I am considering the Orthodox Church

[Ignatios]

Al Massih Kam
Hakkan Kam
Christos Anesti
Alethos Anesti
Christ is Risen
Indeed is Risen
†††

So then can you please define the difference between primacy and supremacy?

The word Primacy “can also” means “supremacy”, I guess it is all depends what you want it to be, if you are English speaking RC then there is no diffrence :

pri·ma·cy   /ˈpraɪməsi/ Show Spelled[prahy-muh-see] Show IPA
–noun,plural-cies for 2, 3.
1.the state of being first in order, rank, importance, etc.
2.Also called primateship. English Ecclesiastics. the office, rank, or dignity of a primate.
3.Roman Catholic Church. the jurisdiction of a bishop, as a patriarch, over other bishoprics, or the **supreme jurisdiction **of the pope as supreme bishop.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/primacy

Now let us examine the word supremacy:

su·prem·a·cy   /səˈprɛməsi, sʊ-/ Show Spelled[suh-prem-uh-see, soo-] Show IPA
–noun
1.the state of being supreme.
2.supreme authority or power.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/supremacy

As you see above, when you say the word “supremacy” it can then means one thing and that is what we find in your CCC # 882:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

where the Primacy that the Orthodox reffer to is the-Primus inter pares (Latin)- “First among equal” if you were to say “supremacy among equals” it wouldn’t make any sense.

maybe you should also consider, that the English language is a problematic when it comes to translating other languages especially Greek and in this instance we find it to be problematic in the Latin case, for the words ,Primus (Latin), Premiere (French) even your language the Italian or the Romanian primate, all means “First” in which it fits the word “Primacy” and NOT “Supremacy”.

Of course, he wouldn’t but the point of his post was not to highlight his “opinion” but rather the role of the papacy within the CC as understood by Vatican I (and II) and the canons of the Church, i.e., his approach was objective.

I love Marduk in Christ, he tries so hard with charity, but:

1. His version of Catholicism is NOT the RCC’s doctrine.
2. His “Opinion” “approach” are immaterial, the RCC’s Canons and Doctrine what is material when it comes to know what your Church i.e. the RCC beleives.

So in short, the discussion is not about “his approach” but about the “RCC’s approach”

CHRISR IS RISEN †††

 

[Ignatios]

Yes, it is in fact incorrect because you view the papacy as a political institution whereas we Catholics see it as a divine institution (based on Scripture and Tradtion), i.e., none of your misapprehensions of his supremacy/primacy can change that.

… The Vatican State has its origins in the Italian wars of reunification, when the forces of the Papal State which ruled Rome were defeated by the Piedmontese …(Google Vatican state)

… Dr. Ambassador to the Vatican…newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2009/07/dr_ambassador_i_presume.html

…Why Kmiec will not become the new Vatican Ambassador…Vatican City, Nov 25, 2008 / 03:22 pm (CNA).- An official from the Vatican’s Secretary of State department has reacted to the recent suggestion that Pepperdine professor Douglas Kmiec should become the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican by saying, “it will never happen.”…catholicnewsagency.com/news/why_kmiec_will_not_become_the_new_vatican_ambassador/

No further comments

He does not parcel out authority to the bishops, i.e. the bishops have a God-given authority to tend and feed their flock, i.e., you are imposing your own understanding of what the role of the papacy is because you take snippets of our canons without viewing the whole.

Do you deny that he can appoint whom ever he wishes or deny whomever he wishes if he pleased to do so? Not to mention that if we look in the history of your church we find that some Popes did just that literally.

Yes, he has to accept responsibility but not sole responsibility, the bishops in question knew their duty to the flock they were tending, moreover, the Pope does not so much appoint bishops as he confirms decisions made.

If he wish to confirm he does at his pleasure and if he doesn’t no one can challenge his decisions.

The Church teaches that the magisterium (which would include the Pope) are infallibly protected, furthermore, the Pope although protected from teaching error cannot deviate from the deposit of faith, i.e., the Pope is bound by what he can or cannot say.

where is the deposit of faith in the I.C. or the Purg. or the the headship of the pope on the whole universal Church as a “Dogma” or …etc…etc…etc…

Moreover, never in the history of the Church has a pope declared a dogma that wasn’t already discussed and debated ad naseum and/or generally accepted by the bishops. I think that the history of the CC proves that the papacy despite the immorality of some popes has thus far managed to avoid the pitfalls you mentioned, i.e.,…

All the above he did because he willed it so, but if he doesn’t, then show us the Canon from your Church that bounds him from doing so, and put an end to this by presenting us with something that is valid such as a Canon Law.

… if the popes had as much power as you claim we would have lost the apostolic faith along time ago.

Adding to the Faith has the same effect as if loosing it.

Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are not an innovation and if you choose to believe this then I guess I’ll have to requote the 4 (make it 5 pages) of Church fathers that implicitly or explicitly promote both.

I challenge you to give “VALID” reffrence to each of them, I bit you cannot validly reffrence quite a few of them , because they are flawed, and/or out of context, or some are reworded as I proved for you in diffrent thread before … or they are irrelevant, BUT I can give you the decrees of at least hundreds of Church Fathers that would refute you utterly.

I will pose to you the same question I did Mick:

And can you at the same time define what primacy is in light of the quotes I posted on this thread (several pages back)?

God bless and Happy Easter!!

All you have to do is look up the Ecumenical Councils Canons.

GOD bless you †††

 

[jam070406]

(Orthodox need not concern themselves with that because we simply do not recognize his potential to be a dictator, whether he is perceived by his followers to be or not is thus irrelevant.)

And yet, it’s people like you who pepetuate the myth. If you didn’t concern yourself then I suspect you wouldn’t be on these boards having to justify why you are an ex-Catholic. So how irrelevant is it really? I suspect this train of thought came after you left the Church and began to believe the polemics that you often try to repeat as Truth on these boards.

 

[jam070406]

where is the deposit of faith in the I.C.

Pick up the book: The Glories Of Mary by St. Alphonsus Ligouri. He gives an in depth study of the IC and offers quotes by many Saints, East and West.

 

[Ignatios]

Pick up the book: The Glories Of Mary by St. Alphonsus Ligouri. He gives an in depth study of the IC and offers quotes by many Saints, East and West.

Couldn’t I just read Thomas Aquinas what he thought of the I.C. or maybe… St. Bernard of Clairvaux, or even Alexander of Hales, and/or St. Bonaventure, in which he said concerning the Immaculate conception, when teaching at Paris, called it “this foreign doctrine”, indicating its association with England or let me ask you this , does the Dominican order still reject the I.C. or they quite down concerning this or… well, just read your church history about the I.C. and you will find out that your church was deeply split over the I.C. there was many bloody fights between the Fransiscans and the Dominicans
over this…

Christ is Risen †††

 

[jam070406]

Couldn’t I just read Thomas Aquinas what he thought of the I.C. or maybe… St. Bernard of Clairvaux, or even Alexander of Hales, and/or St. Bonaventure, in which he said concerning the Immaculate conception, when teaching at Paris, called it “this foreign doctrine”, indicating its association with England or let me ask you this , does the Dominican order still reject the I.C. or they quite down concerning this or… well, just read your church history about the I.C. and you will find out that your church was deeply split over the I.C. there was many bloody fights between the Fransiscans and the Dominicans
over this…

Christ is Risen †††

Were these not Faithful Catholic Saints that you just referenced? I suspect each one would have submitted to the authority of the Church. In fact St. Thomas Aquinas said as much on his death bed. Of course, there will always be those that refuse to obey.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Ignatios,

I think the Catholic angle on the I.C. would be that, although Aquinas and Bernard and some others definitely were not believers in the I.C. and vocally opposed it, that doesn’t mean they are infallible in themselves and the be-all, end-all of the Universal Church’s proclaimations. The pope, from the Catholic perspective, is the final say, and he declared her immaculate. There are other saints who thought along these lines. There are many saints in Church history who speak great truths and, at times, also give opinions that are off the beaten path. Augustine taught some pretty weird things about babies going to hell who weren’t baptized and some saints taught that shaving one’s beard was tantamount to being gay and un-Christian altogether. We can’t take what individual saints say about topics but, from a Catholic perspective, look at the big picture and then the determination of the pope. As an Orthodox, where you’re coming from, this is a foreign idea and I wouldn’t expect you to believe it at all. But to just quote a few saints who opposed it would not sway a Catholic against the I.C. They see things holistically and from a papal viewpoint, not through your field of vision.

Couldn’t I just read Thomas Aquinas what he thought of the I.C. or maybe… St. Bernard of Clairvaux, or even Alexander of Hales, and/or St. Bonaventure, in which he said concerning the Immaculate conception, when teaching at Paris, called it “this foreign doctrine”, indicating its association with England or let me ask you this , does the Dominican order still reject the I.C. or they quite down concerning this or… well, just read your church history about the I.C. and you will find out that your church was deeply split over the I.C. there was many bloody fights between the Fransiscans and the Dominicans
over this…

Christ is Risen †††

 

[jam070406]

Hi Ignatios,

I think the Catholic angle on the I.C. would be that, although Aquinas and Bernard and some others definitely were not believers in the I.C. and vocally opposed it, that doesn’t mean they are infallible in themselves and the be-all, end-all of the Universal Church’s proclaimations. The pope, from the Catholic perspective, is the final say, and he declared her immaculate. There are other saints who thought along these lines. There are many saints in Church history who speak great truths and, at times, also give opinions that are off the beaten path. Augustine taught some pretty weird things about babies going to hell who weren’t baptized and some saints taught that shaving one’s beard was tantamount to being gay and un-Christian altogether. We can’t take what individual saints say about topics but, from a Catholic perspective, look at the big picture and then the determination of the pope. As an Orthodox, where you’re coming from, this is a foreign idea and I wouldn’t expect you to believe it at all. But to just quote a few saints who opposed it would not sway a Catholic against the I.C. They see things holistically and from a papal viewpoint, not through your field of vision.

I would also add, that the fact Ignatios can reference Saints from throughout salvation history dispells the myth that the Pope invented (19th century innovation) this concept in the 19th century.

 

[Ignatios]

Were these not Faithful Catholic Saints that you just referenced? I suspect each one would have submitted to the authority of the Church. In fact St. Thomas Aquinas said as much on his death bed. Of course, there will always be those that refuse to obey.

My point is, that if we take what St. Vincent of Lerins said " …take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic…" and try to base the I.C. on this saying of this Saint, then we find that either St Vincent was false ( his saying was accepted to be truly catholic and orthodox by the whole Church) or the RCC fell in error regarding this dogma, since it was not everywhere, always and by all, NOT even in the RCC itself can this be applied, never mind the Eastern Holy Sees.

 

[jam070406]

My point is, that if we take what St. Vincent of Lerins said " …take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic…" and try to base the I.C. on this saying of this Saint, then we find that either St Vincent was false ( his saying was accepted to be truly catholic and orthodox by the whole Church) or the RCC fell in error regarding this dogma, since it was not everywhere, always and by all, NOT even in the RCC itself can this be applied, never mind the Eastern Holy Sees.

In your previous posts you demonstrated that this issue had been debated and not settled in the past. So it went to the final court of appeal (the successor of Peter) and was settled. Like the council of Chalcedon when it was declared “Peter has spoken through Leo!” Gurney demonstrated that Saints, in themselves, are not infallible. The IC further squashes any erroneous beliefs of Christ that can crop up. Could Mary have been a servant of the devil by being subject to sin? The door is then open to hold some very bizarre beliefs of Christ at that point. God forbid! The Church felt it necessary, through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to end such debates.

 

[jam070406]

And I might add that now that the issue has been settled, it IS believed everywhere, always and by all…of those Faithful to the Tradition that one must hold to the See of Peter (Rome) to truly know the orthodox Faith.

 

[Ignatios]

Hi Ignatios,

I think the Catholic angle on the I.C. would be that, although Aquinas and Bernard and some others definitely were not believers in the I.C. and vocally opposed it, that doesn’t mean they are infallible in themselves and the be-all, end-all of the Universal Church’s proclaimations.

But it wasn’t only those Saint but at times almost half the Roman Church was split over this issue which it indicates the non-apostolic origin of it, in which it brings us back to what I was reffering to in the first place when answering Josie L.

…The pope, from the Catholic perspective, is the final say, and he declared her immaculate.

1000% right on this one. can’t agree with you any more. according to your beleif that is.

… There are other saints who thought along these lines. There are many saints in Church history who speak great truths and, at times, also give opinions that are off the beaten path. Augustine taught some pretty weird things about babies going to hell who weren’t baptized and some saints taught that shaving one’s beard was tantamount to being gay and un-Christian altogether.

I am with you on this, and that is what I was trying to convey to jam070406 when he replied to me to read the "*** Pick up the book: The Glories Of Mary by St. Alphonsus Ligouri. He gives an in depth study of the IC and offers quotes by many Saints, East and West***. " so he can give some ground for the I.C. in order to justify it as being of an Apostolic origin, in order to give some weight to the Papacy dogma of the I.C. as being of the Deposit of Faith, and which it is not according to Saint Vincent’s creteria.

We can’t take what individual saints say about topics but, from a Catholic perspective, look at the big picture and then the determination of the pope.

I see your view to be correct in relation to your RC beleif. and I also agree as an Orthodox that we cannot take what one Saint say about topics but we must see what the consensus of the Church is on the subject, and that is why I was suggesting to JosieL and jam070406 that not every word a Saint say is a dogma even he was a Father of the Church or a Doctor (in the RCC) . one must take in consideration the historical Context and the circumstances that they wrote under.

… As an Orthodox, where you’re coming from, this is a foreign idea and I wouldn’t expect you to believe it at all. But to just quote a few saints who opposed it would not sway a Catholic against the I.C. They see things holistically and from a papal viewpoint, not through your field of vision.

But allow me to remind you that for a centuries this was a foreign Idea to almost half of the RCC as well.

I wasn’t trying to sway anyone but only and simply responding.

Wrong, that is not “my” field of vision, it is a beleifs of numerous Fathers and Saints from both Orthodox AND RCs, besides let me mention again that it doesn’t hold water when weighing it in the St. Vincent of Lurin’s Canon (if you will).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I challenge you to give “VALID” reffrence to each of them, I bit you cannot validly reffrence quite a few of them , because they are flawed, and/or out of context, or some are reworded as I proved for you in diffrent thread before … or they are irrelevant, BUT I can give you the decrees of at least hundreds of Church Fathers that would refute you utterly.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;
Peter is always listed among first of the apostles, Andrew was first to meet Jesus who was Peter’s older brother, so Peter as being the eldest among the apostles is ruled out from an eldest to youngest list;

Scripture states the following FIRST; Matthew 10: 2 The names of the twelve apostles 3 are these:** first, Simon called Peter**, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
3 Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus;
4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.

John 1:40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41 He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” 29 (which is translated Anointed).
42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; 30 you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

Peter exercised his God given authority in binding and loosing on earth by allowing death to take a fellow member Ananias, and then later raise the dead in Tabitha from the book of acts. I would think twice before messing with Jesus Rock he named Peter see the following;

Acts 5: 3 But** Peter said**, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land?
4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? **You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” **5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6 The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened.
8 Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10 At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

Acts 9: 36 Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). 10 She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving.
37 Now during those days she fell sick and died, so after washing her, they laid (her) out in a room upstairs…
40 Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed. Then he turned to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.” She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up.
41 He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows, he presented her alive.

Jesus builds his church upon Peter before his passion death and resurrection, because he (Peter) hears from God, God has chosen who is to serve the servants of God Simon bar Jona renamed Peter (Rock), to be the leader (greatest).

Matthew 16: 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus commands Peter alone to shepherd his sheep on earth after the resurrection;

John 21: 15 … Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

 

[jam070406]

that is why I was suggesting to JosieL and jam070406 that not every word a Saint say is a dogma even he was a Father of the Church or a Doctor (in the RCC) . one must take in consideration the historical Context and the circumstances that they wrote under.

I stated that he gives reference to other Saints. Also, consider that St. Alphonus was around long before the IC was declared dogma. So the idea was not something the Pope pulled out of the blue. It was debated, much like issues were debated through the first few centuries. It was a question unanswered that was finally brought to rest.
And what you accuse me and Josie of is exactly what you are doing with St. Vincent.

 

[Ignatios]

In your previous posts you demonstrated that this issue had been debated and not settled in the past. So it went to the final court of appeal (the successor of Peter) and was settled.

Could you refresh my memory where did I make mention of the above? thx

… Like the council of Chalcedon when it was declared “Peter has spoken through Leo!” Gurney demonstrated that Saints, in themselves, are not infallible.

If so then why you suggested to me reading about some saints in order to fortify your claim. you are contradicting yourself in almost 2 posts later.

…The IC further squashes any erroneous beliefs of Christ that can crop up. Could Mary have been a servant of the devil by being subject to sin? The door is then open to hold some very bizarre beliefs of Christ at that point.God forbid! The Church felt it necessary, through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, to end such debates.

So, you are suggesting in the above, that the Church had to take this in order to protect dignity of the Lady THEOTOKOS.
Besides this is the result of your church’s understanding of the Original Sin.

There is no private revelation, and I beleive that your church agree on this, but yet they introduce the I.C. based on private revelations.

GOD bless †††

 

[Ignatios]

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you for that blessing, may the Lord be with you and keep you always; Peace be with you:thumbsup:

 

[Ignatios]

… It was debated, much like issues were debated through the first few centuries…

DEBATED??? NAAAAA, it was faught over.

And what you accuse me and Josie of is exactly what you are doing with St. Vincent.

Saint Vincent canon (if you will), and like I said before, that it was agreed on and accepted by the Both Churches Orthodox and Catholic and that is what makes it valid and not just simply be cause he stated so.

GOD bless †††

 

[jam070406]

Could you refresh my memory where did I make mention of the above? thx

Post #247.

If so then why you suggested to me reading about some saints in order to fortify your claim. you are contradicting yourself in almost 2 posts later.

I didn’t contradict myself. You claimed that the IC is foreign to the deposit of Faith. I suggested St. Alphosus’s book to show it was indeed not foreign. In fact, it proves that the Pope didn’t create some “innovation” or add to the Faith, as you claimed.

So, you are suggesting in the above, that the Church had to take this in order to protect dignity of the Lady THEOTOKOS.
Besides this is the result of your church’s understanding of the Original Sin:

The Church views the Marian dogma’s as Christocentric.

There is no private revelation, and I beleive that your church agree on this, but yet they introduce the I.C. based on private revelations:

Based on private revelation??? Where did you get that idea?

GOD bless †††