Ecclesial infallibility in the Early Church

[steve_b]

But we both hold Peter’s faith. You completely avoided my question. If everyone in the Church holds the faith of Peter, are they all Peter? If not, then is the Church built upon the man Peter, or upon his faith which is shared by all members of the Church?

• Who was Jesus talking to, Peter or His faith? Peter who has his faith
• Who were the keys given to, Peter or his faith? Peter who has his faith
• who was to feed rule and confirm the Church, Peter or his faith? Peter who has his faith

For the sake of argument, the apostles earlier, made a similar confession that Peter made

Re: [Mt 14:33 ]
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Did Jesus stop what everybody was doing and say to the apostles, "your confession was a revelation from the Father and so from now on, I’m changing everybody’s name to Peter, and I give you the keys to the kingdom,…? Nope! But this would be a great place in scripture to do it if it was based on one’s confession. But nothing was done or said to them by Jesus regarding their response. So why did Jesus wait to do what He did for Simon a few chapters later in Mt 16?

the man Peter was selected specifically from all the rest, because He was to be the leader of the apostles, and the Church.

And as we can see from the following quotes from Jesus, Peter in Mt 16 and all the other places in the Gospels where Peter is singled out, he is the Father’s choice, because Jesus as He said, said and did everything the Father wanted Him to do and say.

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 6:
38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;

Jn 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
S:

It is actually important to distinguish whether the Church was built upon Peter’s faith rather than the person Peter for this reason: Peter’s faith can be held by people other than Peter.

That invalidates an important distinction made by God. In [Is 22:22…] keys are given to one man at a time. Jesus gave the keys to Peter.
S:

But does that mean the Roman Communion or the Orthodox Church?

sheesh!

I said Catholic Church. There is only one. While there are many rites, and the Roman/Latin rite is ~98% of the Catholic Church, all rites are 100% Catholic, and make up one Catholic Church because they are all united to the chair of Peter. The Orthodox otoh, aren’t the Catholic Church, & they aren’t one “Church”, & they are seperated from the chair of Peter.
S:

But that does not mean that any errors are actually made in any given instance. Something can be totally free of error without any inherent trait of infallibility.

Yes, I’m aware of the idea that the Pope can only be infallible if such and such boxes on a checklist are marked off. Now maybe you can tell me the list of things done by the Pope that are infallible? There are lots of different answers to this. Why? Because there’s no one answer that all Catholics can agree on.

Why can it not be said that it is without error? You are assuming that the only way we know if something is without error, is to know if it is infallible. This does not follow from the original premise. We know that something is without error if it is correct, not necessarily if it was impossible for any errors to be made in the first place.

Actually, for clarification, are you working off my premise, which states that something is “infallible” because it is correct, and not the other way around?

Since this a subject people can twist like a pretzel, for space, it’s easier to give the following answer
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Infallibility

 

[Shiranui117]

• Who was Jesus talking to, Peter or His faith? Peter who has his faith
• Who were the keys given to, Peter or his faith? Peter who has his faith
• who was to feed rule and confirm the Church, Peter or his faith? Peter who has his faith

For the sake of argument, the apostles earlier, made a similar confession that Peter made

Re: [Mt 14:33 ]
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Did Jesus stop what everybody was doing and say to the apostles, "your confession was a revelation from the Father and so from now on, I’m changing everybody’s name to Peter, and I give you the keys to the kingdom,…? Nope! But this would be a great place in scripture to do it if it was based on one’s confession. But nothing was done or said to them by Jesus regarding their response. So why did Jesus wait to do what He did for Simon a few chapters later in Mt 16?

Because Peter confessed his faith in Christ in Matthew 16:18, NOT because Jesus just got done saving his tail or because He did some miraculous sign there. Peter just answered Jesus’ question about who the Apostles thought He was. Even the demons confessed Christ as the Son of God, because they were compelled by His power to do so. Peter just answered a simple question with a faithful answer. That’s why his confession of faith was so important, moreso than the others prior.

However, it does not mean that he became a ruler over the other Apostles, or that he was always in the right in matters of faith and morals. And it most certainly does not mean that Rome alone sits in the chair of Peter, or has power over the other Churches.

the man Peter was selected specifically from all the rest, because He was to be the leader of the apostles, and the Church.

Sure, he’s the first among equals. But, uhh, do you REALLY have to capitalize “He” for Peter? Peter’s just a man, after all :ehh:

That invalidates an important distinction made by God. In [Is 22:22…] keys are given to one man at a time. Jesus gave the keys to Peter.

And Peter is claimed by Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. Pope St. Gregory the Great even said that the chair of Peter was SHARED by all 3 Patriachs. Rome doesn’t have exclusive dibs on Peter.

sheesh!

I said Catholic Church. There is only one. While there are many rites, and the Roman/Latin rite is ~98% of the Catholic Church, all rites are 100% Catholic, and make up one Catholic Church because they are all united to the chair of Peter. The Orthodox otoh, aren’t the Catholic Church, & they aren’t one “Church”, & they are seperated from the chair of Peter.

Lol, sorry for being pedantic about it

And it is your belief that the Orthodox Church is not the Catholic Church. I’m not going to get into a semantics argument. But suffice it to say that I no longer share the viewpoint of the Roman Church on this one.

Also, I find it very unsettling, to say the least, that your Church’s unity is based around a man or a see, rather than the faith or the Eucharist. I don’t think such a thing was conceivable back in the early days.

Since this a subject people can twist like a pretzel, for space, it’s easier to give the following answer
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Infallibility

Alright, looked through the sections I found relevant. Pretty much what I got out of it was, it’s infallible if there was no possibility of error. Right?

 

[steve_b]

Because Peter confessed his faith in Christ in Matthew 16:18, NOT because Jesus just got done saving his tail or because He did some miraculous sign there.

The other apostles, and Peter would be included, said the same thing back in Mt 14. Nothing was done then
S:

Peter just answered Jesus’ question about who the Apostles thought He was.

No. Jesus asked His apostles who do people say that I am? It was a general question. So they gave the answer to what people were saying about who they thought Jesus was. When He asks but who do you say that I am… they already gave Jesus that answer back in Mt 14 and they got it right.

What’s important about this event, is that it is at Ceserea Philippi, a place of a huge rock. It’s a shrine to the god pan. Who was a god of the shepherds. People worshipped pan here. And they had walked into this area.

It was time then for Jesus to use this place and this time, to rename one of His apostles to Rock, who would lead the Church Jesus would establish. And Jesus would give Peter the authority to be the leader of the Church by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of God/heaven. Simon was already told when He 1st met Jesus that he would be renamed. This was the time, this was the place that prophasy would happen…
S:

Even the demons confessed Christ as the Son of God, because they were compelled by His power to do so.

Demons call Him that because they know it is true. But to your earlier point, does that make all the demons Peter too because they professes what Peter professed including the apostles…and everyone else?
S:

Peter just answered a simple question with a faithful answer. That’s why his confession of faith was so important, moreso than the others prior.

Peter is the Father’s choice. That’s why Jesus renamed him, and gave him the keys to the kingdom of God.
S:

However, it does not mean that he became a ruler over the other Apostles, or that he was always in the right in matters of faith and morals. And it most certainly does not mean that Rome alone sits in the chair of Peter, or has power over the other Churches.

Scripture says he is to rule over the other apostles. (keep in mind the sequence of events)

Event 1

Luke 12:39-44 “But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would have been awake and * would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.” Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward οἰκονόμος oikonomos*]*whom his master will set καθίστημι *kathistēmi make ruler] *over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions”.
Definition οἰκονόμος *oikonomos]*steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has intrusted the management of his affairs

Event 2

what Jesus said at the last supper

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the onewho rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Who was Jesus referring to? Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? NO. Did He say *one *would NOT (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No, He confirmed that one would be the greatest among them and rule ( hegeomai). It was Peter

Hegeomai

**1)**to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
2) to consider, deem, account, think

**Ever hear of Peter being called prince of the apostles? **Ever wonder where it came from?

Event 3

After the resurrection and before the Ascension, Jesus in front of ALL the apostles, singled out Peter, and told Peter to feed and*** rule****** my sheep (poimaino* IS the Greek word used there*** which means rule**) [Jn 21:16]** *

Scripturally, Jesus didn’t use

***keys ***with anyone else other than Peter, and Jesus didn’ use
rule with anyone else other than Peter.
S:

Sure, he’s the first among equals. But, uhh, do you REALLY have to capitalize “He” for Peter? Peter’s just a man, after all :ehh:

1st among equals is a nonsense term. If 1 is first the others aren’t equal. if all are equal one can’t be 1st. Besides no pope ever bought into this equalization.
S:

And Peter is claimed by Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. Pope St. Gregory the Great even said that the chair of Peter was SHARED by all 3 Patriachs. Rome doesn’t have exclusive dibs on Peter.

Sharing a place where Peter was is not the same as regarding his permament chair. One only has to look at Antioch and Alexandria over time to see how the Church regarded those sees vs Rome.
S:

And it is your belief that the Orthodox Church is not the Catholic Church.

Correct.

and “Orthodox Church” doesn’t really exist

http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
S:

I’m not going to get into a semantics argument. But suffice it to say that I no longer share the viewpoint of the Roman Church on this one.

Also, I find it very unsettling, to say the least, that your Church’s unity is based around a man or a see, rather than the faith or the Eucharist.

It’s both. Just as Jesus established.
S:

I don’t think such a thing was conceivable back in the early days.

Alright, looked through the sections I found relevant. Pretty much what I got out of it was, it’s infallible if there was no possibility of error. Right?

That’s part of it

 

[Shiranui117]

The other apostles, and Peter would be included, said the same thing back in Mt 14. Nothing was done then

No. Jesus asked His apostles who do people say that I am? It was a general question. So they gave the answer to what people were saying about who they thought Jesus was. When He asks but who do you say that I am… they already gave Jesus that answer back in Mt 14 and they got it right.
. . .
Demons call Him that because they know it is true. But to your earlier point, does that make all the demons Peter too because they professes what Peter professed including the apostles…and everyone else?

Congratulations, you went to the trouble of explaining to me what I JUST got done saying.

Again, Peter didn’t make that confession of faith because he was awestruck at Jesus’ power. He made it because he had a sincere, devoted faith IN Christ. That’s why it was different than what the other Apostles did.

And now you’re finally answering my question for me: Just because we share Peter’s confession of faith does NOT mean we ourselves are Peter. Peter’s faith is held by more people than just Peter himself.

It was time then for Jesus to use this place and this time, to rename one of His apostles to Rock, who would lead the Church Jesus would establish. And Jesus would give Peter the authority to be the leader of the Church by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of God/heaven. Simon was already told when He 1st met Jesus that he would be renamed. This was the time, this was the place that prophasy would happen…

And what are the powers of the keys of the kingdom of God? According to Isaiah 22:22, it’s the power of binding and loosing. All the rest of the Apostles got the same power of the Keys.

Scripture says he is to rule over the other apostles. (keep in mind the sequence of events)

Event 1

Luke 12:39-44

You know, your constant use of tags makes it hellish–no, IMPOSSIBLE-- to read what you’re saying in the text box. Can’t you do it more efficiently? I swear, your tags take up more character space than your actual arguments. Try using all those font and color tags less, and use your underline, bold and italicize tags more efficiently, and you will have SO much more room to actually get an argument out.

Anyway, you’ve taken that parable out of context. That parable is about the faithful man in general. Here’s the full text of the parable, Luke 12:35-48:

35 “Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning; 36 and you yourselves be like men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master, when he comes, will find watching. Assuredly, I say to you that he will gird himself and have them sit down to eat, and will come and serve them. 38 And if he should come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. 39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 40 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

41 Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?"

42 And the Lord said, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

As is plainly shown here, your excerpt in its full context is not about Peter being made some “supreme monarch” of the Church, but about the rewards of those who keep the Master’s commandments and wait for Him, and the punishment of those who fail to do so.

Event 2

what Jesus said at the last supper

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Who was Jesus referring to? Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? NO. Did He say *one *would NOT (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No, He confirmed that one would be the greatest among them and rule (hegeomai). It was Peter

And it seems you’re entirely forgetting that the one who rules must be like the one who SERVES. The greatest among the Apostles must also be the SERVANT of them all. Jesus JUST got done saying that the Apostles are not to lord power over one another, yet your view of Peter and the Pope makes both heavy-handed rulers who rule over their fellow Apostles and bishops–and over the rest of the faithful–with an iron fist.

]Hegeomai

1)to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power,governor, viceroy, chief, **leading as respects influence, **controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
a) to consider, deem, account, think

**Ever hear of Peter being called prince of the apostles? ******Ever wonder where it came from?

And look at all the other definitions you didn’t emphasize, AKA the ones I bolded for you. The Orthodox view of Peter is just as well-founded in that little Greek word there as yours, whether you want to face the facts or not.

And yes, I’ve heard of Peter being called prince of the Apostles. I’ve also heard of him being called their mouthpiece and spokesperson.

Event 3

After the resurrection and before the Ascension, Jesus in front of ALL the apostles, singled out Peter, and told Peter tofeed andrule my sheep (poimaino IS the Greek word used there which means rule**) [Jn 21:16]**

Only one of many definitions. From Greekbible.com…
ποιμαίνω,v {poy-mah’-ee-no}

1. to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep 1a) to rule, govern 1a1) of rulers 1a2) to furnish pasture for food 1a3) to nourish 1a4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body 1a5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need For Synonyms see entry 5824

Also notice that in English translation, the word used for poimaino is “tend,” not “rule.”

So no, Peter wasn’t called to RULE the sheep, but to care for them, nourish them, cherish them, serve them and tend to them.

Scripturally, Jesus didn’t use

keys

with anyone else other than Peter, and Jesus didn’ use
rule with anyone else other than Peter.

He may not have used “keys” with anyone else, but He sure used the powers that the keys embodied with the rest of the Apostles… And He DEFINITELY didn’t use “rule” in the way you want it to with ANY of the Apostles, not even Peter.

1st among equals is a nonsense term. If 1 is first the others aren’t equal. if all are equal one can’t be 1st. Besides no pope ever bought into this equalization.

Proof? And how do you know that, even if such a thing were the case, that that wasn’t just due to Papal hubris?

Sharing a place where Peter was is not the same as regarding his permament chair. One only has to look at Antioch and Alexandria over time to see how the Church regarded those sees vs Rome.

Oh no, Gregory the Great very much regarded the other two Petrine sees as also being permanent “sitters” on the chair of Peter. Would you like the source?

From Pope St. Gregory the Great’s letter to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . . . Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.

Correct.

and “Orthodox Church” doesn’t really exist

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

o noez, the article from Cardinal Kasper that no one takes seriously, whatever will i do

It’s both. Just as Jesus established.

You seem to be arguing that it’s Peter/the Roman Pope alone that the unity of the Church revolves around.

That’s part of it

Then what’s the rest of it? ._.

 

[Shiranui117]

Hegeomai

1)to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power,governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
a) to consider, deem, account, think

Don’t mind me, just fixing a bold tag

 

[steve_b]

Congratulations, you went to the trouble of explaining to me what I JUST got done saying.

Glad I cleared that up
S:

And now you’re finally answering my question for me: Just because we share Peter’s confession of faith does NOT mean we ourselves are Peter. Peter’s faith is held by more people than just Peter himself.

Again, glad we agree
S:

And what are the powers of the keys of the kingdom of God? According to Isaiah 22:22, it’s the power of binding and loosing. All the rest of the Apostles got the same power of the Keys.

One person gets the keys in Is 22:22… , and one person gets the keys in Mt 16:19. While there are many ministers under the king, who have authority, there is one prime minister, over the other ministers, who has primacy over the other ministers. iow, the key holder, can also bind what they loose and loose what they bind.
S:

Anyway, you’ve taken that parable out of context. That parable is about the faithful man in general. Here’s the full text of the parable, Luke 12:35-48:

As is plainly shown here, your excerpt in its full context is not about Peter being made some “supreme monarch” of the Church, but about the rewards of those who keep the Master’s commandments and wait for Him, and the punishment of those who fail to do so.

I think you’re missing the point of what Jesus is saying. One person…again… is singled out to be ruler over the household of the master.

Jesus says (all emphasis mine)

“Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?" Jesus is talking to Peter

Jesus continues

"43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. " That’s the power of the one who holds the keys

Jesus continues

"45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. " Peter is to be a fair ruler not an abusive one or there will be consequences

Jesus continues

"47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. "

You don’t see instruction here for Peter? Jesus is talking directly to Peter.
S:

And it seems you’re entirely forgetting that the one who rules must be like the one who SERVES. The greatest among the Apostles must also be the SERVANT of them all. Jesus JUST got done saying that the Apostles are not to lord power over one another, yet your view of Peter and the Pope makes both heavy-handed rulers who rule over their fellow Apostles and bishops–and over the rest of the faithful–with an iron fist.

Yes the greatest among them, has to servre the rest. That’s clear. And in extension, what does that say about what is required of the others in return? BTW, I never said iron fist. You added that to what I said. But as long as we’re on that point, scripture says “poimaino” is rule with a “rod of iron”. That’s the phrase used in Revelation describing Jesus who will (poimano) “rule with a rod of iron”. So “poimaino” is actually used in scripture to mean rule. That’s the same word Jesus used with Peter.
S:

And look at all the other definitions you didn’t emphasize, AKA the ones I bolded for you. The Orthodox view of Peter is just as well-founded in that little Greek word there as yours, whether you want to face the facts or not.

I emphasized what I emphasized so you can see what is there in the definition. It’s not a bunch of either/or terms. It’s feed and tend and shepherd and lead and speak for and lead at councils and overseer of Churches and, and, and, and… rule
S:

Only one of many definitions. From Greekbible.com…
ποιμαίνω,v {poy-mah’-ee-no}

1. to* feed*, to* tend* a flock, keep sheep 1a) to rule, govern 1a1) of rulers 1a2) to furnish pasture for food 1a3) to* nourish *1a4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body 1a5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need For Synonyms see entry 5824

yes, poimaino. Peter is to do all of that.
S:

Also notice that in English translation, the word used for poimaino is “tend,” not “rule.”

AND

poimaino is also translated as “rule with a rod of iron”. Rev 19:15
S:

So no, Peter wasn’t called to RULE the sheep, but to care for them, nourish them, cherish them, serve them and tend to them.

And rule them and, and, and, …
S:

He may not have used “keys” with anyone else, but He sure used the powers that the keys embodied with the rest of the Apostles… And He DEFINITELY didn’t use “rule” in the way you want it to with ANY of the Apostles, not even Peter.

I think you’re projecting false notions of “rule”, onto me.
S:

Proof? And how do you know that, even if such a thing were the case, that that wasn’t just due to Papal hubris?

Actually I got that phrase from an Orthodox priest who used to post here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1587677&postcount=129

And Pope Benedict XVI reminds us Re: 1st among equals and notions of pentarchy

(emphasis mine)

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
S:

Oh no, Gregory the Great very much regarded the other two Petrine sees as also being permanent “sitters” on the chair of Peter. Would you like the source?

I’ve seen the quote you use many times here over the years. When you look at what Pope Gregory ALSO wrote about the papacy, he’s clearly not saying what you suggest. And we don’t see what you suggest, lived out in Church history. Plus if you look at Benedicts comment above, he contradicts your claim when he wrote

it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.

Benedict is surely aware of all that Gregory wrote, and still Benedict says no pope ever agreed to such equalization of sees.

 

[Shiranui117]

One person gets the keys in Is 22:22… , and one person gets the keys in Mt 16:19. While there are many ministers under the king, who have authority, there is one prime minister, over the other ministers, who has primacy over the other ministers. iow, the key holder, can also bind what they loose and loose what they bind.

Where are you seeing the idea that the prime minister can undo the actions of the other ministers in Isaiah? And this nearly screams to me that you believe the Pope is able to nullify the decisions and actions of the other bishops and Patriarchs on a whim. Your position, as it appears to me, gives absolutely no power or authority to the other bishops that cannot be stripped away by the Pope, whenever he feels like taking it away.

Also, your idea of primacy sounds more like supremacy, going off what you’ve said here. The Church isn’t a dictatorship. You may think I’m reading more into what you’re saying than what’s there, but I’m really just pointing out the logical conclusions of your idea of the Pope/Peter.

I think you’re missing the point of what Jesus is saying. One person…again… is singled out to be ruler over the household of the master.

Jesus says (all emphasis mine)

“Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?" Jesus is talking to Peter

Jesus continues

"43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. " That’s the power of the one who holds the keys

Jesus continues

"45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. " Peter is to be a fair ruler not an abusive one or there will be consequences

Jesus continues

"47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. "

You don’t see instruction here for Peter? Jesus is talking directly to Peter.

It’s instruction for Peter, yes. But it’s also instruction for every other Christian. Also note that Peter didn’t say, “Lord, do you speak this parable only to ME, or to all people” but instead he said, “Lord, do you speak this parable only to US, or to all people.”

It’s instruction for anyone who has responsibility for another Christian. Yes, it speaks of one man being appointed steward over the whole house, but it also speaks of the same man being punished and thrown out for not heeding the commands of his master and not being vigilant.

Yes the greatest among them, has to servre the rest. That’s clear. And in extension, what does that say about what is required of the others in return?** BTW, I never said iron fist. You added that to what I said. But as long as we’re on that point, scripture says “poimaino” is rule with a “rod of iron**”. That’s the phrase used in Revelation describing Jesus who will (poimano) “rule with a rod of iron”. So “poimaino” is actually used in scripture to mean rule. That’s the same word Jesus used with Peter.

I emphasized what I emphasized so you can see what is there in the definition. It’s not a bunch of either/or terms. It’s feed and tend and shepherd and lead and speak for and lead at councils and overseer of Churches and, and, and, and… rule

And “pneuma” is used to mean our soul/spirit, as well as breath, angels, demons and the Holy Spirit. Are all of those definitions intended simultaneously whenever the word “pneuma” is used? Of course not.

In just the same way, the English verb “run” can both mean to travel quickly by foot, or to process something, typically a test, analysis or program. Now, whenever the English word “run” is used, are both definitions of “run” always intended? Of course not.

Also, regarding the part of your post that I bolded, it’s that sort of thing that makes me believe that you think of the Pope as a heavyhanded ruler who subjugates the other bishops and is able to rule completely on his own power.

poimaino is also translated as “rule with a rod of iron”. Rev 19:15

I think you’re projecting false notions of “rule”, onto me.

Then how are you defining “rule?” From what I’ve seen so far, you seem to be using it in a supremacist sense. Am I wrong?

Actually I got that phrase from an Orthodox priest who used to post here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1587677&postcount=129

Ahh. Well, allow me to borrow a concept from Mardukm and point out that such a saying is something common to both “Absolutist” and “Low Petrine” people. To people of the “High Petrine” view (or in my case, the “Middle Petrine” view, as I tentatively name it) there is no contradiction in saying “first among equals.”

And Pope Benedict XVI reminds us Re: 1st among equals and notions of pentarchy

(emphasis mine)

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

And that would be because the Roman Patriarch was the only Patriarch in the West, and the Roman Church would eventually absorb the other Western Churches. The Pope was unchallenged in the West because of that, and so he was able to build up notions that he was the supreme ruler of not only Western Christendom, but of the Church as a whole. In the East, the reality was much different.

I’ve seen the quote you use many times here over the years. When you look at what Pope Gregory ALSO wrote about the papacy, he’s clearly not saying what you suggest. And we don’t see what you suggest, lived out in Church history. Plus if you look at Benedicts comment above, he contradicts your claim when he wrote

it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.

Benedict is surely aware of all that Gregory wrote, and still Benedict says no pope ever agreed to such equalization of sees.

Such as? Do you have any particular writings or letters in mind that imply that Pope St. Gregory believed otherwise? I hope I don’t need to tell you that “because Pope Benedict said so and he probably knows everything” isn’t a satisfactory answer for me.

No offense to His Holiness the Pope of Rome, but for my purposes, I’ll need to see primary sources from the first millennium that back his idea up.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Shiranui,

Where are you seeing the idea that the prime minister can undo the actions of the other ministers in Isaiah? And this nearly screams to me that you believe the Pope is able to nullify the decisions and actions of the other bishops and Patriarchs on a whim. Your position, as it appears to me, gives absolutely no power or authority to the other bishops that cannot be stripped away by the Pope, whenever he feels like taking it away.

Also, your idea of primacy sounds more like supremacy, going off what you’ve said here. The Church isn’t a dictatorship. You may think I’m reading more into what you’re saying than what’s there, but I’m really just pointing out the logical conclusions of your idea of the Pope/Peter.

I agree with you completely here. As I stated in another post, I believe the power of the keys is more indicative of collegiality than of primacy/supremacy.

Here’s a not-too-well-known-fact:
The traditional Rite of Consecration of bishops in the Catholic Church (the Rite was changed in the 1960’s I think) included the following:

“Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… Whatsoever he shall bind
upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth,
let it likewise be loosed in Heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and
do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit… Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal
chair…”

It has always been the traditional position of the Catholic Church that bishops by virtue of their consecration share in the power of the keys. This is evident from the patristic witness as early as Pope St. Leo the Great. Nowadays, Absolutist Petrine advocates misinterpret the “Keys” as some unilateral papal prerogative that can be used against the rest of the bishops.

Non-Catholic detractors of Vatican 1 should keep the above information in mind as to the traditional position of the Catholic Church with regards to the Keys. The Absolutist Petrine, Neo-ultramontane notions of absolute, unilateral papal power are innovations and misinterpretations of traditional Catholic doctrine on the papacy.

It’s instruction for Peter, yes. But it’s also instruction for every other Christian. Also note that Peter didn’t say, “Lord, do you speak this parable only to ME, or to all people” but instead he said, “Lord, do you speak this parable only to US, or to all people.”

Isn’t it possible that the point the Lord was trying to get across while addressing all of them was that he was indeed going to set one of them as their coryphaeus?

Yes, it speaks of one man being appointed steward over the whole house, but it also speaks of the same man being punished and thrown out for not heeding the commands of his master and not being vigilant.

Such a warning from the Lord bespeaks of the awesome responsibility being handed over to this one servant who was to have this appointment from the Lord.

In truth, I agree with your interpretation, and I defend the Catholic understanding of the verses not in contrary fashion to your own interpretation, but because I believe both interpretations belong together in synthesis, not in opposition. It’s the idea of primacy within collegiality.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here’s a good example of the inherent weakness of the skeptic’s arguments for lack of consistency. The fact is, Christianity as a whole does not have an agreed upon list of Scriptures. So unless you are willing to diminish the authority of the Scriptures because of the same lack of a consistent list among Christians…The fact is, scholars and theologians have attempted to put out such lists of infallible statements - so your statement that no such list exists is not true - and though they don’t seem to agree, each of them have a COMMON SET OF CONSISTENT items that are considered infallible - the same exact situation with the different lists of Scripture within Christendom.

The problem is that one of the most common problems which papal infallibility is supposed to solve is the question “how do I know what I believe is the true faith?” Catholic apologists enjoy to purport that Papal Infallibility solves that problem, ergo it is true because it is the most preferable solution to this problem of knowledge. As you have admitted above, papal infallibility does not actually take care of that problem, it simply adds a layer to the problem without solving it. From the general tenor of your posts, I see that you do not wish to make this common argument, which is fine. Let the argument be disregarded then since we both seem to reject the reasoning behind it.

That is rather incorrect. Sources of Revelation are indeed empirical data because THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US BY GOD. Sources of Revelation are indeed WITHIN THE TACTILE EXPERIENCE OF THE CHURCH. Revelation is NOT, contrary to your claim, “beyond the Church’s experience” because Revelation is in fact God revealing Himself to us.

Come now, the overuse of capital letters is hard on the eyes, and it is hardly befitting of intelligent discourse. You are again confusing distinct categories of knowledge (you have done so consistently within this thread). Even though we come to our knowledge of the Scriptures (and of God) through experience, it does not hold that this knowledge is necessarily dependent upon our experience, as revelation reveals through experience truths which can be known independently of human experience. The truths within the Scriptures cannot be found through empirical methodologies, since the truths revealed are not dependent upon our experience, but the truths can be contemplated and found through rational thought which is something different altogether.

Only skeptics, methinks, will accept the validity of skepticism.

Untrue. Skeptics serve a vital role in determining whether or not a particular claim can be justified.

We’re talking about theological matters, so your scenarios are invalid. Besides, your examples make no dent in the true Catholic teaching on the Primacy according to V1 (though they present problems for the Absolutist Petrine Neo-ultramontanist misrepresentations).

If you do not admit historical evidence into theological matters, then you must necessarily abandon your own historical evidence. I as a matter of fact would agree that most historical evidence is unfitting as evidence in theological matters, preferring that we should base our arguments primarily upon the revealed Scriptures and ancient customs of the Church, as the Fathers did.

I already stated the reason why one should take an EO argument on this matter with a grain of salt - because there’s no ONE position that can be called “EO.” (i.e., it has nothing to do with being biased). Any such arguments cannot be said to truly represent “the EO position.” That is not an ad hominem, but a plain fact.

But are the arguments made true? You cannot discredit something without first investigating its claim to be true, and showing it to be unjustifiable. Either way, Marduk, your hasty dismissal is fallacious.

As I stated, you are confusing infallibility with certainty. Infallibility is an objective reality. The Fathers of these Councils believed they were speaking under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - thus they believed in their collective infallibility. You are confusing this with the certainty that future generations may have that those Fathers spoke with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The claim that I am confused is a rather rich one, considering that you continue to divert the question from a point of disagreement—how it comes to be known that a council was guided by the Holy Spirit—to a point where there is no substantial disagreement—that certain councils were guided by the Holy Spirit to find the truth—showing rather well who here is confused.

Btw, from your comments, it appears the EO do not distinguish between the charism of inspiration which ended with the last Apostle and particularly attached to the writing of Scripture from the charism of infallibility which is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that is part of the cause of your confusion?

In one’s imagination perhaps. But in reality, where did I reject such a distinction between the inspiration of the Scriptures and the guidance of the Spirit which comes later?

But you are compromising the importance of the bishop as teacher because you claim the laity can judge bishops. And that’s the main difference - you allow for the laity to judge further what has already been judged by the Church’s God-ordained judges/teachers.

No, if you look at what I wrote, you will clearly see that I mentioned how a resistance formed immediately around Mark of Ephesus, a bishop (a resistance which attracted more bishops and convinced many to recant of their foolish decision at Florence).

Preferable to what? Like I said, the Catholic Church has never made the claim that “papal infallibility” is preferable to any other kind of infallibility. You are basically presenting a false dilemma and a straw man.

I see now that you are not making this common argument. It seems that you wish to prove that Papal Infallibility is true by other means.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What is true has to do with infallibility; coming to KNOW what is true has to do with certainty, which I believe you are confusing throughout this whole debate.

The confusion, as I pointed out in my last post, is sadly on your end. You have consistently made the argument over 1) whether or not there exists a class of councils which are true, even though nobody disagrees that there is such a class of councils. What was being disputed from the very beginning is 2) how it is known which councils are true. For whatever reason, you keep changing the topic to 1), even though you indicated in post #16 of this thread that we should only focus on 2) as a topic for discussion.

I am at a loss to see how you think Acts 15 diminishes the Catholic position, much less Chrysostom’s interpretation of it. In fact, in other places Chrysostom says this of St. Peter “Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples” You don’t really know the Catholic position as well as you think. The Pope (having the role today as St. Peter had among the Apostles according to the principles of Apostolic Succession), is the coryphaeus of the body of bishops. The Catholic position does not dictate that the Pope must be the head or president of a particular Council, even one called Ecumenical - only that it has his approval and/or confirmation. And that is what we see in Acts 15. I’ll give you another example. Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria was the head of the Third Ecumenical Council. But the Third Ecum thereafter wrote to Pope St. Celestine to confirm and approve its proceedings. That is all the Catholic position requires and claims. The Catholic position is historic and reasonable; the non-Catholic arguments are just straw men.

St. John Chrysostom clearly interprets Acts 15 as showing James as having the authority, not Peter. If you wish to claim that Acts 15 is a biblical example of the Church having a council with the head and the body, then you will should at least provide Church Fathers who interpret that passage in such a fashion.

The appeal to John 17 is with regards to the required UNITY of the head and body when proclaiming the truth about Christ, not with the mere existence of the college with its head. According to John 17, they MUST be united. That is why the High Petrine Catholic position (which requires the cooperation of head and body - whether in Council or without) is biblically sound, while the Low Petrine (which too readily separates the body from the head) and the Absolutist Petrine (which too readily separates the head from the body) don’t have a biblical leg to stand on.

Again, I would like to see you provide some patristic exegeses on this passage which indicate that this verse hints at the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as you understand it, that is that a council of bishops with their head will be infallible.

As stated previously, the sensus fidei (which involves the laity) MUST be consulted by the bishops, but AFTER the bishops have made a judgment, the Catholic paradigm does not presume to hand it back to the laity to judge once more. That is a circular system which has no ultimate authority and is purely democratic.

I do not remember arguing for such a system.

Yes, that is the Catholic position.

Good, agreement is never a bad thing.

You write as if the bishops just make judgments out of the blue. The judgments of Councils and of Popes, I assure you are made with due and proper deliberation, and is NEVER devoid of the influence of Sacred Tradition and the sensus fidei.

But are they guaranteed to be true? Is there justification for such a belief?

 

[Cavaradossi]

And why should you assume this is not the Catholic position as well?

Wonderful, more agreement then.

The caricature would be your misrepresentation of my statement. Read it again please.

Marduk, you wrote originally:*Yes. The Ravenna colloquy had the Orthodox participants affirm that the Ecumenical Council is a “unique event” specially guided by the Holy Spirit. But you will find many lay Orthodox commentators deny that assertion.*Here it is written in plain English. You say that most lay Orthodox would deny that Ecumenical Councils are “unique events” specially guided by the Holy Spirit. My point is that they would not deny that, that is simply a caricature. They disagree with Roman Catholics on how it is known (or how it can be justified, as I originally wrote), that a particular council was a “unique event” specially guided by the Holy Spirit.

The OP is with regards to whether conciliar/ecclesial infallibility exists. The Colloquy admitted it. You and many Orthodox do not, or at least misrepresent what infallibility means and then deny that misrepresentation, as if you ever truly addressed the concept of infallibility in the first place.

Show me, Marduk, where I disagreed with the Colloquy. I have consistently argued in this thread that there are councils which have taught the truth, but that we disagree with Catholics over how we come to know which councils taught the truth.

There has been no straw man. What is going on is that you are simply denying that there are elements within EO’xy that actually deny the concept of conciliar infallibility. You are simply trying to avoid the issue by making it about the concept of certainty, instead of infallibility.

Again, I most certainly did not advocate that, and I don’t believe that the articles in the original posts advocated that idea either. I am not arguing with you over whether some councils can teach the truth under the guidance of the Spirit because I don’t disagree with that proposition. I disagree solely with the Catholic beliefs on how we come to know which councils taught the truth, something which I have consistently argued in this thread, and which you have consistently misunderstood.

This is coming from a member of a Church that has made a near-legalistic demand on the inviolability of the Dogmatic Creed of Nicea-Constantinople? This is the fruit of inconsistent skepticism.

Such a childish remark is hardly called for. You should know that the Orthodox disagree with the Filioque because we perceive the interpolation as a modification of the faith of the Creed. The faith of the councils is true, but the words and concepts used to describe that faith may not always be completely accurate, and hence those are not completely irreformable (as was the case with the controversy over ‘out of two natures’ and ‘in two natures’).

You can only repeat the accusation so many times without explanation.

It is your same straw man that the laity have such and such power in the Orthodox Church, even though I have not argued that this is true in the thread. You should know very well that ascribing positions to your opponent which he does not believe in is completely fallacious if not dishonest.

That’s what development of doctrine is all about, all within the confines of the Catholic paradigm. How do you imagine your argument diminishes the Catholic position?

Most Catholics believe that Councils are completely irreformable down to the last iota (so long as a pope says ‘we declare’ in the same sentence, that is). I am glad to see that you do not believe in that.

The same thing was not done. The Decrees were sent to the Egyptians because the Easterns wanted to FORCE it on us. Not the same thing.

Us? You speak as if you reject the Tome of Leo and Chalcedon.

So you don’t believe that St. Paul was part of the Apostolic College? The fruit of inconsistent skepticism.

The same unnecessary remark, I see. I never argued anything remotely close to that. You wrote: *The differentiation is evident even in the New Testament. We know what Jesus’ and the Apostles’ teaching was. But there were those who taught something that was not the Church’s teaching. Such things were unofficial, public teachings because they did not reflect the actual teachings of Christ - such as the judaizing tenets. The official public teaching came either from St. Peter personally (Acts 10-11), or from the Apostles united (Acts 15).*The problem is that the doctrines in Paul’s epistles could not then have been publicly authoritative, since Paul wrote them neither in the context of being St. Peter personally, nor in the context of authoring his epistles with all of the Apostles. There is, therefore, a hole in your logic, since the epistles of Paul are indeed authoritative and were intended to be publicly authoritative.

 

[Trebor135]

Shiranui117 has been making a lot of good points here. I’ve been able to read the back-and-forth in this thread but, due to time constraints, not to make replies to the posts directed my way. I hope to do so by this evening or sometime tomorrow.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Something can be totally free of error without any inherent trait of infallibility.

 

[steve_b]

Where are you seeing the idea that the prime minister can undo the actions of the other ministers in Isaiah?

it says he can shut what no one can open and can open what no one can shut. That tells me others can open and shut, but not when compared to the one with the keys.
S:

And this nearly screams to me that you believe the Pope is able to nullify the decisions and actions of the other bishops and Patriarchs on a whim.

On a whim? Is that like when you added with an iron fist* as a characterization of the pope in a previous post ?* Where does this come from?
Bishops alone can’t bind the entire Church without the approval of the pope approving what they bind. That’s Church law. The pope doesn’t act on a whim or act with an iron fist.
S:

Your position, as it appears to me, gives absolutely no power or authority to the other bishops that cannot be stripped away by the Pope,* whenever he feels like taking it away*.

BTW,
· bishops rule and have full power over their diocese.
· however, just as Individual bishops are responsible for their individual diocese, They have no authority in anyone elses diocese. If the pope replaces a bishop for a grave reason, he needs no other authority to do that. Only the pope can replace a bad bishop in a diocese. It’s rarely done but he has that authority.

Examples of a pope replacing a bishop
· Pope sacks bishop http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/controversial-australian-bishop-sacked-by-pope-benedict-xvi/
· Pope excommunicates Chinese bishop for not getting approval from the Vatican **The Holy See has declared that Father Yue Fusheng who was ordained bishop of Harbin July 6 without the Pope’s approval, is excommunicated. He is the third Chinese bishop to be excommunicated since June 2011 **vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/harbin-china-16670/
S:

Also, your idea of primacy sounds more like supremacy, going off what you’ve said here.
The Church isn’t a dictatorship. You may think I’m reading more into what you’re saying than what’s there, but I’m really just pointing out the logical conclusions of your idea of the Pope/Peter.

On a whim, with an iron fist, whenever he feels like taking something away, and now dictatorship is added. sheesh! Where is all this stuff comming from
S:

It’s instruction for anyone who has responsibility for another Christian.* Yes, it speaks of one man being appointed steward over the whole house,* but it also speaks of the same man being punished and thrown out for not heeding the commands of his master and not being vigilant.

Yes It said he would be punished. But speaking of punishment for not heeding the commands of the master, that also goes for those in the household too, that the steward is over.
S:

And “pneuma” is used to mean
[snip]

the word in question was poimaino. The definition is clear.
S:

Also, regarding the part of your post that I bolded, it’s that sort of thing that makes me believe that you think of the Pope as a heavyhanded ruler who subjugates the other bishops and is able to rule completely on his own power.

Where was any of that said?
S:

Then how are you defining “rule?” From what I’ve seen so far, you seem to be using it in a supremacist sense. Am I wrong?

examples

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sta.htm Check para #5
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM start reading from para #40

due to space I had to limit the examples
S:

Ahh. Well, allow me to borrow a concept from Mardukm and point out that such a saying is something common to both “Absolutist” and “Low Petrine” people.

I don’t see those terms in any Catholic Church documents. The phrase I criticized, “first among equals” I provided Church documents as evidence for the criticism…
S:

To people of the “High Petrine” view (or in my case, the “Middle Petrine” view, as I tentatively name it) there is no contradiction in saying “first among equals.”

Those terms don’t mean anything to me. There is the Catholic view and the non Catholic view.

to be continued

 

[steve_b]

(cont)

Do you have any particular writings or letters in mind that imply that Pope St. Gregory believed otherwise?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, (note the references? Gregory’s letters inc for easy access)
for example I highlighted in the references the following. III, xxx = Book 3 letter 30 = [30 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360203030.htm) in the register of letters you’ll find below

"There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope,

• a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epp., XIII, 1, he speaks of “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches”, and in Epp., V, xliv, he says: "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church. “As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epp., IX, clvi), and his authority could annul them (Epp., V, xxxix, xli, xliv). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epp., II, 1; III, lii, lxiii; IX, xxvi, xxvii). This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question being still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself;”

Gregory the Great, Pope (c. 540-604)[SAINT][DOCTOR]

• Pastoral Rule
• Register of Letters

other specific areas to view

(Epistle 2.46; 3.30; 5.37; 7.37). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epistle 9.156), and his authority could annul them (Epistles 5.39, 5.41, 5.44). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epistles 2.50; 3.52; 3.63; 9.26; 9.27).This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; “As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he writes in Epistle 9.12, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See?.

 

[Shiranui117]

Dear Shiranui,
I agree with you completely here. As I stated in another post, I believe the power of the keys is more indicative of collegiality than of primacy/supremacy.

I think I missed that explanation. Would you mind filling me in? Even copypasting the point would be good, whatever works best for you in this regard.

Here’s a not-too-well-known-fact:
The traditional Rite of Consecration of bishops in the Catholic Church (the Rite was changed in the 1960’s I think) included the following:

“Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… Whatsoever he shall bind
upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth,
let it likewise be loosed in Heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and
do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit… Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal
chair…”

It has always been the traditional position of the Catholic Church that bishops by virtue of their consecration share in the power of the keys. This is evident from the patristic witness as early as Pope St. Leo the Great. Nowadays, Absolutist Petrine advocates misinterpret the “Keys” as some unilateral papal prerogative that can be used against the rest of the bishops.

Ahh, fascinating, I had no idea of that. That prayer does seem to imply that the keys were entrusted to all bishops, not just the Roman Pope. Thanks for sharing.

Isn’t it possible that the point the Lord was trying to get across while addressing all of them was that he was indeed going to set one of them as their coryphaeus?

Such a warning from the Lord bespeaks of the awesome responsibility being handed over to this one servant who was to have this appointment from the Lord.

Perhaps, but such a warning also implies that this coryphaeus is indeed fallible, and subject to having his rank stripped from him for failing to heed the commandments of the Lord. It is certainly a position of great responsibility, and as Jesus said, to whom much is given, much is required.

 

[Shiranui117]

it says he can shut what no one can open and can open what no one can shut. That tells me others can open and shut, but not when compared to the one with the keys.

And the other Apostles have the power of the keys as well, and if we’re gonna take the prayer that Marduk posted seriously, then all the other bishops also have the keys.

Also, THIS is the thing I’m talking about, where you say (but not explicitly) that the Pope has the power to do whatever he wants without anyone to stop him.

BTW,
bishopsrule and have full power over their diocese.
however, just as Individual bishops are responsible for their individual diocese, They have no authority in anyone elses diocese.

But according to you, the Pope can trample on that power, and ha the ability to do it whenever he darn well pleases.

If the pope replaces a bishop for a grave reason, he needs no other authority to do that. Only the pope can replace a bad bishop in a diocese. It’s rarely done but he has that authority.

Huh, really? The regional synod no longer has any authority to depose out-of-line bishops as laid out in the canons of Nicaea? The Pope alone has that authority now, and doesn’t even need the approval of the Patriarchal synod? News to me.

On a whim? Is that like when you added with an iron fist* as a characterization of the pope in a previous post ?* Where does this come from?
Bishops alone can’t bind the entire Church without the approval of the pope approving what they bind. That’s Church law. The pope doesn’t act on a whim or act with an iron fist.

On a whim, with an iron fist, whenever he feels like taking something away, and now dictatorship is added. sheesh! Where is all this stuff comming from

Where was any of that said?

That, my friend, is nothing but the full implications and the logical conclusions of what you’ve been saying all along. I’d give you examples of where you’ve said that stuff (albeit not those exact words), but then I’d just be quoting your entire posts.

Just because the Pope DOESN’T act on a whim or within an iron fist, by no means implies that he CAN’T.

Yes It said he would be punished. But speaking of punishment for not heeding the commands of the master, that also goes for those in the household too, that the steward is over.

Sure, the steward’s fellow-servants get beaten and punished, but not necessarily because they fail to heed the master’s commands. When Jesus was talking about the steward beating his fellow servants, the steward was punishing them just because he was a jerk. Read the full context of everything.

the word in question was poimaino. The definition is clear.

Yep, all 5 or 6 of 'em

Examples

due to space I had to limit the examples

Those links don’t tell me anything. I wanted to know how YOU define how the Pope rules. I wanted a definition from steve b, not a partially-relevant paragraph from some encyclical or church document. Surely typing out YOUR definition of how the Pope rules is easier than going on a wild goose chase for these links?

I don’t see those terms in any Catholic Church documents. The phrase I criticized, “first among equals” I provided Church documents as evidence for the criticism…

Such as? If you posted them, I didn’t get the memo.

Those terms don’t mean anything to me. There is the Catholic view and the non Catholic view.

I always find it funny how most Catholics can’t agree on what the “Catholic” and “non-Catholic” views of the Papacy are. At least Marduk’s honest when he says that there’s a multiplicity of views in the Catholic Church.

 

[Shiranui117]

(cont)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, (note the references? Gregory’s letters inc for easy access)
for example I highlighted in the references the following. III, xxx = Book 3 letter 30 = [30 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360203030.htm) in the register of letters you’ll find below

"There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope,

• a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epp., XIII, 1, he speaks of “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches”, and in Epp., V, xliv, he says: "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church. “As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epp., IX, clvi), and his authority could annul them (Epp., V, xxxix, xli, xliv). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epp., II, 1; III, lii, lxiii; IX, xxvi, xxvii). This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question being still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself;”

Gregory the Great, Pope (c. 540-604)

• Pastoral Rule
• Register of Letters

other specific areas to view

(Epistle 2.46; 3.30; 5.37; 7.37). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epistle 9.156), and his authority could annul them (Epistles 5.39, 5.41, 5.44). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epistles 2.50; 3.52; 3.63; 9.26; 9.27).This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; “As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he writes in Epistle 9.12, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See?.

I’m going to either do a cursory examination of each letter or drag out quotes from it I find interesting.

-As far as the paragraph without links go, since they don’t come with links and I don’t know how to find the source material or am too lazy to bother, I’m just gonna ignore that entirely.

-And on the “Pastoral Rule” section, I went all tl;dr. You have any specific sections in that you want me to have a look at?

-I’m gonna say right now that in none of those epistles you linked to did I see any mention of Gregory claiming to be able to annul synods or councils. I DID, however, see in those Epistles that he called for quite a few humanitarian measures in response to secular abuses, but also warned not to get entangled with secular courts. (I have in mind 2.46, 5.41, 9.26, and 9.27)

-In 3.30, I see Gregory giving his OK to whoever the synod elects as bishop. Perfectly in line with 1 Nicaea.

-While trying to find stuff about the whole “Ecumenical Patriarch” issue, I found this:

If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility." (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)

Which I have no problem with, since I believe that any bishop who falls into error is subject to correction from ANYONE, whether it’s the Pope, other neighboring bishops, the Metropolitan, whoever.

-A gem or two from 5.39:

But remember that you rule an Apostolic See, and assuagest sorrow the more readily from being made all things to all men.

These words, as you see, taken from what you had written, I insert in my epistles, that your Blessedness may perceive with regard to Saint Ignatius that he is not only yours, but also ours. For, as we have his master, the Prince of the apostles in common, so also no one of us ought to have to himself alone the disciple of this same Prince.

-As far as the whole “Ecumenical Patriarch” deal goes, I found this in Schaff’s biography on Gregory:

But when Eulogius in a second letter styled the bp. of Rome universal pope, Gregory warmly rejected such a title, saying, “If you give more to me than is due to me, you rob yourself of what is due to you. Nothing can redound to my honour that redounds to the dishonour of my brethren. If you call me universal pope, you thereby own yourself to be no pope. Let no such titles be mentioned or ever heard among us.” Gregory was obliged at last to acquiesce in the assumption of the obnoxious title by the Constantinopolitan patriarch; and it may have been by way of contrast that he usually styled himself in his own letters by the title since borne by the bps. of Rome, “Servus servorum Dei.” Evidently Gregory and his opponents took different views of the import of the title contended for. They represented it as one simply of honour and dignity, while he regarded it as involving the assumption of supreme authority over the church at large, and especially over the see of St. Peter, whence probably in a great measure the vehemence of his remonstrance. In the different views taken appears the difference of principle on which pre-eminence was in that age thought assignable to sees in the East and West respectively. In the East the dignity of a see was regarded as an appanage of a city’s civil importance, on which ground alone could any pre-eminence be claimed for Constantinople. In the West it was the apostolical origin of the see, and the purely ecclesiastical pre-eminence belonging to it from ancient times, to which especial regard was paid. Thus viewed, the struggle of Gregory for the dignity of his own see against that of Constantinople assumes importance as a protest against the Erastianism of the East. It certainly would not have been well for the church had the spiritual authority of the bps. of Rome accrued to the subservient patriarchs of the Eastern capital.

-9.12 is definitely the strongest evidence you provided out of all of those that Gregory believed in Roman jurisdiction/supremacy over Constantinople. Heck, it’s the ONLY evidence.

 

[steve_b]

And the other Apostles have the power of the keys as well, and if we’re gonna take the prayer that Marduk posted seriously, then all the other bishops also have the keys.

There is a hierarchy of authority

The keys come through Peter. Bishops rule over their particular Church/diocese. and The pope is over the entire Church world wide

You may have missed something when I posted this link previously

Pope excommunicates Chinese bishop for not getting approval from the Vatican **The Holy See has declared that Father Yue Fusheng who was ordained bishop of Harbin July 6 without the Pope’s approval, is excommunicated. He is the third Chinese bishop to be excommunicated since June 2011 **vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/harbin-china-16670/

1. • The pope is the one who can remove or excommunicated a bishop
   • also, the point you might have missed, the 5 bishops who participated in the illicit ordination are subject to the sanction as well.
   S:
   

   Also, THIS is the thing I’m talking about, where you say (but not explicitly) that the Pope has the power to do whatever he wants without anyone to stop him.

   Some people no matter what is said or how it is said, will twist and distort what is said like a pretzel.
   S:
   

   But according to you, the Pope can trample on that power, and ha the ability to do it whenever he darn well pleases.

   I’m getting tired of being constantly misrepresented, and the misrepresentation of the pope. It’s rude and uncharitable
   
   Let me share something
   
   This is canon law.
   
   Canon 43
   
   The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
   
   Canon 45
   
   1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
   2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
   3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
   
   Canon 46
   
   1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
   2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.
   
   Do you know whose code this comes from? it’s from the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches i.e. Eastern Catholics
   
   Therefore,
   • if there are some hierarchs (and/or some of the laity) who might not like it, most liked it and it is written as it is written. As it says, the pope has “a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy” and that “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
   • the hierarchies having approved it, it could be said then, they didn’t object to it. So No they weren’t trampled on.
   • What about laity who self identify as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, do they have great issues with these canons? Maybe those who deep down still think in some ways like Orthodox, and haven’t fully grasped Catholicism yet, they could/would have problems. But the canons are written as they are.
   S:
   

   Huh, really? The regional synod no longer has any authority to depose out-of-line bishops as laid out in the canons of Nicaea? The Pope alone has that authority now, and doesn’t even need the approval of the Patriarchal synod? News to me.

   Does everything have to have a negative slant? If the patriarch or major archbishop ignored the issue at hand, why not assume the pope would work through them and only act using these canons if those hierarchs refused to do what must be done? Now, isn’t that a more certain probability? I think so.
   S:
   

   That, my friend, is nothing but the full implications and the logical conclusions of what you’ve been saying all along. I’d give you examples of where you’ve said that stuff (albeit not those exact words), but then I’d just be quoting your entire posts.
   
   Just because the Pope DOESN’T act on a whim or within an iron fist, by no means implies that he CAN’T.

   That last sentence is telling. I’ve asked for examples, and I get no examples. Nothing to back up all this negative rant, just alot of unsubstantiated implications…
   S:
   

   Those links don’t tell me anything. I wanted to know how YOU define how the Pope rules. I wanted a definition from steve b, not a partially-relevant paragraph from some encyclical or church document. Surely typing out YOUR definition of how the Pope rules is easier than going on a wild goose chase for these links?

   Those links say a ton. I prefer to give you a definition on that subject from a pope. Encyclicals take issues out of theory, and show how behavior / teaching is applied.
   S:
   

   Such as? If you posted them, I didn’t get the memo.

   I posted the following. You even responded to it
   
   "From Pope Benedict XVI Re: 1st among equals and notions of pentarchy
   
   (emphasis mine)
   
   "3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
   1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

 

[Shiranui117]

There is a hierarchy of authority

The keys come through Peter. Bishops rule over their particular Church/diocese. and The pope is over the entire Church world wide

You may have missed something when I posted this link previously

Pope excommunicates Chinese bishop for not getting approval from the Vatican **The Holy See has declared that Father Yue Fusheng who was ordained bishop of Harbin July 6 without the Pope’s approval, is excommunicated. He is the third Chinese bishop to be excommunicated since June 2011 **vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/harbin-china-16670/

1. • The pope is the one who can remove or excommunicated a bishop
   • also, the point you might have missed, the 5 bishops who participated in the illicit ordination are subject to the sanction as well.

1. 
   Oh yay, your own words. Continue! Tell me more. Elaborate, please.
   
   And removing those bishops is perfectly fine, no matter what way you want to slice it. Those bishops are within the Roman Church, and IIRC, according to the ancient Canons, they do need assent from the primate of their Church. If they were ordained illicitly, even more reason to throw them out. However, that doesn’t talk about the power of the keys, just about the canonical proceedings of the election and ordination of a bishop.
   

   Some people no matter what is said or how it is said, will twist and distort what is said like a pretzel.
   
   I’m getting tired of being constantly misrepresented, and the misrepresentation of the pope. It’s rude and uncharitable

   You have yet to show how I’m misrepresenting you. You can either clarify what you said with your own words, or concede that I am indeed representing the ends of your arguments accurately. As of yet, you have not done a single thing of substance to show that I’m misrepresenting you. You’ve just copypasted more stuff and not explained it.
   
   You have not corrected a single instance of what you claim is me “misrepresenting” you. You’re saying I’m making a misrepresentation of your argument, but you have not shown how or why it’s a misrepresentation. You’ve just asserted that it is a misrepresentation, and then given me more stuff that leads me to believe I have you pegged.
   

   Let me share something
   
   This is canon law.
   
   Canon 43
   
   The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.
   
   Canon 45
   
   1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
   2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
   3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
   
   Canon 46
   
   1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
   2.** The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.**
   
   Do you know whose code this comes from? it’s from the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches i.e. Eastern Catholics

   So in other words, the Pope calls all the shots, no one can overrule him, and he has full and complete authority to act within another bishop’s diocese freely, and he establishes how things are done in the Eastern Churches, and he’s the supreme pastor and everyone acts in his name and by his authority, do I have that right?
   

   Therefore,
   

   • if there are some hierarchs (and/or some of the laity) who might not like it, most liked it and it is written as it is written. As it says, the pope has “a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy” and that “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
   • the hierarchies having approved it, it could be said then, they didn’t object to it. So No they weren’t trampled on.
   • What about laity who self identify as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, do they have great issues with these canons? Maybe those who deep down still think in some ways like Orthodox, and haven’t fully grasped Catholicism yet, they could/would have problems. But the canons are written as they are.

   I can’t speak for others. All I know is, I cannot accept the power structure you describe. And no matter how you want to claim otherwise, that looks a heck of a lot like a dictatorship. Unless you prove me wrong by your own words, that is.
   

   Does everything have to have a negative slant? If the patriarch or major archbishop ignored the issue at hand, why not assume the pope would work through them and only act using these canons if those hierarchs refused to do what must be done? Now, isn’t that a more certain probability? I think so.

   If the Patriarch or archbishop ignored the issue at hand, they would be liable to censure as well. However, in the early Church, this was not restricted to just the Pope. Other Patriarchs and bishops dogpiled them heretics as well. If no one ELSE acts to correct them, then yeah, the Pope kinda has to step in, because he’s the only man that will.
   

   That last sentence is telling. I’ve asked for examples, and I get no examples. Nothing to back up all this negative rant, just alot of unsubstantiated implications…

   Did I ever say there were specific examples? No. I just said that it is possible. Just because something is possible does not mean it hasn’t happened yet.
   

   Those links say a ton. I prefer to give you a definition on that subject from a pope. Encyclicals take issues out of theory, and show how behavior / teaching is applied.

   But it tells me nothing on how you interpret them. You need to tell me how you interpret them; I’ve seen Catholics interpret those canons in different ways before. Your saying “just read the canons” is just like the Sola Scripturist “Just read the Bible.” And I say that without any offense intended, it’s just the way you’re arguing ATM.
   
   Really, is it so difficult for you to just type up not even a paragraph, but a few sentences, on how the Pope rules, in your own words? You finally started doing that at the top of this post. Isn’t that easier than scrounging for all those links and canons?
   
   I want to have a discussion with YOU, NOT with vatican.va or newadvent.org. If you bring in evidence, at least bother to interpret it and show me how you’re reading it. It will make this conversation go along much smoother.
   

   I posted the following. You even responded to it
   
   "From Pope Benedict XVI Re: 1st among equals and notions of pentarchy
   
   (emphasis mine)
   
   "3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
   

   1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."

   K then.