Papal Supremacy

[dcointin]

My problem with Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction isn’t so much with Peter as it is with how the bishop of Rome supposedly inherited Rome his unique perrogatives. If you read Orthodox scholarly works on the subject such as “The Primacy of Peter”, ed. Meyendorf, you’ll find that they accept that Peter was the head of the apostles, and largely agree with Catholic exegesis on this point. They would however disagree that Peter held any sort of supremacy over them, and emphasize that they all shared the office of apostle and were tasked with the same mission - preaching the gospel and establishing churches. I believe that Marduk would also make the same point.

 

[steve_b]

Absolutely. If one Church decides to go to Rome on its own then it is severing itself from Orthodoxy.

The very fact that you’re looking at this from the angle that the Churches go to Rome, is problematic.

Seems to me that very thing happened at Florence.

 

[Exsilivm]

Note: the pope & the emperors at this time, watch over the Catholic Church.

Correct. And in the absence of an emperor?

There are some other questions that often get overlooked.

What is the purpose of bishops? Is the pope a kind of bishop, or are the bishops helpers to the pope? Why can’t a pope consecrate or even name his successor? Can bishops fulfill their function in the absence of a pope? Who called the early councils into convocation?

 

[steve_b]

I was reading John 21:15-17. Lets check the Greek like you did.

Three times in these verses Jesus Christ tells Peter to “Feed My Sheep”, or to “Feed My Lambs”. For proper understanding, lets refer to the underlying Greek text.

In verses 15 and 17, the Greek word used for “feed” is “bosko”, which means to feed. So verses 15-17 say ‘feed my lambs, shepherd my lambs, and feed my sheep’. But in verse 16, the Greek word used for “feed” is “poimaino” (second person singular), which means, to act as a Shepherd, to rule, to govern, to pastor, or the presiding officer. It is the only time this Greek word is used in the Gospel of John.

Jesus told Peter alone to be the Shepherd of His flock.
In John 10:16, Jesus said, “…and there shall be one fold and one Shepherd.” The Greek word used here is “poimen (masculine, singular)”.

yep

 

[steve_b]

That makes sense, but I think it’s a pretty moot point anyhow: it’s unrealistic to think that any of the Orthodox Churches is going to “go Catholic”. (And, conversely, it’s unrealistic to think that any of the 23 Catholic Churches is going to “go Orthodox”.)

After Florence, discussions have been going on with individual churches for hundreds of years.
armcatholicchurch.com/churches/eastern4.aspx

you can do your own search as well

 

[dcointin]

My problem with Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction isn’t so much with Peter as it is with how the bishop of Rome supposedly inherited his unique perrogatives. If you read Orthodox scholarly works on the subject such as “The Primacy of Peter”, ed. Meyendorf, you’ll find that they accept that Peter was the head of the apostles, and largely agree with Catholic exegesis on this point. They would however disagree that Peter held any sort of supremacy over them, and emphasize that they all shared the office of apostle and were tasked with the same mission - preaching the gospel and establishing churches. I believe that Marduk would also make the same point.

 

[dcointin]

My problem with Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction isn’t so much with Peter as it is with how the bishop of Rome supposedly inherited Rome his unique perrogatives. If you read Orthodox scholarly works on the subject such as “The Primacy of Peter”, ed. Meyendorf, you’ll find that they accept that Peter was the head of the apostles, and largely agree with Catholic exegesis on this point. They would however disagree that Peter held any sort of supremacy over them, and emphasize that they all shared the office of apostle and were tasked with the same mission - preaching the gospel and establishing churches. I believe that Marduk would also make the same point.

I believe that until the Catholic Church deals with the liberalism that’s rampant in many of its parishes and institutions, the Orthodox Churches will continue to keep their distance and not seriously reconsider reunion.

 

[Jacob50]

Of course you do, I’ve already acknowledged that Christ gave Peter a pastoral role. That is the roll he was given.

K let us agree on this then.

Judas and Peter are the contrasts though, both betrayed him, yet Peter repented. Thomas doubted but when he saw evidence he believed willingly, and happily. The disciples all ran out of fear, but they did not betray him in the same sense.

So why do you think Christ told him to “Feed my sheep” immediately after Peter found he could not tell Christ he fully and truly loved him?

To establish him as the visible authority of the Church.

The tax verse on its own really doesn’t say much, it is combined with everything else that it begins to take on meaning. I don’t believe there is a magic verse that says it.
I don’t think it is at all problematic that an office held in high esteem should be in schism. Christ told Peter to “Get behind me Satan”, for at that moment Peter was in Schism from Christ. Similarly he was in schism when he betrayed Christ, yet it is clear that he was held in high regard by all the rest.
The office is held by men, and any abuses are possible. Christ promised his Church would prevail against Hades, but he made no promises regarding specific offices.

I would agree that tradition is quite clear. But I think we’ve come to different conclusions.

Yes Jesus told Peter “get behind me Satan”. This doesn’t mean Peter fell into schism with Jesus, or else Peter would have stopped following Jesus (like some other disciples did in John 6:66, I’m not referring to the 12). As a human being which loves Christ, Peter simply expressed his opinion that his desire wasn’t for Christ to die. I don’t think Peter knew what he was saying. I doubt he knew that what he said is contrary to God’s will. Therefore we cannot label him as a schismatic. After Peter heard this from Jesus, he continued following him and we may suppose, stood corrected on this. Jesus said get behind me Satan But he also told him "“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

When Jesus says “after you have turned again” he means after his denials (a few verses later he tells Peter he would deny him 3 times). He said “I have prayed for you (in this particular verse hes referring to Peter only, not to to any other apostle) that your faith may not fail” Even though Satan demanded to sift all the apostles like wheat, Jesus prays for Peter only. Since it is Jesus praying (and he is Go d) we must be sure his prayer would be successful. So we could say that here Peter has a special protection that not any other apostle has. Even though Peter would deny Jesus 3 times (and indeed he seemed like a weak man when it comes to faith) yet Jesus chooses this weak man so that his faith may not fail. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to strengthen his brethren. Again only Jesus told him to do this. When he said “Strengthen thy brethren” here Jesus means to strengthen the other apostles also. If Peter falls in schism (this would mean his faith failed him), whose going to strengthen the brethren?

hmm…

 

[Jacob50]

Christ entrusts His flock to all the Apostles…in a particular way.

Sure. And to St. Peter in a more particular way.

All the Apostles and their successors.
Not to St Peter only.

Show me where in John 21:15-19 Christ is entrusting the flock to all the apostles. My position is hes entrusting his flock to Peter, Just as the Current Pope is the Pastor of the Catholic Church.

There are plenty of key verses in which Peter is singled out among all the apostles. Why? When Christ gives authority to all the apostles, he does it in a collective way (including St. Peter). But there are verses in which Christ bestows authority to St. Peter, and not to the rest of the apostles. This means he has preeminence.

I’m not suggesting that other apostles don’t take care of the flock. But that the flock has a preeminent visible Shepherd.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Cool Ephesians. What are you trying to tell me with these verses though?
Probably something I have no problem with…

 

[Peter_J]

After Florence, discussions have been going on with individual churches for hundreds of years.

Yes, and that’s one reason that it is highly unrealistic to say, as some posters on CAF do, that reconciliation is immanent.

 

[Peter_J]

Is the pope a kind of bishop,

Is being “a kind of bishop” different from being a bishop?

 

[Art321]

Yes, and that’s one reason that it is highly unrealistic to say, as some posters on CAF do, that reconciliation is immanent.

So, are you saying that union is unrealistic?

 

[Peter_J]

So, are you saying that union is unrealistic?

Well, to say that it is immanent (which some people on CAF do) is certainly unrealistic.

 

[steve_b]

That is an amazing interpretation.

This passage is a reprimand of Peter, and forgiveness of him.

Jesus told Peter in advance he would deny Jesus. But just before he said that, He told them Satan had demanded to sift (attack) them. Therefore Satan had been allowed to attack them. He had already entered Judas earlier that evening.

Where was Peter’s reprimand? Did Jesus remove from Peter anything done for him in the previous 3 years? Or did He clarify instead, that nothing has changed. Peter was to do exactly what Our Lord has prepared him to do. Take the keys and feed, tend rule my Church.

 

[Art321]

Well, to say that it is immanent (which some people on CAF do) is certainly unrealistic.

I see and understand your position. In any case, I shared my view in post 172 in which I said that there may never truly be a reunion. But in any case, we must hope that there will be one in the future, even if it takes centuries.

 

[steve_b]

English translations for the word “love” in Scripture are inadequate. If we read the Greek, we see that there are three different meanings for the word, “love”.

Eros = Erotic. Strong feeling toward another. (there can be divine eros).
Philos = Love based on friendship between two people (on a human level).
Agape = Unconditional love. Selfless. Perfect. Sacrificial.

In Verse 15 Jesus uses “agapas” but St Peter responds with “philo”.
In Verse 16 Jesus uses “agapas” but St Peter responds with “philo”.
In verse 17 Jesus uses “phileis” and St Peter responds with “philo”

Christ uses the word which depicts perfect, sacrificial love, but St Peter could not comprehend and responds with “philo”. In verse 17, Christ changes the word from “agapas” to “phileis”. St Peter realizes that he was unable to comprehend and he is grieved.

The Gospel verses of St John chapter 21 vv15-17 have a twofold meaning. There is Christ’s triple affirmation restoring St Peter to his apostolic standing after the triple denial. And there is the teaching of perfect sacrificial love and St Peter’s inability to understand it at this time.

Peter never lost his apostolic standing. After pentecost, I would suggest, they all received full understanding of love. And regarding Peter’s sacrificial love, Jesus told Peter in that selection from John’s Gospel, how he would die. And Peter was crucified in Rome for the faith. But most specifically, as tradition goes, Peter was cricified upside down, at his request because he didn’t feel worthy to be crucified as Jesus was.

 

[steve_b]

P.S. As I said before (and as Nine_Two agreed) practically speaking I don’t think we have about this. But as a matter of principle, this was answered pretty definitely in 1997, though not in so many words: the statement from the Antiochian Orthodox Church made it clear that they would not enter into full communion with the Melkite Catholic Church if the latter remained in full communion with Rome. By extension, an Orthodox Church could not enter into communion with Rome and still be in full communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church (or, presumably, any of the other Orthodox Churches).

I think the operative here is “full communion”. That can’t be a squishy notion.

 

[Nine_Two]

To establish him as the visible authority of the Church.

That doesn’t make any sense in the context.

Yes Jesus told Peter “get behind me Satan”. This doesn’t mean Peter fell into schism with Jesus, or else Peter would have stopped following Jesus (like some other disciples did in John 6:66, I’m not referring to the 12). As a human being which loves Christ, Peter simply expressed his opinion that his desire wasn’t for Christ to die. I don’t think Peter knew what he was saying. I doubt he knew that what he said is contrary to God’s will. Therefore we cannot label him as a schismatic. After Peter heard this from Jesus, he continued following him and we may suppose, stood corrected on this. Jesus said get behind me Satan But he also told him "“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Schism is schism, no matter how short lived. By following the impulses of someone other than his pastor, I would say that Peter did go into schism, even if it was only briefly - as he accepted correction both times. I would not label him a schismatic because it was so quickly repaired, nonetheless, it happened.
I don’t think Peter not understanding is defense against schism. Most schismatics, of any form, are quite sincere, and don’t know what they are doing.

When Jesus says “after you have turned again” he means after his denials (a few verses later he tells Peter he would deny him 3 times). He said “I have prayed for you (in this particular verse hes referring to Peter only, not to to any other apostle) that your faith may not fail” Even though Satan demanded to sift all the apostles like wheat, Jesus prays for Peter only. Since it is Jesus praying (and he is Go d) we must be sure his prayer would be successful. So we could say that here Peter has a special protection that not any other apostle has. Even though Peter would deny Jesus 3 times (and indeed he seemed like a weak man when it comes to faith) yet Jesus chooses this weak man so that his faith may not fail. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to strengthen his brethren. Again only Jesus told him to do this. When he said “Strengthen thy brethren” here Jesus means to strengthen the other apostles also. If Peter falls in schism (this would mean his faith failed him), whose going to strengthen the brethren?

Absolutely, he was talking to Peter in these things. He prayed for Peter, and no others (well, I assume he did pray for the others, but yes, that specific prayer was for Peter). I don’t think that can be translated into insurance for the papacy though.

 

[Nine_Two]

Jesus told Peter in advance he would deny Jesus. But just before he said that, He told them Satan had demanded to sift (attack) them. Therefore Satan had been allowed to attack them. He had already entered Judas earlier that evening.

Where was Peter’s reprimand? Did Jesus remove from Peter anything done for him in the previous 3 years? Or did He clarify instead, that nothing has changed. Peter was to do exactly what Our Lord has prepared him to do. Take the keys and feed, tend rule my Church.

The reprimand has been described very recently in this thread by Mickey. It doesn’t translate well into English, but it is there, as evidenced by Peter’s reaction to being asked if he loves Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think the operative here is “full communion”. That can’t be a squishy notion.

The reality is we don’t believe in Communion by degrees. I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn’t either. It is an all or nothing proposition.

I can only assume the use of the term has arrisen in light of those Protestant sects that have open communion, but also have a fuller communion with other Churches - such as the Anglicans with the Church of Sweden, for example.