Orthodoxy, Papacy

[josie_L]

The Pope is a bishop, but this is a secondary thing. The primary thing is that he is an apostle. I believed before that no bishop ever directly succeeded an apostle; but now there is one exception, Clement directly succeeded Peter. But this was not a bishop succeeding an apostle, it was an apostle succeeding an apostle. Rome is called “The Apostolic See”, so it only makes sense that the man sitting there be an apostle, right? Now an apostle outranks a bishop, just as a bishop outranks a priest. So now all the bishops can still be equal, but that one apostle is above all the bishops. This would give Rome universal jurisdiction without making any bishop unequal with any other bishop.

You are correct in stating that no other bishop directly succeeds an apostle with the exception of the bishop of Rome who is the direct successor to St. Peter (Pope Benedict mentions this in his book “Called to Communion”). I suppose you could say he is an “apostle” but only in the sense that Peter lives on through the bishops of Rome.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The Pope is a bishop, but this is a secondary thing. The primary thing is that he is an apostle. I believed before that no bishop ever directly succeeded an apostle; but now there is one exception, Clement directly succeeded Peter. But this was not a bishop succeeding an apostle, it was an apostle succeeding an apostle. Rome is called “The Apostolic See”, so it only makes sense that the man sitting there be an apostle, right? Now an apostle outranks a bishop, just as a bishop outranks a priest. So now all the bishops can still be equal, but that one apostle is above all the bishops. This would give Rome universal jurisdiction without making any bishop unequal with any other bishop.

So, what do you all think? Any flaws in this train of thought?

Perhaps Jesus intended that there only be but one apostle in the Church anyway. Perhaps “The 12 Apostles” were only a temporary thing that represented the 12 tribes of Israel. But the only continuing apostle was from Peter, the Rock, the holder of the Keys. :newidea:

:idea: JohnVIII

You are correct in stating that no other bishop directly succeeds an apostle with the exception of the bishop of Rome who is the direct successor to St. Peter (Pope Benedict mentions this in his book “Called to Communion”). I suppose you could say he is an “apostle” but only in the sense that Peter lives on through the bishops of Rome.

Wow, you have taken this hypertrophy of the Bishop of Rome to such levels it’s becoming absurd. Of course if you follow Catholic ecclesiology to it’s logical end you can come to no other conclusion; that there is really only one bishop; and that by extension there was really only one Apostle. The rest are nothing more than glorified priests with fancier vestments.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

… I would like to hear from you all to see what you may think. Here’s what I have come to:

The Pope is a bishop, but this is a secondary thing. The primary thing is that he is an apostle. I believed before that no bishop ever directly succeeded an apostle; but now there is one exception, Clement directly succeeded Peter. But this was not a bishop succeeding an apostle, it was an apostle succeeding an apostle. Rome is called “The Apostolic See”, so it only makes sense that the man sitting there be an apostle, right? Now an apostle outranks a bishop, just as a bishop outranks a priest. So now all the bishops can still be equal, but that one apostle is above all the bishops. This would give Rome universal jurisdiction without making any bishop unequal with any other bishop.

So, what do you all think? Any flaws in this train of thought?

The primary thing is that the bishop of Rome is a bishop.

The See is an office, not a sacrament.

No bishop in his office can directly appoint his successor to that office, and it follows that he is not installed in his office by his predecessor. The office belongs to the church of the city, and when the bishop dies it returns to the church of that city until another is selected. In other words, the bishop does not name his successor, that is in the hands of the synod of the church of that city.

The bishop, any bishop, can lay hands upon other men and this is Apostolic succession through him. Those other men hold other offices. The office is conferred by the church of the city. That is why there can be episodes of ‘sede vacante’ when there is no office holder, sometimes this interregnum lasts for years and in the case of the See at Rome history shows that it has indeed lasted for years on occasion. In those times the chair belongs to no individual person.

As for the case of a succession of bishops being considered apostles, it was my understanding that the apostleship was a lifetime endeavor (although you might define it differently), being called by God one would not resign. However it is possible for the bishop of Rome to resign, and his place would be taken by another. In this case would the resignee be no longer an Apostle? Or would he be a lifetime Apostle which means his successor cannot be until he dies? Or would there be two ‘Peters’ ?

The fact is, the office of bishop of Rome, like the office of any other epicopal See is not a sacrament and does not leave a lifetime indelible mark or character on the soul. At the time of the final judgment there will not be 265 Peters, there will be one, and 262 other guys who will have to answer for themselves.

In the west, the term “The Apostolic See” is understandable, since there was only one in the entire west (I am not sure how far back the title has been used, but I think it would be worthwhile to try and ascertain the earliest instance of it’s occurance as a title), however with regard to the church as a whole it should be considered a misnomer for it can only be one of many Apostolic Sees. In a reconciled and harmonious church the title would more accurately be “An Apostolic See”.

 

[josie_L]

Wow, you have taken this hypertrophy of the Bishop of Rome to such levels it’s becoming absurd. Of course if you follow Catholic ecclesiology to it’s logical end you can come to no other conclusion; that there is really only one bishop; and that by extension there was really only one Apostle. The rest are nothing more than glorified priests with fancier vestments.

In Christ
Joe

That’s not what I said at all so please stop putting words in my mouth, i.e., bishops are successors to the apostles but none are a direct successor to a specific apostle with the exception of the bishop of Rome.

 

[josie_L]

In the west, the term “The Apostolic See” is understandable, since there was only one in the entire west (I am not sure how far back the title has been used, but I think it would be worthwhile to try and ascertain the earliest instance of it’s occurance as a title), however with regard to the church as a whole it should be considered a misnomer for it can only be one of many Apostolic Sees. In a reconciled and harmonious church the title would more accurately be “An Apostolic See”.

The see of Rome, or “the Apostolic See” as it was refered to was a term used during the first millenia, there was no reference to “an Apostolic See”.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Wow, you have taken this hypertrophy of the Bishop of Rome to such levels it’s becoming absurd.

Joseph, Our Lord sent the holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth and promised to be with his Church until the end of the world. In the Catholic Church the pope with the magesterium is the supreme authority to whom the Spirit can guide to the truth. Who is the corresponding supreme authority in the Orthodox Church?

Now there’s a statement to which we can confidently attach the word ‘absurd.’ Good shot!

 

[JohnVIII]

…bishops are successors to the apostles but none are a direct successor to a specific apostle with the exception of the bishop of Rome.

It would be easier for me to just call the bishop of Rome an Apostle, but since I don’t have anything to base giving him that title (Except the See being called “The Apostolic See”), for now I will call him a “DSTASA” (Direct Successor To A Specific Apostle).

I have had trouble accepting the Pope as a Universal Bishop. I know he doesn’t have that title, but it sure seemed like that was what he was. The trouble I had with it is because it makes the bishops unequal. But if the Pope is equal with all bishops, as a bishop, but superior to all as a DSTASA, then I no longer have a problem with it! If the Pope is the only DSTASA, and that of St. Peter, of course he would have all of those papal prerogatives, such as Universal Jurisdiction, Teacher of the Whole Church, Etc.! I have a problem with him being the Universal Bishop or the Only Bishop, but I have no problem with him being the Universal DSTASA or Only DSTASA.

 

[josephdaniel29]

That’s not what I said at all so please stop putting words in my mouth, i.e., bishops are successors to the apostles but none are a direct successor to a specific apostle with the exception of the bishop of Rome.

Well that’s not true. Several patriarchs claim to be direct successors to various Apostles. Here is part of the full title of Pope Shenouda III:

Pope and Archbishop of the Great City of Alexandria and Patriarch of all Africa, the Holy Orthodox and Apostolic See of Saint Mark the Evangelist that is, in Egypt, Pentapolis, Libya, Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and all Africa.

The Successor of St. Mark the Evangelist, Holy Apostle and Martyr, on the Holy Apostolic Throne of the Great City of Alexandria…

The Ecumenical Judge of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church
The Thirteenth among the Holy Apostles
Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds
Hierarch of all Hierarchs
Bishop of Bishops
The Thirteenth Apostle
Judge of the Universe

 

[josephdaniel29]

The see of Rome, or “the Apostolic See” as it was refered to was a term used during the first millenia, there was no reference to “an Apostolic See”.

That’s not true either. From St Augustine;

Letter 43

“because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel”

Source

Of course I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Pope Leo misquoted this passage from St Augustine in his encyclical Satis Cognitum. Here is what Pope Leo wrote.

And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, “the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church” (Ep. xliii., n. 7)

Source

Just another example of a mistranslated or truncated quote being used to support papal supremacy.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Thanks for this link, JD. It’s a brilliant piece. I have no hopes it will convince anyone opposed to the papacy, but that’s another, separate story.

Thanks, Ferde. You seem to be the only one on this thread (with the exception of moi) who read it . My timing in posting it wasn’t good. Much obliged for your comment.

 

[rinnie]

Then why aren’t Jews Catholic?

At the very least, why don’t Jews have something like a Pope?

Appealing to the Jews makes no sense. The Jews are living proof that a religious tradition can function perfectly well without the kind of centralized authority that you declare to be just “common sense.”

Edwin

Simple Edwin the Jews never accepted Jesus as our Lord. But not all Jews denied Christ. Starting with the Apostles. That is why they knew what the keys to the kingdom meant. That is why I used that example.

 

[rinnie]

That’s not true either. From St Augustine;

Letter 43

“because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel”

Source

Of course I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Pope Leo misquoted this passage from St Augustine in his encyclical Satis Cognitum. Here is what Pope Leo wrote.

And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, “the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church” (Ep. xliii., n. 7)

Source

Just another example of a mistranslated or truncated quote being used to support papal supremacy.

In Christ
Joe

The dogmas of papal primacy and infallibility were promulgated as recently as Vatican I (1869-70) but they have a LONG history which the RC trace to the will of Christ. Matt 16:18 John 21:15 Luke 22:32. These were the roles exercised by the Apostles Peter in the N.T. Church. Pope Leo I maintained that PETER continues to speak to the whold Church through the bishop of ROME, the first known such claim.

In 1234 Gregory IX combined and codified all previous Papal decisions into the five books of Decretals. By now the Church was understood primarily a a visible hierarchial organization with SUPREME POWER VESTED IN THE POPE.

 

[josie_L]

It would be easier for me to just call the bishop of Rome an Apostle, but since I don’t have anything to base giving him that title (Except the See being called “The Apostolic See”), for now I will call him a “DSTASA” (Direct Successor To A Specific Apostle).

I have had trouble accepting the Pope as a Universal Bishop. I know he doesn’t have that title, but it sure seemed like that was what he was. The trouble I had with it is because it makes the bishops unequal. But if the Pope is equal with all bishops, as a bishop, but superior to all as a DSTASA, then I no longer have a problem with it! If the Pope is the only DSTASA, and that of St. Peter, of course he would have all of those papal prerogatives, such as Universal Jurisdiction, Teacher of the Whole Church, Etc.! I have a problem with him being the Universal Bishop or the Only Bishop, but I have no problem with him being the Universal DSTASA or Only DSTASA.

The Pope is not a universal bishop (he has universal jurisdiction however due to having inherited Peter’s office/keys, i.e.,the only bishop to be a direct successor to a specific apostle), that is, although all bishops are equal in a sacramental sense (and this includes the bishop of Rome), they are not so with respect to authority (even in Orthodox ecclesiology patriarchs have more authority than local bishops). I think that if you were to read St. Gregory the Great you would come to understand Catholic ecclesiology a lot better, in fact, let me quote him:

“It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]
. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!”

bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm

The universal jurisdiction of popes does not imply that other bishops are bishops in name only, i.e., theirs’ is a real authority, however, as Peter was chief of the apostles so to was/is the bishop of Rome amongst his brother bishops. The authority of the bishop of Rome is to be understood in this capacity:

To illustrate how Popes regarded their authority, consider the witness of Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. A.D. 590). Corresponding with the Byzantine bishop of Syracuse in Sicily (Sicily was a Byzantine province at the time), he discusses a new candidate for patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Gregory writes …

“As to what he says, that he is subject to the Apostolic See (Rome), I know of no bishop who is not subject to it, if there be any fault found in bishops.” (Pope Gregory I Ep. Ad. Joan.)

In other words, Pope St. Gregory is saying that a bishop is only subject to the authority of Rome if and when that bishop departs from orthodoxy, and thus must be corrected or condemned by Rome. Pope St. Gregory did not believe (nor did any of his predecessors or successors) that the Pope of Rome should mico-manage the other churches. Rather, the other bishops should merely recognize Rome’s authority when disputes arose --disputes which threatened to disturb the universal unity and orthodox Faith of the entire Catholic Church.

davidmacd.com/catholic/or…me_primacy.htm

 

[josie_L]

Well that’s not true. Several patriarchs claim to be direct successors to various Apostles. Here is part of the full title of Pope Shenouda III:

Pope and Archbishop of the Great City of Alexandria and Patriarch of all Africa, the Holy Orthodox and Apostolic See of Saint Mark the Evangelist that is, in Egypt, Pentapolis, Libya, Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and all Africa.

The Successor of St. Mark the Evangelist, Holy Apostle and Martyr, on the Holy Apostolic Throne of the Great City of Alexandria…

The Ecumenical Judge of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church
The Thirteenth among the Holy Apostles
Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds
Hierarch of all Hierarchs
Bishop of Bishops
The Thirteenth Apostle
Judge of the Universe

First, Alexandria is considered a Petrine see as per Tradition, so Pope Shenouda is mistaken in saying he is (literally) the Successor to St. Mark. Second, I am correct in saying that the bishop of Rome is the only bishop to directly succeed a specific apostle, i.e., there is only one apostle who holds a unique office for which only one bishop can succeed to (by this I mean that the bishops of Rome inherits Peter’s office as steward/ keybearer of the Church which is a successive office).

Note: You still took me out of context by implying that I regarded all other bishops (apart from the bishop of Rome) as priests in fancy vestments, i.e., this is not true of Catholic ecclesiology.

 

[josie_L]

It would be easier for me to just call the bishop of Rome an Apostle, but since I don’t have anything to base giving him that title (Except the See being called “The Apostolic See”), for now I will call him a “DSTASA” (Direct Successor To A Specific Apostle).

I have had trouble accepting the Pope as a Universal Bishop. I know he doesn’t have that title, but it sure seemed like that was what he was. The trouble I had with it is because it makes the bishops unequal. But if the Pope is equal with all bishops, as a bishop, but superior to all as a DSTASA, then I no longer have a problem with it! If the Pope is the only DSTASA, and that of St. Peter, of course he would have all of those papal prerogatives, such as Universal Jurisdiction, Teacher of the Whole Church, Etc.! I have a problem with him being the Universal Bishop or the Only Bishop, but I have no problem with him being the Universal DSTASA or Only DSTASA.

This is a continuation of my thoughts/understanding of Catholic ecclesiology relayed to you in an earlier post, please read this:

In the afore-mentioned Letter to his people, Bishop Mar Bawai Soho, the present Assyrian Bishop of San Jose, California, has expressed his determination to do what he can to further the union of Christian Churches, noting that the “sacred objective of the unity of Christ’s Church must however be developed from an ecclesiological mentality not political, but from an apostolic way of thinking, not secular.” He went on to note the genuine tradition of his ancient Eastern Church concerning the Petrine Primacy in the Church:

“The Church of the East attributes a prominent role to Saint Peter and a significant place for the Church of Rome in her liturgical, canonical and Patristic thoughts. There are more than 50 liturgical, canonical and Patristic citations that explicitly express such a conviction. The question before us therefore is, why there must be a primacy attributed to Saint Peter in the Church? If there is no primacy in the Universal Church, we shall not be able to legitimize a primacy of all the patriarchs in the other apostolic churches. If the patriarchs of the apostolic churches have legitimate authority over their own respective bishops, it is so because there is a principle of primacy in the Universal Church. If the principle of primacy is valid for a local Church (for example, the Assyrian Church of the East), it is so because it is already valid for the Universal Church. If there is no Peter for the Universal Church, there could not be Peter for the local Church. If all the apostles are equal in authority by virtue of the gift of the Spirit, and if the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, based on what, then, can one of these bishops (i.e., [our own] Catholicos-Patriarchs) have authority over the other bishops?

The Church of the East possesses a theological, liturgical and canonical tradition in which she clearly values the primacy of Peter among the rest of the Apostles and their churches and the relationship Peter has with his successors in the Church of Rome. The official organ of our Church of the East, Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall [he is referring to the 14th century canonist who was the last prominent theologian before the Mongol invasion], based himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which he clearly states the following: “To the great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid in the grave there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs” (Memra; Risha 1). Futhermore, Abdisho asserts “…And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8). I would like to ask here the following: who among us would dare to think that he or she is more learned than Abdisho of Soba, or that they are more sincere to the Church of our forefathers than Mar Abdisho himself?”

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/assyrians.htm

 

[josie_L]

That’s not true either. From St Augustine;

Letter 43

“because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel”

Source

Of course I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Pope Leo misquoted this passage from St Augustine in his encyclical Satis Cognitum. Here is what Pope Leo wrote.
And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, “the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church” (Ep. xliii., n. 7)

Source

Just another example of a mistranslated or truncated quote being used to support papal supremacy.

Pope St. Leo did not misquote St. Augustine, moreover, T/tradition and history shows that the term “the Apostolic See” was in reference to Rome (many ECFs even ecumenical councils mentioned this term in conjunction with Rome).

 

[josephdaniel29]

Pope St. Leo did not misquote St. Augustine

How so?

 

[josephdaniel29]

First, Alexandria is considered a Petrine see as per Tradition, so Pope Shenouda is mistaken in saying he is (literally) the Successor to St. Mark.

So you know better than Pope Shenouda huh?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

The Church of Alexandria, founded according to the constant tradition of both East and West by St. Mark the Evangelist, was the centre from which Christianity spread throughout all Egypt, the nucleus of the powerful Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Source

Note: You still took me out of context by implying that I regarded all other bishops (apart from the bishop of Rome) as priests in fancy vestments, i.e., this is not true of Catholic ecclesiology.

I didn’t take you out of context, I simply took Catholic ecclesiology to it’s only logical conclusion.

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.

There can only be one bishop per parish. If the pope’s authority is “episcopal and immediate”, then he is the true bishop and the other “bishops” exercise authority only so far as the real bishop (the pope) allows them to. If they don’t have inherent episcopal authority I’m not sure what else you would call them?

In Christ
Joe

 

[JohnVIII]

…There can only be one bishop per parish. If the pope’s authority is “episcopal and immediate”, then he is the true bishop and the other “bishops” exercise authority only so far as the real bishop (the pope) allows them to. If they don’t have inherent episcopal authority I’m not sure what else you would call them?

I used to make this same exact argument on this forum when I was a normal Eastern Orthodox. But when there were still apostles here, in the event that an apostle was residing at a place where there was a bishop, that would not be two bishops in one See; and yet would not that apostle have greater authority than the bishop because he would out rank him? And if this is the case and Rome today is an actual apostle, and the only actual apostle, would that not give him universal jurisdiction without creating a scenario where there is more than one bishop in a See?

 

[prodromos]

(even in Orthodox ecclesiology patriarchs have more authority than local bishops).

How many extra votes do they get at the synod meeting?

John