

 

[Sarah_Jane]

What do you think about the forced reunions of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Orthodox Church in Russia?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Sarah Jane:

What do you think about the forced reunions of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Orthodox Church in Russia?

Accomplished fairly peacefully and without much bloodshed - unlike the masses of blood spilt at the forced creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the 16th century when entire Orthodox communities were compelled to join the Eastern Catholic Church.

For one example of how Orthodox Russians and other Orthodox were made to join the Eastern Catholic Church see…
cin.org/archives/apolo/199810/0580.html

History is never simple in Europe

 

[Orthodoc]

[What do you think about the forced reunions of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Orthodox Church in Russia?]

There is an old saying that goes - “what goes around, comes around.” Also, history tends to repeat itself. So lets look at just how the Unia was created in 1596. -

=========

The Orthodox Church In The History Of Russia - by * Professor Dimitry Pospielovsky

(*) Dimitry Pospielovsky is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario. He is the author of The Russian Church Under The Soviet Regime, 1917-1982v (SVS Press, 1984) and is one of the foremost authorities on Russian Church History.

Page 93

The laity, the parish clergy, and particularly the brotherhoods refused to accept the union with Rome. The protest movement developed and spread quickly, joined at first by a single bishop, Gideon (Bolodan) of Lvov. The Polish King gave in to these pressures and authorized the convening of a local council of those bishops, clergy and laity of the Roman and Greek Church who accepted the papacy --i.e. those who did not accept the Unia were not invited.

The Council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox Churches in the city, the now Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev sealed all Orthodox Churches on the day before the Council was to begin, except for the cathedral where the Council was to take place. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school for a separate Orthodox Council. The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive “the traitors” of their dioceses and parishes. But the Polish King decided otherwise: his edict of October 15, LEGALIZED ONLY THOSE BYZANTINE RITE CHRISTIANS WHO JOINED THE UNIA; IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL ITS CLERGY EXCOMMUNICATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.

Page 96

The Polish government could ill afford continuous persecutions of the Orthodox. A war with Turkey loomed on the horizon, and in 1621 the Cossacks presented an ultimatum to the Polish Crown, stating that unless all persecutions of the Orthodox Church ceased, they would refuse to fight the Turks. In response, the 1623 Sejm declared toleration of the Orthodox Church and permitted the legitimization of Orthodox bishops and the restoration of their dioceses.

But the joy of the Orthodox was short-lived. The legalization of the Orthodox Church resulted in mass return to Orthodoxy especially in Eastern Belorussia. This resulted in mass attacks on Orthodox households and Churches led by bishop Josaphat (Kuntsevish). The citizens revolted which resulted in Josaphat’s death.

Roman Catholic revenge was immediate and brutal. All Orthodox Churches were once again confiscated or closed. Everywhere in the commonwealth the Orthodox lost the right not only to build but to repair churches; Pope Urban VII proclaimed that any Roman Catholic who dared to oppose the use of the sword against the Orthodox would be excommunicated.

==========

Change the name from King to Dictator and you have the same situation in reverse manner. One cannot condem one without condeming the other.

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father and Orthodoc,

Unlike you two, I will not participate in exposing the sins of the Orthodox in slaughtering many Catholics. Both sides have been guilty of it. Father, your usual flair for understating Orthodox atrocities is noted. The hypocrisy of your polemic against the Catholic Church has been exposed many times. Do not force me to do it again.

Orthodoc, you consider the acceptance of relics from Constantinople as a sin against the Orthodox by the Pope. Please tell me where and when the Pope ever sanctioned such booty. Please, do tell me how such a return could have taken place given the unimaginable turmoil in that region between warring Orthodox pretenders to the throne and the Muslim/Turkish threat. Do not seek to make this an issue of relics and material treasures. I don’t recall the Orthodox ever requesting for those items back for many hundreds of years. Should I then suppose that they were not important to the Orthodox at all, and now only serve a theoretical and polemic significance?

“What goes around comes around?” What more proof does a non-Christian need of whether to join the Catholic or Orthodox Church? Who indeed could join a Church which spouts off pagan and un-Christian axioms to live by? Even Father A’s behavior in this forum, sadly, certainly reflects this axiom.

Prodomos, you have yet to answer my original question. Is the 30 Days periodical an official Vatican publication by which its contents could be taken as representative of the Vatican?

God bless,

Greg

 

[prodromos]

Dear Greg,
in case you hadn’t noticed, Father Ambrose is currently under pain of suspension from this forum. It makes your bold words sound kind of hollow in light of the fact that Father Ambrose is not able to post anything. You accuse Father Ambrose of understating Orthodox attrocities yet you are completely silent when your Catholic brethren make posts that are guilty of the same. Deal with the beam in your own (collective) eye before you accuse others of hypocrasy.

“What goes around, comes around” is a pagan and un-christian aviom? My dear fellow, it is one of the spiritual laws and is deeply rooted in scripture. What do you make of Exodus 34:6-7?

Once again you criticise Father Ambrose’ behaviour while neglecting to rebuke your own brethren for much worse.

Your question regarding “30Days” was not addressed to me and I was merely pointing out how your implication that orthodoxinfo pulled the 1990 issue out of thin air did not have the basis you thought it did. However since you ask, though there is no need for you to do so since you know the answer as well as anybody, no it is not an official publication of the Vatican. Happy?

John.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

prodromos:

Dear Greg,
in case you hadn’t noticed, Father Ambrose is currently under pain of suspension from this forum. It makes your bold words sound kind of hollow in light of the fact that Father Ambrose is not able to post anything. You accuse Father Ambrose of understating Orthodox attrocities yet you are completely silent when your Catholic brethren make posts that are guilty of the same. Deal with the beam in your own (collective) eye before you accuse others of hypocrasy.

“What goes around, comes around” is a pagan and un-christian aviom? My dear fellow, it is one of the spiritual laws and is deeply rooted in scripture. What do you make of Exodus 34:6-7?

Once again you criticise Father Ambrose’ behaviour while neglecting to rebuke your own brethren for much worse.

Your question regarding “30Days” was not addressed to me and I was merely pointing out how your implication that orthodoxinfo pulled the 1990 issue out of thin air did not have the basis you thought it did. However since you ask, though there is no need for you to do so since you know the answer as well as anybody, no it is not an official publication of the Vatican. Happy?

John.

WHat is sad is that Catholics and Orthodox are fighting each other a n Orthodox Priest sees us as his enemy,Peoplewith the oldest Churches in Christendom at each others throat. And who has won ?SATAN!God Bless and learn to recognise the real enemy

 

[GAssisi]

Dear John,

Don’t worry. I’ve protested the use of ad hominem representations by my Catholic brethren once or twice before. Do you want me to look for them and point them out to you? I really don’t want to toot my own horn, but I’ll do so simply to assuage your indignation, if you want.

And Exodus 34:6-7? Try Matthew 5:43-48. Or maybe we should consider the atrocities done to the Orthodox were a result of their hard-heartedness for the many times that unity could have been achieved? Do you see how ultimately futile is the argument proposed by you and Orthodoc? Orthodoc claims that the atrocities done to Eastern Catholics are a payback for the Catholic atrocities against Orthodox; and then you try to claim divine sanction for such atrocities? Should I thereby claim that the suffering of Orthodox under communism is a result of the sins of Orthodoxy in the past? Can you see how absolutely useless and godless this line of argumentation is, John?

It really is a pity that you would sink to such depths as to claim divine sanction for atrocities against Catholics perpetrated by Orthodox.

Sincerely God bless,

Greg

 

[prodromos]

GAssisi:

Don’t worry. I’ve protested the use of ad hominem representations by my Catholic brethren once or twice before. Do you want me to look for them and point them out to you? I really don’t want to toot my own horn, but I’ll do so simply to assuage your indignation, if you want.

Sorry if I missed them. The majority of your posts seems to be responses to Father Ambrose. Until his suspension you were almost inseperable

And Exodus 34:6-7? Try Matthew 5:43-48. Or maybe we should consider the atrocities done to the Orthodox were a result of their hard-heartedness for the many times that unity could have been achieved? Do you see how ultimately futile is the argument proposed by you and Orthodoc? Orthodoc claims that the atrocities done to Eastern Catholics are a payback for the Catholic atrocities against Orthodox; and then you try to claim divine sanction for such atrocities? Should I thereby claim that the suffering of Orthodox under communism is a result of the sins of Orthodoxy in the past? Can you see how absolutely useless and godless this line of argumentation is, John?

Woah! Where did I claim any of the above. We shall reap what we sow (Gal 6:7-8), this is in no way sanctioning payback. Responding in kind only widens the rift that exists between the two parties instead of bringing about healing (which is where Matthew 5:43-48 comes in)

It really is a pity that you would sink to such depths as to claim divine sanction for atrocities against Catholics perpetrated by Orthodox.

Methinks you read far too much into my posts. All I did was respond to your comment that “What goes around, comes around.” was a pagan, un-christian axiom. How you came to your last conclusion from that is beyond me. Perhaps you should cut down on the coffee.

John