In what ways can Protestants accept papal primacy today?

[JonNC]

onNC, you are correct about this.

Thank you.

However, you might be confusing the way protestants look at the Catholic Church and papal authority with the way Eastern Orthodox looks at the same subject. Protestants do not even consider development of the Catholic Church. Protestants for the most part just look to 1517 and developments after that; with a bible in one hand, and the Catholic Church in the rearview mirror.

Again, that requires a more explicit grouping than “protestant”.
#Numerous communions use the three creeds. That infers at least a recognition of Church history.
#Anglicans and Lutherans, and others accept, to one degree of another, the great ecumenical councils of the Church.

I know for a fact that seminarians in the above mentioned communions study in great depth the early Church, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, the Early Church Fathers.​

(no idea why this font is larger.)

To claim these ignore the development of the Church since Pentecost is simply inaccurate.

Protestants for the most part remain woefully obtuse to early church councils, early writings etc. Those developments were under the construct of a Catholic church and therefore are not encouraged readings, in my experience anyway.

In all honesty, your experience sounds limited. I remember as a child studying the martyrs and other early characters of the Church. This is why I say that making general statements about protestants are, generally speaking, wrong. Be specific who you mean.

So you see, the method for getting a Protestant to consider any church authority, much more Catholic papacy, is a very different discussion than getting Eastern Orthodox to do the same.

It may be different for those I’ve mentioned, but not by much. A very good article:
https://www.goarch.org/-/papal-primacy

 

[JonNC]

No! There was no need to mention that which was universally accepted and unchallenged. The Eastern Churches accepted the supremacy of Rome and even went to Rome for help exterminating heresies among those that sprung up from the East.

that is not evidence of a belief in supremacy. It is evidence in the understanding of primacy of the Roman see.

You are wanting an explicit verbiage from an Ecumenical Council stating that which was unchallenged at the time.

Of I want verbage that proves the “development” you are defending, a development of doctrine that was unknown at the time. Reaching back with a current teaching and implying that those who would never have known of it were defending it is ludicrous.

“[Let Alexandria have jurisdiction over these provinces, because the Roman Bishop has also a Patriarchate].”

No. Alexandria has jurisdiction in the same way that Rome does it its see.
It is what canon 6 says.

That is how you want the Canon to read. You are infusing an Eastern Orthodox understanding into the context. You are the one placing an Eastern Orthodox, 2nd millennium development into a Catholic Church Council.

I’m not infusing anything. The words are specific and clear: an equality of jurisdictions.

Absolutely they do! I’m asking you to provide me evidence where they alone have supremacy.

Supremacy of the whole Church. It is where many aspects of the understanding of the faith come from. Trinity, semper virgo, the creeds. Many others.

 

[JonNC]

Hodos:

What a wonderfully broad brush you paint with. Clearly your argument does not take into account the writings of the reformers themselves.

You have left many unanswered questions throughout many threads.

This is a non sequitur.

 

[AugustTherese]

Supremacy of the whole Church. It is where many aspects of the understanding of the faith come from.

Quote me evidence! Show me evidence where only Councils alone have supremacy!

 

[mch4970]

In all honesty, your experience sounds limited. I remember as a child studying the martyrs and other early characters of the Church. This is why I say that making general statements about protestants are, generally speaking, wrong. Be specific who you mean.

It certainly is limited. No need to point that out. But, I should recognize in my responses that my experiences may vary greatly from others. My experience is with the Baptist, Pentecostal, Nondenominational groups. Those just happen to be the larger groups in the area where I grew up. In my neck of the woods, Baptists were the majority. Higher churches were often times shunned for appealing to hierarchy, and Baptist churchs (at least those associated with the Southern Convention) didn’t require education to be preacher/sunday school teacher/etc.

BUT STILL, I am simply answering the OP’s original question from MY point of view, which is all I think a person can do. Thus I still stand behind my initial statements, with your comments to footnote.

 

[JonNC]

It is a broad brush. I’m speaking mostly of current protestants, such as my former self that knew nothing of the Catholic Church or its early writings prior to the reformation. I understand some are more informed, but the majority I knew, had their bible, their Matthew Henry commentaries, their preacher, and Billy Graham. That’s all that was needed.

Here you mention examples. That’s all I ask. Using the term “protestant” isn’t specific.
I’m not aware of how in depth Billy Graham studied the early Church.

 

[AugustTherese]

Alexandria has jurisdiction in the same way that Rome does it its see.

I don’t see the words “in the same way”. That is your EO addition!

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Supremacy of the whole Church. It is where many aspects of the understanding of the faith come from.

Quote me evidence! Show me evidence where only Councils alone have supremacy!

Are you denying the Trinity?

 

[mch4970]

Our comments crossed in the interspace!!!

 

[AugustTherese]

Are you denying the Trinity?

You cannot answer a simple question.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Alexandria has jurisdiction in the same way that Rome does it its see.

I don’t see the words “in the same way”. That is your EO addition!

Here’s the “EO” addition.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

Where does it say Rome has jurisdiction? It doesn’t.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Are you denying the Trinity?

You cannot answer a simple question.

I did. The councils set these important doctrines of the Church. Not the Bishop of Rome “infallibly” by himself.

 

[AugustTherese]

Here’s the “EO” addition.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

The sentence “since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also” is not comparing Alexandria to Rome but is meaning that "since Rome has gave Alexandria this custom“. Just because the words ‘like’ and ‘likewise’ are used, that does not mean they are equally comparable in local jurisdiction only like your EO impulses suggest.

 

[AugustTherese]

I did. The councils set these important doctrines of the Church. Not the Bishop of Rome “infallibly” by himself.

No, you’re prooftexting your understanding into Councils. Show me where an Ecumenical Council defines itself to be the supreme authority in of themselves! Show me anything from Tradiotion or Scripture!

 

[JonNC]

The sentence “since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also” is not comparing Alexandria to Rome but is meaning that "since Rome has gave Alexandria this custom“. Just because the words ‘like’ and ‘likewise’ are used, that does not mean they are equally comparable in local jurisdiction only like your EO impulses suggest.

Of course it means they are equally compared. There is no indication of one being greater than the other.
If the plane reading of the text is RO impulses, it is clear they have it right.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

The sentence “since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also” is not comparing Alexandria to Rome but is meaning that "since Rome has gave Alexandria this custom“. Just because the words ‘like’ and ‘likewise’ are used, that does not mean they are equally comparable in local jurisdiction only like your EO impulses suggest.

Of course it means they are equally compared. There is no indication of one being greater than the other.
If the plane reading of the text is RO impulses, it is clear they have it right.

Except for the bishop of Rome, no bishop has authority over any other bishop. For a bishop to have authority over another bishop, it must be delegated from the supreme authority of the Church in some way. Either way you look at it, in this canon, the Council tacitly acknowledges that Rome has by its own right authority over other Sees, and the Council, which was exercising the supreme auithority of the Church, likewise confirms that the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch are authorized to exercise authority over other bishops. Rome is treated as the model and source of superjurisdictional authority to which that of the other patriarchates are derived.

At this time, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch customarily governed the three known parts of the world, Europe, Africa, and Asia, but Rome served as a final court of appeal for anyone in the world. So the custom at the time did not have Rome directly involved with these other regions, but that did not mean it did not have the right to–it just exercised that right when necessary to preserve peace, unity, and orthodoxy leaving the direct governance to the other Patriarchs

 

[AugustTherese]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

Don’t tease me, bro!

 

[JonNC]

No, you’re prooftexting your understanding into Councils.

I didn’t even provide texts regarding the Trinity or the creeds or simper Virgo.

Show me where an Ecumenical Council defines itself to be the supreme authority in of themselves! Show me anything from Tradiotion or Scripture!

Well, the council Tradition is found in Acts, but beyond that, from a Catholic:

An ecumenical council is when the entire Church, through the bishops, gathers together to address one or more issues vital to the life of the universal Church at a given period of time. The first seven councils of the Church are generally accepted and called the “Ecumenical Councils.”

https://bustedhalo.com/questionbox/what-is-an-ecumenical-council

An EO view:

Ecumenical Councils are extraordinary synods of bishops which primarily decide upon dogmatic formulations, especially in the face of heresy. Secondarily, they also issue canonical legislation which governs the administration of the Church.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

So, you tell me now where a truly ecumenical Council is not authoritative.

 

[Hodos]

Sorry, was going to weigh in, but figured it wouldn’t be fair to jump in on the conversation you both were having.

 

[JonNC]

Except for the bishop of Rome, no bishop has authority over any other bishop.

Including the Bishop of Rome, no Bishop has authority over another, unless they choose to be.

For a bishop to have authority over another bishop, it must be delegated from the supreme authority of the Church in some way. Either way you look at it, in this canon, the Council tacitly acknowledges that Rome has by its own right authority over other Sees, and the Council, which was exercising the supreme auithority of the Church, likewise confirms that the bishops of aAlexandria and Antioch are authorized to exercise authority over other bishops. Rome is treated as the model and source of superjurisdictional authority to which that of the other patriarchates are derived.

Goodness. There is no such acknowledgement, tacit or otherwise. The plane meaning of the canon. The plane meaning means no, not reaching back with “developments”.

At this time, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch customarily governed the three known parts of the world, Europe, Africa, and Asia, but Rome served as a final court of appeal for anyone in the world. So the custom at the time did not have Rome directly involved with these other regions,

This we agree on. This is exactly what primacy means.

but that did not mean it did not have the right to–it just exercised that right when necessary to preserve peace, unity, and orthodoxy leaving the direct governance to the other Patriarchs

And now you’re being “tacit” again. Apparently the other patriarchates disagree.