Papal Authority

[malfunkshun]

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].

Again, this is interpretation of Bible verses. It is tiring to have to cast a rebuttal against each verse that is used as an example for papal primacy, but I feel compelled to point out the flaws:

Luke 10:16 - This verse seems to give decent evidence that, as you said, the bishops were to have authority.
**
Matthew 28:20** - Once more, this verse gives credible evidence that Jesus gives authority to the bishops.

John 14:16-17, 26 and John 16:13 - Jesus is promising that the Holy Spirit will be with them as a Counselor and Spirit of Truth which will dwell in them. All of these versus reasonably tell us that any and all councils of the bishops would be guided by the Holy Spirit, but there is no reference, stated or implied, of papal primacy.

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).

Jesus is obviously tasking Peter with building the Christian Church, which naturally places Peter in a position of leadership, but how is this supposed to translate into papal primacy for successive patriarchs?

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).

Special guardian of the common unity hardly translates into papal primacy.

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?”

I would hardly tout Adolph von Harmack as a source of credibility. The man basically flew in the face of Orthodoxy as an iconoclast and promoter of social gospel, questioning tradition and rejecting the Gospel of John. It would only seem natural to me that the man would support the notion of papal primacy.

Nowhere in any of the verses you used to substantiate your claim of papal primacy does it state that it should be official Church doctrine, passed down from Peter to each of his successors. If Peter did enjoy a certain amount of authority, it is only natural that, in the Church’s infancy, strong leadership should be required… although I still haven’t seen you present any clear and irrefutable evidence that Peter was given absolute and total authority, as you seem to believe.

Anyway, It’s 3:30 in the morning and I’m tired. I’m finished with the arguing bit here on CAF, but I’ve definitely gained some insight into both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, so I don’t think it was time wasted. I’ve also come away with some new questions I’d like to ask of my priest.

I hope everybody enjoys the rest of the Nativity season.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\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).\

I believe the neither term is used by the Eastern Catholic Churches, but rather "sui juris."

\I hope everybody enjoys the rest of the Nativity season.\

**As you know, we have to wait for the Nativity Season to start on 24 December with (for us) the Vesperal Liturgy on that day.

One thing that Met. Kallistos (nee Timothy Ware) said in his book THE ORTHODOX CHURCH is that the Orthodox have not dealt positively with the nature of Papal primacy. Most just react negatively to ultramontane controversialists.

I think the Ravenna conference was trying to deal with this issue in positive terms.**

 

[Hesychios]

**>> **Papal Authority <<

On what grounds do the Orthodox deny it?

I would like to respectfully suggest that you take this question to an Orthodox website.

If you need any suggestions, PM me and I will try to respond within 48 hours.

 

[Abu]

It is precisely because Adolph von Harnack is such a radical that his admittance – using facts and reason as an “outsider” – is so valuable. With the evidence from the Sacred Scriptures that Peter was chosen by Christ as His Vicar on whom He built His Church, von Harnack’s reference to “the special guardian of the common unity” is very apt – Peter holds the primacy.

malfunkshun
Nowhere in any of the verses you used to substantiate your claim of papal primacy does it state that it should be official Church doctrine, passed down from Peter to each of his successors.

The Sacred Scriptures ARE the inspired Word of God and they are clear as to primacy. The Apostles themselves recognised Peter’s primacy and I have shown Peter acting in that capacity. Successors? The same Scriptures record Christ’s promise that His Church as He instituted Her would last until the end of time. This promise obviously requires the constitutional permanence of the office of head of His Church, which He had bestowed upon Peter.

matthewjoseph
Papal primacy and superiority are innovations done in 5th century…

As the Sacred Scriptures tell us Peter was chosen by Christ as His Vicar – on whom He built His Church, hardly an “innovation” in the 5th century! He gave none of the other Apostles the promises He gave to Peter nor the sole authority (post #19).

 

[Hesychios]

**
One thing that Met. Kallistos (nee Timothy Ware) said in his book THE ORTHODOX CHURCH is that the Orthodox have not dealt positively with the nature of Papal primacy. Most just react negatively to ultramontane controversialists.
**

Unfortunately, ultramontane controversialists came to dominate the western church in the years between Napoleon I and 1870AD. So whether you or I agree with them, that’s what is meant by Papal Authority when a visiting Catholic asks about it.

In the western church primacy and supremacy have become synonyms, the controversial has become the reality and that’s what Orthodox have to deal with, so I wouldn’t be surprised if many Orthodox took a harshly negative position.

The first millenium Papacy is long gone and may never come back.

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.

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
Decrees of Vatican Council of 1870

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:

let him be anathema.
Decrees of Vatican Council of 1870

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, ‘servatis servandis,’ in Eastern ecclesiology. Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.
**
**His Beatitude Grégoire **III **
Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria and Jerusalem for the Melkite Greek Catholics
X ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS 2001

 

[Hesychios]

**
One thing that Met. Kallistos (nee Timothy Ware) said in his book THE ORTHODOX CHURCH is that the Orthodox have not dealt positively with the nature of Papal primacy. Most just react negatively to ultramontane controversialists.
**

Unfortunately, ultramontane controversialists came to dominate the western church in the years between Napoleon I and 1870AD. So whether you or I agree with them, that’s what is meant by Papal Authority when a visiting Catholic asks about it.

In the western church primacy and supremacy have become synonyms, the controversial has become the reality and that’s what Orthodox have to deal with, so I wouldn’t be surprised if many Orthodox took a harshly negative position.

The first millenium Papacy is long gone and may never come back.

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.

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
Decrees of Vatican Council of 1870

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:

let him be anathema.
Decrees of Vatican Council of 1870

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, ‘servatis servandis,’ in Eastern ecclesiology. Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.
**
**His Beatitude Grégoire **III **
Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria and Jerusalem for the Melkite Greek Catholics
X ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS 2001

 

[bpbasilphx]

I think that Vatican I has to be seen in the context of the struggle Pius IX was having with the secular powers.

The temporal sovereignty of the Papal States was being eroded (hence the original purpose of the Leonine Prayers at the end of Low Masses). By God, Pio Nono was going to be the ultimate authority SOMEWHERE in something!

At the time of this council, Patriarch Gregory Yussef spoke out against it, pointing out how it contravened the decisions of the Council of Florence. When forced to sign the decrees, he added a reservation: “Without prejudice to the rights of the Eastern Patriarchs” or similar words.

The Assyrian Church of the East has a possible formula: “As the Patriarch is among bishops, so is the Pope among patriarchs.” This is one of the things that led Mar Bawai Soro and his faithful to enter the Chaldean Catholic Church.

 

[Abu]

Papal authority to teach, sanctify, and govern was instituted by Christ, undeniably as the Sacred Scriptures proclaim.

No one is impeccable, incapable of error and sin, but Christ’s (supreme) authority conveyed to Peter and his successors in teaching faith and morals which includes approving of Ecumenical Councils should never be misrepresented as a squabble over mistakes in governance.
These have occurred and probably will occur again. The hang up over primacy versus supremacy is futile and egotistic.

Being first in importance (primacy) relating to Christ’s Church, embodies the power to teach, sanctify and rule (supremacy) as a service for the members of Christ’s Mystical Body. This service may be performed poorly or well, and thank God, has been well performed except in a few cases – but always infallibly as to dogma, and as to infallible doctrine.

We must not fail to see the wood for the trees.

The dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I is binding by divine and Catholic faith as the highest form of assent required – and a true expression of the mind of Christ in His Church.

Now is the appointed time to retrieve that unity which Christ wills – that they all may be one.

 

[fish90]

From what I understand, is it true that the Orthodox will never accept Papal authority?

Could there be a compromise or will Papal authority over a Patriarch never be achieved?

 

[Nine_Two]

From what I understand, is it true that the Orthodox will never accept Papal authority?

Could there be a compromise or will Papal authority over a Patriarch never be achieved?

We fully accept Papal supremacy over his own Church. So the Pope ruling over the Western Church as he does at present is not a hinderence to us, demanding that we submit is. So there is no real room for compromise between those two perspectives.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother bpbasilphx

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

From an Oriental perspective, “primacy” and “supremacy” are the same thing. “Supremacy,” to an Oriental, does not equate to absolutism. “Supremacy” or “primacy” is always to be practiced collegially.

Coming from an OO background, the term “papal supremacy” gives/gave me no pause to being Catholic. But the term “supremacy” may have a different connotion to the Latin and Eastern mindset, than an Oriental mindset. From what I’ve seen and read, the term “supremacy” is attached to absolutism in the Latin and Eastern mind. That is not so in the Oriental Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

fish90

More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of – so it is up to those who will to follow the will of Christ – as you see some Anglican groups are coming home.

Without Christ’s Vicar to lead in faith and morals, we wouldn’t have the teaching against embryonic stem cell research, against contraception, nor the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, for instance.

 

[Hesychios]

I think that Vatican I has to be seen in the context of the struggle Pius IX was having with the secular powers.

The temporal sovereignty of the Papal States was being eroded (hence the original purpose of the Leonine Prayers at the end of Low Masses). By God, Pio Nono was going to be the ultimate authority SOMEWHERE in something!

I agree with you on this point, however practicing Latin Catholics took it in another direction. It was no longer simply a matter of Gallicanism and Italian nationalism threatening the independent exercise of authority of the Patriarch of Rome.

 

[Brother_Xavier]

How do ye Orthodox react to these quotes from church fathers on CA?

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

 

[Nine_Two]

How do ye Orthodox react to these quotes from church fathers on CA?

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

Very few of those are direct references to the Papacy, and those that are all come from Western Fathers during of after the 4th century.

The Orthodox also believe that all Bishops are equally the successors of all the Apostles, not just the Patron Saint of their See.

 

[Hesychios]

Very few of those are direct references to the Papacy, and those that are all come from Western Fathers during of after the 4th century.

The Orthodox also believe that all Bishops are equally the successors of all the Apostles, not just the Patron Saint of their See.

… And how could they be otherwise when there are almost always multiple consecrators (and per the canons, normally at least three).

Secondly, the holder of an office (in this case an episcopal See) hardly ever (almost never) designates his own successor, that decision is necessarily in the hands of others.

In the normal ecclesiology of the church (still largely followed in the east), the synod selects the next occupant of a See. This also happens to be true in modified form in Rome, where the Synod of the church in the city of Roma has been supplanted by the more modern modified organization of the college of Cardinals (the Cardinals are given symbolic responsibility for parishes in the diocese of Rome, which of course they can embellish with gifts and financial support). Elsewhere in the Latin church synods are no longer allowed to choose their bishops, although that was the standard practice for many centuries after Pentecost.

The bishop thus chosen is the Apostolic successor not of the previous holder of the See, but of the consecrators of the man. His predecessor in that office may not have ever actually met him personally, nor laid hands upon him.

So the ‘office’ of bishop of a city (whether of Jerusalem, Rome or Schenectady) passes from the man, through the synod to the next man.

The ‘Apostolic Succession’ passes passes from one consecrator to the next (or backward through each to the Apostles) all over the world.

 

[Brother_Xavier]

I would like to respectfully suggest that you take this question to an Orthodox website.

If you need any suggestions, PM me and I will try to respond within 48 hours.

I would like a suggestion for a good Orthodox forum, but I suppose you’ll have to PM me that information.

I would also like to thank all that contributed and answered my questions.

God Bless.

 

[Abu]

This may be of interest, from the Roman Threological Forum at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison

From Constantinople to Rome: Why I did not join the Eastern Orthodox Church by Fr Brian Harrison, O.S.