85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." CCC
To Roman Catholics, yes, it’s clear. But to be fair, I can understand how those who are not in Communion with Rome might not find it so clear that the above passes down from one to another to another to another in a line passed by the verification of men. I can understand how these passages were thought to be meant for Peter rather than 'Peter and everyone else". I don’t know all my scriptures or where to find them all the time, but if there were verses that included something like ‘and those after you’ or ‘and those following you forever down the line’ or something like that, it might help those who find papal authority as the Roman Catholic Church teaches it a bit less difficult.
He sent all the disciples to evangalize, but to be fair, the above doesn’t prove absolute papal authority.
Very well said. The work of St. Optatus is important as it the first sustained agrument not merely against false doctrine but also against separation from the church.
The keys"
No, the buck stops with God.
Neither are Popes.
No. There were no Patriarchs by the time of Constantine the Great. At that time they only established the Metropolitan of Alexandria and compared the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Alexandria with that of Rome, which also was a Metropolitanate at the time. In our Liturgy we commemorate St. John Chrysostom as “Archbishop of Constantinople”, not Patriarch. Which means by the turn of the 5th century Constantinople was still not a Patriarchate, long after Constantine the Great has reposed. They were elevated to a patriarchate much later. I can’t remember the exact ecumenical council that started patriarchates.
The Pope is not in the Gospel of Matthew. Even if one were to conclude that Peter’s keys means Papal authority, there is nothing in Scripture that says Peter passed this authority to anyone. Nothing.
But in the same instance I have narrated, there is no such thing as “leadership of the pope”. Not one of the other Patriarchs did see the Pope as any sort of superior or one whom they pledge their loyalty to, including in matters of dogma. and doctrine.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the authority of the keys is exercised by the Pope alone, but rather by the pope and all of the bishops in union with him. Pope St. Gregory the Great was quite clear, as you point out, that Alexandria and Antioch also exercised the Petrine primacy - though only within their respective spheres (Africa and Asia), while Rome exercised the Petrine primacy throughout the entire Church.
Note that the power of the keys includes absolution of sin - so in this sense every parish priest exercises the authority of the keys as well - though not to the same degree as the Pope.
The other bishops, in union with the successor of Peter, also exercise this authority.
While the Pope has a greater jurisdiction, each bishop is a true vicar of Christ.
You are right. The schism in reality is gradual. By some accounts, Latins were still communed at Hagia Sophia until the day Constantinople fell. But even though, why did nobody really question the schism from the perspective of submission to Rome, as is taught today in the Catholic Church? Regardless of when the schism actually took place, communion with the Pope as essential to the faith is pretty far from the mind of everyone, even the Pope himself (he never urged reunion no the basis of the necessity of communion with him).
I think you presented quite a clean version of the events. The Latins were certainly far from such benevolent rules in the Near East during the crusades.
How much into this have you read? I know that the Ukrainians claim that they were dragged into the schism and wanted to clarify later on with Rome via the union that they never really wanted to schism in the first place. But that is hardly the entire story. The kingdom of Rus was divided after the barbarians invaded and were split between those who migrated north to Moscow, and those who moved West to Galicia. They were at odds with one another then and they are at odds with one another today. Whatever was left of the ancient Patriarchates supported the Church in Moscow more than the one in Galicia, so the Galicians went to Rome.
You are right, it is hard to really summarize history with brief forum discussions. The same way that what you have presented in your post is a simplistic summary of the events that tend to favor the Latin positition more, it is hard to be fair and to quantify everything short of writing a book about it. But basically my point was that the other Patriarchates never ever saw splitting with Rome as a theological issue, that the Church cannot be valid without union with the bishop of Rome, as claimed by the Catholic Church today. Is this not the side of Constantinople on the matter?
That doesn’t mean he is a supreme leader of the Apostles were everyone is subject to him. The Orthodox do recognize the primacy of Peter, but what “primacy” means is different for Orthodox and Catholics.
And how do we prove that Linus is Pope? According to the Didache, Peter didn’t even ordain Linus.
Hi Cavaradossi,God bless you
I’ve always found it interesting, when the Orthodox discuss the primacy of Peter, they are quick to acknowledge it, but when it gets to the actual exercise of primacy, they balk and protest. What does ‘primacy’ mean to you? That the pope gets the plush chair at the head of the table?
There goes “…and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
Make sure you get that memo to heaven so the Holy Spirit can put it in the Gospels somewhere.
Teaching and instructing (and governing) are functions of all Catholic bishops, but have nothing to do with the primacy of Peter and his successors. Orthodox bishops were blessed by not having to deal with Martin Luther. What you call “the modern Roman Catholic interpretation of primacy” arose from the heresies of Luther’s rebellion and its repurcussions in Northern Europe. The doctrines of Trent may sound a little excessive to Orthodox ears, but the Church was obligated to act decisively at the time, and she did.
No, but if we are to take Rome’s claim to have a primacy grounded in scripture seriously, then I would expect to see some statement that Peter would have one sole and direct successor at any time, that this privilege would be granted exclusively to the bishops in the city of Peter’s martyrdom, that this successor would have supreme jurisdiction over all bishops, and that this successor would be protected from error when making dogmatic declarations matters of faith and morals. This is why I find it annoying when people make the baseless accusation that we do not recognize the primacy of Peter in the New Testament, because we clearly do not reject it as it is presented in the New Testament, but we reject the way Roman Catholics attempts to read its 19th century papal dogmas into it.
Ah, so then the pope is a separate order of apostolic succession stemming from Peter, while bishop comes from the other apostles. But if this were true, why is the pope ordained by bishops, and why is it that a bishop who is elected as pope is not ordained once more to confer upon him the papacy?Furthermore, should not a pope be ordained only by those who have succession directly from Peter, so as to maintain this Petrine lineage? But this creates a problem, since there cannot be two popes at once to preserve this unique succession when one steps down, but there only can be one primate. In fact, since custom is not for a retiring bishop (much less one who dies in office) to ordain his successor, it stands that by the time of pope Anacletus, the second bishop to obtain the episcopate in Rome, this succession would have been lost since pope Anacletus died as a martyr and therefore likely did not ordain Clement. And even if we were to grant that it survived until the time of John Paul II, we know that such a succession would be lost now, since Pope Benedict XVI was not ordained pope by Pope John Paul II. So then it must be that the pope has the same Holy Orders as all of the successors of the Apostles, bishop, which then makes this point moot, because either all bishops possess the power of primacy by virtue of their ordination, or none do.
Primacy comes with prerogatives, like a presidency. It does not, however, place the primate completely above the judgment of his peers.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]
Hah, good joke.
Never have I seen this concept detailed in the scriptures. Please show me where the Scriptures teach this.
I am glad we agree.
I do not agree. The papacy grew into its current state during the Gregorian reforms. By the time of Constance, the reforms had already finished, which is why solving the Great (Western) Schism was such a mess, because the only possible solution was conciliar action, but papal expansion in the past three centuries had undermined the legitimacy of this method of solving ecclesiastical problems, making it nearly unthinkable. Even to this day, the Roman Catholic Church accepts the solution of Constance (i.e., it accepts the legitimacy of pope Martin V), but condemns as heresy the very dogmatic proposition (conciliarism) used by the council to justify the imposition of its solution.
Ah…I see the proof texting continues. It is really quite easy to do. Here’s one for you.
I understand we are not solorscriptura, but Pope is in the bible making it a higher vocation than patriarch. Jesus told Peter What HE holds bound and loosed on earth would be heald bound or loosed in heaven. Not any other apostle had that told to him.To think Peter would have successors is folly. Without successors to Peter, giving Peter that kind of power would of been meaningless.