Let's talk about primacy of honour

[DL82]

The idea that the Pope’s authority rests on ‘primacy of honour’ among the bishops is one that Anglicans and Orthodox often use to oppose Catholicism, but is it really so far from what the Catholic Church believes?

All bishops are ordained to that office because they have demonstrated a holiness worthy of the honour of their office. We obey them, not because they can force us to do anything, but because we know, either by faith or by evidence, that they speak from God, the same is true of all religious superiors, whether your parish priest or the superior of an order.

Unlike earthly rulers, the Church doesn’t carry a sword. Nobody is forcing anyone to obey the Church, so it is all about primacy of honour.

If the Orthodox and the Anglicans acknowledge that the Pope has primacy of honour, why don’t they acknowledge that they ought to honour his teachings?

 

[jimmy]

If you want to use the phrase ‘primacy of honor’ to refer to the position of the Pope in the western perspective this primacy has nothing to do with holiness. It is based on a special charism given to St. Peter which amounts to a promise of infallibility. As a result the pope is infallibile and can’t err. So even the evil popes like John XXII held the honor, not because they were holy but because they were protected from error by a special charism of infallibility.

 

[Ivan_Putovati]

If you want to use the phrase ‘primacy of honor’ to refer to the position of the Pope in the western perspective this primacy has nothing to do with holiness. It is based on a special charism given to St. Peter which amounts to a promise of infallibility. As a result the pope is infallibile and can’t err. So even the evil popes like John XXII held the honor, not because they were holy but because they were protected from error by a special charism of infallibility.

---

Is this “special charism” inherited from Pope of Rome to Pope of Rome? Or is it passed directly from St. Peter the Apostle to each subsequent the pope?

 

[jimmy]

---

Is this “special charism” inherited from Pope of Rome to Pope of Rome? Or is it passed directly from St. Peter the Apostle to each subsequent the pope?

I don’t know how the charism is specifically handed on, I am only giving the western perspective as defined in Vatican I. According to that council the Roman Pope has a special charism of infallibility as the successor of Peter. Consequently, whether he is holy or not, he is infallible when declaring matters of faith and morals for the from the Seat of Peter(or in other words for the whole Church). Whether it’s true, I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to be true when you consider the fathers of the Church.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The idea that the Pope’s authority rests on ‘primacy of honour’ among the bishops is one that Anglicans and Orthodox often use to oppose Catholicism, but is it really so far from what the Catholic Church believes?

All bishops are ordained to that office because they have demonstrated a holiness worthy of the honour of their office. We obey them, not because they can force us to do anything, but because we know, either by faith or by evidence, that they speak from God, the same is true of all religious superiors, whether your parish priest or the superior of an order.

Unlike earthly rulers, the Church doesn’t carry a sword. Nobody is forcing anyone to obey the Church, so it is all about primacy of honour.

If the Orthodox and the Anglicans acknowledge that the Pope has primacy of honour, why don’t they acknowledge that they ought to honour his teachings?

From the times I have talked with Orthodox, their idea of “primacy of honor” is quite ethereal. It almost boils down to being the first at the buffet line - there’s nothing tangible about it.

 

[DL82]

From the times I have talked with Orthodox, their idea of “primacy of honor” is quite ethereal. It almost boils down to being the first at the buffet line - there’s nothing tangible about it.

The Biblical idea of Papal primacy surely comes from the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts (don’t know chapter & verse, sorry).

Once all of the other apostles have had their say, and when it’s clear that the argument’s just going back over old ground, Peter stands up and speaks, summarising the views of all and clarifying the view that seems to have come from all of the apostles. They all then agree with him, not because he forces them, but because of the working of the Holy Spirit.

The question which is the bone of contention between Catholic and Orthodox theologians is how? Does Peter know he’s speaking infallibly because the other apostles agree with him, or do the other apostles agree because they know that Peter has the charism of infallibility? It’s a bit like the Euthyphro dilemma, but with the Church’s authority instead of God’s.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Biblical idea of Papal primacy surely comes from the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts (don’t know chapter & verse, sorry).

Once all of the other apostles have had their say, and when it’s clear that the argument’s just going back over old ground, Peter stands up and speaks, summarising the views of all and clarifying the view that seems to have come from all of the apostles. They all then agree with him, not because he forces them, but because of the working of the Holy Spirit.

The question which is the bone of contention between Catholic and Orthodox theologians is how? Does Peter know he’s speaking infallibly because the other apostles agree with him, or do the other apostles agree because they know that Peter has the charism of infallibility? It’s a bit like the Euthyphro dilemma, but with the Church’s authority instead of God’s.

And yet, many Orthodox look to the Council of Jerusalem as proof AGAINST the Papacy.

 

[Alethiaphile]

And yet, many Orthodox look to the Council of Jerusalem as proof AGAINST the Papacy.

Yes, because the account given in DL82’s post is inaccurate. He makes it sound as if St. Peter had the last word. In reality, after St. Peter speaks, the testimony continues, then St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, sums up the testimony, including St. Peter’s, and then says “I decide”, followed by what would become the decree of the council.

I wouldn’t say that is conclusive proof against the Roman view of the papacy, but it is inconsistent with it.

If you want an Orthodox view of the papacy, read Olivier Celment, You Are Peter.

 

[Mickey]

The Biblical idea of Papal primacy surely comes from the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts (don’t know chapter & verse, sorry).

Acts 15.
We love St Peter–but he was not the first supreme infallible pontiff.

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, **for James was invested with the chief rule, **and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Acts 15.
There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom,

Sounds like St John Chrysostom is making St James like one of those Bishops who are more concerned about being politically correct.

But St James is the head of the Church in Jerusalem, so it would be natural for him to preside over the council. Biblical scholars also have other take on the narrative in Acts.

Those who support the view that the accound took place in one and the same council suggested that St Peter decided the doctrinal question, but St James dealt with the practical question of how Jewish Christians can mingle with Gentile Christians without hurting their consciences.

There are other scholars who think that St Luke combined 2 separate councils together. They often point to the fact that St Paul seemed to have absolutely no knowledge of St James’ decree in his letters.

But the last laugh is in history. While the decision of St Peter has ever since remained in the Church through all the centuries, the decision (on not eating food with blood in it) of St James is completely abandoned. So St James might have presided over the council, but it was St Peter’s judgement that became the perennial law of God’s Church.

 

[marlo]

So, with the quote you posted, are you saying that **St John Chrysostom **is saying that James is the first among the equals?

Acts 15.
We love St Peter–but he was not the first supreme infallible pontiff.

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, **for James was invested with the chief rule, **and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
**St John Chrysostom,**Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html

 

[JMJ_coder]

Acts 15.
We love St Peter–but he was not the first supreme infallible pontiff.

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, **for James was invested with the chief rule, **and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html

The mark of an Ecumenical Council has never been whether or not a Pope presides (or even whether or not he convokes it). The Pope certainly has that right of presiding, but he need not invoke that right, he may let others preside.

The mark of an Ecumenical Council has always been the ratification of that Council by the Pope. Which is why the Second Ecumenical Council wasn’t considered Ecumenical until the Council of Chalcedon - and even afterwards certain canons that did not gain the approval of the Pope were not considered canonical in either the East or the West.

 

[Mickey]

So, with the quote you posted, are you saying that **St John Chrysostom **is saying that James is the first among the equals?

St John says that St James was invested with the chief rule at the council of Jerusalem.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

St John says that St James was invested with the chief rule at the council of Jerusalem.

I’ve read that St John was looked on with a certain amount of suspicion by Western theologians for a number of centuries. If true, was it because of this teaching, or something else?

 

[Mickey]

I’ve read that St John was looked on with a certain amount of suspicion by Western theologians for a number of centuries. If true, was it because of this teaching, or something else?

That’s news to me.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

That’s news to me.

It was more than ten years ago that I read it… as I recall, it had something to do with a disagreement between Augustine and Chrysostom. I didn’t deem it of enough importance at the time to even note what the disagreement was. It was only one source, so it might not even be true.

 

[tdgesq]

So, with the quote you posted, are you saying that **St John Chrysostom **is saying that James is the first among the equals?

Obviously that isn’t what St. John Chrysostom is saying:

“And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.”

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

 

[JJR1453]

The idea that the Pope’s authority rests on ‘primacy of honour’ among the bishops is one that Anglicans and Orthodox often use to oppose Catholicism, but is it really so far from what the Catholic Church believes?

All bishops are ordained to that office because they have demonstrated a holiness worthy of the honour of their office. We obey them, not because they can force us to do anything, but because we know, either by faith or by evidence, that they speak from God, the same is true of all religious superiors, whether your parish priest or the superior of an order.

Unlike earthly rulers, the Church doesn’t carry a sword. Nobody is forcing anyone to obey the Church, so it is all about primacy of honour.

If the Orthodox and the Anglicans acknowledge that the Pope has primacy of honour, why don’t they acknowledge that they ought to honour his teachings?

Well, the Orthodox interpretation of “primacy of honor” speaks more to the fact of Rome being the most preminent city within the Empire; which is why they prescribe to the notion of New Rome being second only behind that of Old Rome. Ive often wondered – if this is the notion they hold to – why the “primacy of honor” was not passed to Moscow, considering New Rome has been long ago swept away. The assertion that all the patriarchs were equal in all respects, is certainly something of a violent account, contrary to historical reality. Dvornik has long been an author & historian that I respect immensely, and I hope to soon receive a book Ive been eyeing for quite some time: The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew. The book has been recommended to me based upon the idea that Dvornik – yet again – provides a different angle on which history may be viewed; an angle that lacks all traces of partisanship. In any case, Apostolicity – and how it is viewed – is a central theme that plays in on this theological/historical dialogue.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Ignatios]

Well, the Orthodox interpretation of “primacy of honor” speaks more to the fact of Rome being the most preminent city within the Empire; which is why they prescribe to the notion of New Rome being second only behind that of Old Rome. Ive often wondered – if this is the notion they hold to – why the “primacy of honor” was not passed to Moscow, considering New Rome has been long ago swept away. The assertion that all the patriarchs were equal in all respects, is certainly something of a violent account, contrary to historical reality. Dvornik has long been an author & historian that I respect immensely, and I hope to soon receive a book Ive been eyeing for quite some time: The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew. The book has been recommended to me based upon the idea that Dvornik – yet again – provides a different angle on which history may be viewed; an angle that lacks all traces of partisanship. In any case, Apostolicity – and how it is viewed – is a central theme that plays in on this theological/historical dialogue.

God bless,

JJR

The Interpretation of the Orthodox as well as the RCC revolve around the understanding of the word “pre-eminent” and Not the " first in honor" since RCC rejects that ONLY first in honor be accorded to the See of Rome.

As far as being second( the New Rome that is) it is clear the reason why it is the second after the Old Rome in the Canon law.

First, Second, Third, fourth, and fifth, does not denotes jurisdiction of one See over the other. it is just as it reads “In Honor” and Honor is not jurisdiction, here, I would point out again the canon law, where it speaks, where every See has jurisdiction over.

As for “…why the primacy of honor was not passed to Moscow…” because that would be done only under an Ecumenical Council resolution, and since Rome is not in communion with the rest of the Apostolic Sees, there can’t be a truly Ecumenical Council, Since for a truly Ecumenical Council to be, ALL the pentarchy must accept such Council as authoritative and binding, otherwise, if one rejects it, how could it be Ecumenical?

As for history, we can both go on endlessly, bringing forth some historical events in order to proove eash’s claim, and at the end of the night ( in this case it would be at the end of the month or so ) we both going to find ourselves before the Canon law, in the Canon law you will not find anything more then " primacy of honor" and nothing about the supremacy of the Pope or jurisdiction accorded to the Pope over all the other Sees.

GOD bless you †††

 

[marlo]

that is the right point.

Obviously that isn’t what St. John Chrysostom is saying:
“And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.”

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm