Papal Authority

[Brother_Xavier]

On what grounds do the Orthodox deny it?
I’ve been interested in Orthodoxy lately, but I’ve yet to find anything supporting their side of the whole authority thing

 

[Nine_Two]

We Orthodox fully acknowledge the Primacy of the Pope. What we do reject is Papal Supremacy and his right to rule over all the Churches.

Since (from our perspective) he is in schism, that primacy currently resides with the Second See of the ancient Pentarchy, Constantinople. Should the Bishop of Rome (in that capacity) ever agree to rejoin the communion he will again receive his primacy.

 

[Brother_Xavier]

We Orthodox fully acknowledge the Primacy of the Pope. What we do reject is Papal Supremacy and his right to rule over all the Churches.

Since (from our perspective) he is in schism, that primacy currently resides with the Second See of the ancient Pentarchy, Constantinople. Should the Bishop of Rome (in that capacity) ever agree to rejoin the communion he will again receive his primacy.

…I never suggested that the Orthodox reject Papal Primacy. I’m looking for why they reject Supremacy.

 

[malfunkshun]

On what grounds do the Orthodox deny it?
I’ve been interested in Orthodoxy lately, but I’ve yet to find anything supporting their side of the whole authority thing

The infallibility of the Pope was not given to him by a council of bishops, it was given to him by an emperor, Valentinian III of Rome in 445 AD. Valentinian III issued an imperial decree which recognized the primacy of the Roman bishop because Pope Leo appealed to him to settle the dispute. Why didn’t Pope Leo appeal to the council of bishops? They would have been the only authority with the power to bestow papal primacy.

 

[Brother_Xavier]

The infallibility of the Pope was not given to him by a council of bishops, it was given to him by an emperor, Valentinian III of Rome in 445 AD. Valentinian III issued an imperial decree which recognized the primacy of the Roman bishop because Pope Leo appealed to him to settle the dispute. Why didn’t Pope Leo appeal to the council of bishops? They would have been the only authority with the power to bestow papal primacy.

The infallibility of the Pope was given to him by an emperor…
Did the councils after this power was “given” acknowledge it?

 

[Nine_Two]

…I never suggested that the Orthodox reject Papal Primacy. I’m looking for why they reject Supremacy.

Papal authority can be interpreted either way.

As for why we reject Papal Supremacy, we reject it because it is a later innovation made by the West to give it an excuse to interfere with the East.

I have come to the conclusion that Rome was granted certain privilages that are generally denied by the Orthodox (such as the right to be final arbitrator in disputes), however given that several of the Seven Ecumenical Councils had Rome missing from crucial stages (if it was involved at all), then you have to question the whole argument that Rome is an integral part of what makes a council “ecumenical.”

Simply put we reject the idea of a Papal Monarchy because there is nothing to back it up.

 

[Nine_Two]

The infallibility of the Pope was given to him by an emperor…
Did the councils after this power was “given” acknowledge it?

I think what he means is the Emperor gave Leo full patriarchal authority over Gaul. Given that councils don’t refer to a Metropolis in Gaul, it must be assumed that the East either didn’t care, or they recognized it. Other than Cyprus, no Metropolis outside of the Pentarchy is ever mentioned by the councils, although we know several others existed (both Armenia and Georgia were Christian and outside the territory of any of the existing metropolia.)

 

[malfunkshun]

The infallibility of the Pope was given to him by an emperor…
Did the councils after this power was “given” acknowledge it?

I don’t know if they formally acknowledged it, but that’s not the point because those powers weren’t granted by a council of patriarchs guided by the Holy Spirit. When a ecumenical council, or any kind of council of bishops was held, it is The Holy Spirit which guides the decision of the council. Why would anyone want a Pope to hold powers that weren’t granted by the guidance of The Holy Spirit?

Pope Leo the I was only the first Pope to have papal primacy formally recognized, and at that time the Church wasn’t yet broken into two separate churches, although a division did in effect exist because of language and distance barriers. Otherwise, there wouldn’t have been two distinct ‘sides’; the Latin and the Byzantine churches. The separation of the Church into two parts was a slow culmination which took at least 500 years, probably longer.The Byzantine church and the Latin church pretty much left each other alone for the most part during this time, and the Byzantine church had no problem with Rome as long as they didn’t try to assert their authority over them. In fact, they had no problem granting Rome her position as first among the five churches. It was only when the Roman Pope began handing out decrees without consulting the other patriarchs that it became an issue.

 

[bkovacs]

…I never suggested that the Orthodox reject Papal Primacy. I’m looking for why they reject Supremacy.

Supremacy of the Pope started in the Middle Ages. The Pope never declared “supremacy” in the first millenium. He only looked over the western church. The 7 ecumenicals councils were called by the Emperor not the Pope or have you forgotten that. Suggest you read this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

No where does it say the Supreme Pope called the council!.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Papal authority can be interpreted either way.

As for why we reject Papal Supremacy, we reject it because it is a later innovation made by the West to give it an excuse to interfere with the East.

Simply put we reject the idea of a Papal Monarchy because there is nothing to back it up.

You will find many Catholics (Eastern, Oriental, and even Latin) agree with your statements here. We could agree that papal supremacy/monarchy is an innovation of the West in the later medieval age. On the other hand, we would disagree that primacy is a matter of mere honor. There are actual spiritual and ecclesiatistical prerogatives that come with primacy (whether on the level of the Metropolitan See, the Patriarchal See, or the universal Church).

I have come to the conclusion that Rome was granted certain privilages that are generally denied by the Orthodox (such as the right to be final arbitrator in disputes), however given that several of the Seven Ecumenical Councils had Rome missing from crucial stages (if it was involved at all), then you have to question the whole argument that Rome is an integral part of what makes a council “ecumenical.”

Rome was an integral part of every Ecumenical Council. I wish I had time to demonstrate that to you right now. Perhaps others will engage you on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[fish90]

Papal authority can be interpreted either way.

As for why we reject Papal Supremacy, we reject it because it is a later innovation made by the West to give it an excuse to interfere with the East.

I have come to the conclusion that Rome was granted certain privilages that are generally denied by the Orthodox (such as the right to be final arbitrator in disputes), however given that several of the Seven Ecumenical Councils had Rome missing from crucial stages (if it was involved at all), then you have to question the whole argument that Rome is an integral part of what makes a council “ecumenical.”

Simply put we reject the idea of a Papal Monarchy because there is nothing to back it up.

Respectfully, how can the Pope be a monarch when he is elected by Cardinals from all over the world?

 

[Nine_Two]

You will find many Catholics (Eastern, Oriental, and even Latin) agree with your statements here. We could agree that papal supremacy/monarchy is an innovation of the West in the later medieval age. On the other hand, we would disagree that primacy is a matter of mere honor. There are actual spiritual and ecclesiatistical prerogatives that come with primacy (whether on the level of the Metropolitan See, the Patriarchal See, or the universal Church).

Actually I do quite agree it was more than simply an honour, there were actual rights and privilages that the Bishop of Rome was given, however that is a far cry from supremacy, and as long as Rome claims Supremacy, then I can not be in communion with it.

Rome was an integral part of every Ecumenical Council. I wish I had time to demonstrate that to you right now. Perhaps others will engage you on the matter.

No it wasn’t. It had minimal represntation at most of them, and some it had no representation at all. I believe the Council of Constantinople was one of the ones in which the West had no representation, but to be honest I’m feeling a bit braindead right now so there is a good chance I’m wrong on which councils it was.

Additionally many of the privilages Rome was granted were granted on account of it being a bastion of Orthodoxy, however with the usurption of supremacy, this ceased to be the case.

 

[Nine_Two]

Respectfully, how can the Pope be a monarch when he is elected by Cardinals from all over the world?

Monarchy refers to style of rule, and not to how a ruler is chosen. Elective Monarchies have been around for a long time.

While this is going slightly off topic, I will say whatever negative views an individual may have towards “monarchies” in general, it is a broad term and should not be seen as denegrading in and of itself.

There was a thread on this a while back, no one posted after I gave a full definition, if its a point you’d like to argue, feel free to bring that post up.

As I said in my last post though I’m not feeling much like thinking right now, so my arguments right now probably aren’t the best.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Can someone please tell me the intrinsic difference between “Papal primacy” and “Papal supremacy”?

 

[Brother_Xavier]

Papal authority can be interpreted either way.

My apologies for the faulty terminology.

 

[Brother_Xavier]

The 7 ecumenicals councils were called by the Emperor not the Pope or have you forgotten that. Suggest you read this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

I knew not of it it in the first place, lest I probably wouldn’t be on this forum.
I’m not even going to think Wikipedia regarding reasonably important matter.

'No need to get snippy here; 'just looking for further enlightenment…

 

[Nine_Two]

Can someone please tell me the intrinsic difference between “Papal primacy” and “Papal supremacy”?

Primacy is essentially what the EP has in the Orthodox Communion, the right to chair councils and synods, the right to act as fina arbitrator for disputes between bishops, that sort of thing.

Supremacy is what the Catholic Church has in relation to the Eastern Catholics - Patriarchs answer to the Pope, all Churches act as autonomous rather than autocephalous branches of the Roman church (although they still use the term autocephalous).

 

[5Loaves]

On what grounds do the Orthodox deny it?
I’ve been interested in Orthodoxy lately, but I’ve yet to find anything supporting their side of the whole authority thing

Welcome.

Maybe not exactly what you’ve asked for: From the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, Sponsored jointly on the Catholic side by the USCCB and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Orthodox side is sponsored by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of America (SCOBA).
An Agreed statement on Conciliarity and Primacy in the Church . In particular look at #7. Also it’s found here.

See also:

(“Ecumenism’s Future,” July 15). Regarding relations with Orthodoxy, there is a passage in one of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s books that offers some intriguing possibilities. In Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (Ignatius Press Ignatius Press was founded in 1978 by Father Joseph Fessio SJ, a Jesuit priest and former pupil of Pope Benedict XVI [1]. Ignatius Press, named for Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit Order, is a Catholic publishing house headquartered in San Francisco, California. ) Ratzinger writes: "As far as the doctrine of the primacy is concerned, Rome must not require more of the East than was formulated and lived during the first millennium.

As Pope he has continued to seek ways to more toward unity, that would understand the Pope of Rome in a different way.

Hope those might be helpful for what you’re looking at.
Pax et bonum- Mary

 

[Abu]

It is strange that the Christ, the Son of God, seems to be ignored in what He did and authorised.

The primacy of Peter and the authority of the Bishops of Rome were recognised from the beginning of Christ’s Church and infallibility in doctrine was accepted from the beginning also – possessed by His Church – “He who hears you, hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16). [See Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16-17, 26; Jn 16:13].

For St Peter’s authority see to St Peter alone by Jesus of Nazareth, Son Of God, A.D. 33

All four promises to Peter alone:

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)

“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

**Sole authority to Peter: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See *And On This Rock, *p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

 

[mathewjoseph]

Papal primacy and superiority are innovations done in 5th century, when there was a conflict with see of Constantinople and Emperor and other sees.
At first you consider the recent statements from heads of 2 catholic churches.

The head of the Syro malabar catholic church said, “What is the authority of Rome? On what basis, Rome is appointing bishops all over the world? From where it has got all the powers? In the first centuries, there was a dispute between Antioch and Rome who is head and superior?”

The head of the Syro Malankara catholic church said, “According to Antiochene tradition, Patriarch of Antioch is the head of the church and successor of Apostle Peter. His name is Ignatios. Archbishop of Changanassery presided over my election as major arch bishop. He adviced me to be sincere and faithful to Antiochene tradition and Antiochene liturgy”.

From the above what you get?
When you take matters you must consider what happened during apostolic times and in 1st and 2nd centuries. All study the facts when the see of Constantinople came in to being in 4th century. You must consider the church before that period?
Who ruled the entire church before 3rd century, that is churches in Middle east, Persia, India, China, Japan, Korea. These are places where civlised people lived during that period? What was the condition of Europe then? Full of pagans. Roman bishop ruled that area only.