Papal Supremacy

[dcointin]

Dear brother Don,

That is a good question.

I think that we need to recognize a nuance in the term “jurisdiction.”

It seems that to some (mostly Low Petrine and Absolutist Petrine advocates) the term refers to a mode of control to be utilized at the mere discretion of the one who has “jurisdiction.”

To others (mostly High Petrine and some Low Petrine advocates) the term refers to a mode of service to the Church, to be utilized only according to the needs of the Church.

One can see the inherent conflict between the two interpretations. Would you agree with that assessment?

Blessings,
Marduk

I think that I would. We Orthodox would emphasize that jurisdiction should be a service of love, not power over, those one ministers to. My favorite title for the Pope for this reason is “Servus Servorum Dei” rather than more exalted ones such as “Pontifex Maximus”.

 

[steve_b]

Seve b

A few brief responses to your points.

1. When I was in college, I majored in political science, minored in philosophy and history (double minor).
2. I know that the Church is not a democracy. I am, however, troubled by the notion that the Pope is presented as the Vicar of Christ on earth, Why were so many Popes so ‘bad’ if God had assigned them to be His respresentatives? Hm!

• you didn’t answer my question. What is the pillar and foundation of truth? It’s a biblical question, calling for a biblical response.
• Out of 266 popes since Peter, who are the popes you are talking about specifically?

R:

I have difficulty with that. I also react negatively to the ornateness I see, to the medieval symbols that appear better suited to the monarchial age than to the time we live in, to the emphasis on fancy vestments, etc.* I know this is me* and others are doubtless impressed, including some of my kinfolk who share my mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage.

Do you have the same problem with beautiful Churches and Cathedrals?
R:

1. The elevation of Mary doesn’t make the absence of women within the church hierarchy okay. These are apples and oranges. The image that comes across to many is a church run by celibate older men who live in a world quite divorced from the real world of the rest of us. True, women didn’t vote in the US 100 years ago, but that was wrong. In the same sense, excluding women from positions of serious authority in the Church is understandable historically, when society was so heavily patriarchal. But times change, and the Church needs to wrestle intelligently with that. Yes, and I know about Mother Angelica and many of the female saints (practically all of them virgins, by the way). Many women have been alienated from Catholicism, and the discussion of birth control availability today only accentuates this. .

before 1930 no christian organization believed in birth control? The Anglicans were the 1st to break and it opened the floodgates for Protestants. Not the CC
R:

1. Norwich seemed to me to have written a rather objective book. He marvels at the continuation of the Papacy through the centuries, and that has been rather amazing in many ways. Still, what does he report as a historian that is basically false? Even Church historians recognize that some Popes were nefarious in their personal lives, etc.

He admits he is a non scholar and an agnostic Protestant. You want to hang your opinions on someone like this?
R:

1. One of my good friends is an Egyptian Coptic - of the independent Coptic Church to which the large majority of Egyptian Christians belong. As you perhaps know, they reject the Roman Papacy as their authority. They have their own Pope whom they trace back to St. Mark. Several other ‘churches of the east’ fall into that category, churches that go back to earliest Christianity. I respect their testimony and their traditions.

Would Mark break with Peter?
R:

But, having said all that. I’m not interested in arguing the point. I gave in to the temptation to respond to the thread because of its title. Mea culpa.

I am part of that vast American majority who thank God for our freedom of religion. I cannot demean Protestantism when I recall - for example - that while Europe still was wallowing in decadent monarchy 55 of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence were ‘heretical’ Protestants in the eyes of the Church. I hope a majority agree with me that no one church is the ‘one true church’ but that Christians should ‘agree to disagree’ and dwell in peace and mutual respect God has the truth and I can wait until I enter eternity to find out what it is in detail. Meanwhile, we all are involved in an interesting guessing game, citing verses of scripture that seem to support the viewpoint of our particular tribe. Probably we’re all mistaken.

A person’s

**1791 **ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[Seamus_L]

From everything I’ve read online, the largest Eastern Catholic Church, the UGCC, has upheld the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in their recent catechism.

 

[Hesychios]

From everything I’ve read online, the largest Eastern Catholic Church, the UGCC, has upheld the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in their recent catechism.

That is no surprise, really. They have to.

 

[steve_b]

Corinth is closer to Rome than it is to Antioch or Alexandria.

I said Corinth is a stones throw from Athens. Athens is mentioned in Acts. They have valid bishops.Why didn’t Corinth seek Athen’s help?

 

[Nine_Two]

I said Corinth is a stones throw from Athens. Athens is mentioned in Acts. They have valid bishops.Why didn’t Corinth seek Athen’s help?

I answered this.

 

[steve_b]

I did not say that anywhere in that post.

You did say “took a position of superiority”…true?

 

[Nine_Two]

You did say “took a position of superiority”…true?

Yes, as in he felt comfortable doing things that their pastor would be doing, ministry, whatnot. In a position of authority over them. If you consider that synonymous with supremacy, then alright. What of it?

 

[steve_b]

I answered this.

When you responded, “Perhaps the answer to why Athens wasn’t consulted, is because Athens wasn’t a major see” I didn’t find that answer satisfactory for the following reasons.

Was Corinth a major see? Was Ephesus? Was Thessolonika? Was Athens? How do you define a major see?

• Athens is one of the oldest named cities in the world, having been continuously inhabited for at least 7000 years. Athens became the leading city of Ancient Greece in the first millennium BCE and its cultural achievements during the 5th century BCE laid the foundations of western civilization. The Church there is mentioned in Acts.It’s ~50 miles away from Corinth and has valid bishops.
• Thessolonika is 188 miles north of Corinth. They received 2 letters from Paul also. They have valid bishops
• Ephesus is 198 mi across the Aegean from Corinth. They received a letter from Paul, and they have valid bishops.

Look how close they are to Corinth.

But here’s the point I want to draw your attention to. St John the apostle at this time of Clement’s letter, is still alive and living either in Ephesus or Patmos. Patmos btw, is 161 miles from Corinth. Why didn’t Corinth ask St John for help? Whether in Patmos or Ephesus, St John is living less than 200 miles away from Corinth.

What Corinth did, by asking the bishop of Rome, successor to Peter, to settle the sedition between Corinth bishops speaks volumes, given all the alternatives Corinth had and didn’t take.

As an historical aside,

• John hasn’t written the book of revelation yet at the time Clement is settling sedition in Corinth
• The Corinthians read Clement’s letter in mass, as if it was scripture, for decades after that event.

 

[Jacob50]

I’m back after 2 days and well im glad I see some more posts. However, even though I respect the opinions on both sides, I wish people posted more patristic quotes (other than a quote cited in post 18) since to me those are the ones im looking for and interested in. I am certainly aware that the interpretation to a given quote may be different on both sides, just as I don’t see post 18 being a problem for papal primacy/supremacy at all, but Orthodox may interpret otherwise. And that’s fine of course, we all have different opinions.

But I would like more patristic quotes, (whether it be a council or from a father) to collect them, study them, and see in what context it was said/written. Could be any quote before the 1054 schism.

If you have a link to a website with particular ones, that would work too. Ive already seen some but im sure there could be more out there. They could be cherry picked by the way.

I am convinced the Catholic point to be correct for various reasons according to what Ive seen, but I would also like to study a bit more the Orthodox perspective as I have Orthodox friends.

Thanks.

 

[Nine_Two]

A major see is a Metropolitan see. Corinth, by asking Rome, is confirming that Rome is a Metropolitan See. Something that no one has argued.

It seems to me though, that you are acknowledging Rome had to be asked. That it had no right to interfere on its own. This, coincidentally, is the Orthodox position.

The idea that mention in the bible means major city is ridiculous. Philadelphia, which is mentioned in The Apocalypse of St. John, was always a satellite of Smyrna. Bethlehem, always a small town outside Jerusalem. Assos is a beautiful little town at the top of a big hill.

I’ve been to most of the Asian places mentioned in Acts. Most of them were so minor, and so unimportant that archaeologists haven’t come close to even touching them, in spite of their locations being very well known.

 

[steve_b]

A major see is a Metropolitan see. Corinth, by asking Rome, is confirming that Rome is a Metropolitan See. Something that no one has argued.

The chair of Peter however, is over all the sees. That’s why Ignatius refered to Rome as the Church that presides. No other Church he wrote to did he say that. Irenaeus wrote, everyone everywhere must agree with Rome because of its superior origin and that’s the apostolic Tradition passed on by faithful bishops everywhere… As you know Ignatius was a disciple of St John. And Irenaeus learned from Polycarp who was also a disciple of St John. Therefore St John must have taught those men what they preached and wrote about concerning the bishop of Rome.
N:

It seems to me though, that you are acknowledging Rome had to be asked. That it had no right to interfere on its own. This, coincidentally, is the Orthodox position.

It’s not clear, but it’s thought Clement was asked. Because he wrote that he couldn’t respond as quickly as he desired because of the persecutions of the Church going on in Rome. But that could also mean, someone told him what was going on in Corinth and he got involved ASAP. Either way, the letter from Clement was read in their masses at Corinth as if his letter was part of the scriptures.

It still leads to the question again, that you didn’t answer. St John is still alive and living less than 200 miles away from Corinth.

Why didn’t

• Corinth seek a living apostle for help?

I think it’s already known that Rome handles this. Ignatius and Irenaeus validate that, which tells me St John taught them that.
N:

The idea that mention in the bible means major city is ridiculous. Philadelphia, which is mentioned in The Apocalypse of St. John, was always a satellite of Smyrna. Bethlehem, always a small town outside Jerusalem. Assos is a beautiful little town at the top of a big hill.

I think you miss the point. I gave you Churches around Corinth… Valid Churches with valid bishops, just as valid as Corinth. St John is living less than 200 miles away. Yet already the East West distinction we hear the East claim was in place from the beginning, doesn’t appear to be an issue here when it comes to the chair of Peter…true?
N:

I’ve been to most of the Asian places mentioned in Acts. Most of them were so minor, and so unimportant that archaeologists haven’t come close to even touching them, in spite of their locations being very well known.

Are you saying Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch were minor and insignificant? Even much later in history, Byzantium which became Constantinople, which became Istanbul, was that minor and unimportant too? It’s true that Christianity today, 2000 years later, is a very minor presence in those locations. What point are you going to make about that?

But as you can see, Rome, the chair of Peter 2000 years later, is still a major presence in the world. On many levels. Don’t you find that providential?

 

[dcointin]

I’m back after 2 days and well im glad I see some more posts. However, even though I respect the opinions on both sides, I wish people posted more patristic quotes (other than a quote cited in post 18) since to me those are the ones im looking for and interested in. I am certainly aware that the interpretation to a given quote may be different on both sides, just as I don’t see post 18 being a problem for papal primacy/supremacy at all, but Orthodox may interpret otherwise. And that’s fine of course, we all have different opinions.

But I would like more patristic quotes, (whether it be a council or from a father) to collect them, study them, and see in what context it was said/written. Could be any quote before the 1054 schism.

If you have a link to a website with particular ones, that would work too. Ive already seen some but im sure there could be more out there. They could be cherry picked by the way.

I am convinced the Catholic point to be correct for various reasons according to what Ive seen, but I would also like to study a bit more the Orthodox perspective as I have Orthodox friends.

Thanks.

I would have to compile quotations related to the subject, and that’s just not something I’ve done.

 

[Nine_Two]

The chair of Peter however, is over all the sees. That’s why Ignatius refered to Rome as the Church that presides. No other Church he wrote to did he say that. Irenaeus wrote, everyone everywhere must agree with Rome because of its superior origin and that’s the apostolic Tradition passed on by faithful bishops everywhere… As you know Ignatius was a disciple of St John. And Irenaeus learned from Polycarp who was also a disciple of St John. Therefore St John must have taught those men what they preached and wrote about concerning the bishop of Rome.

Your first assertion remains unproven.

It’s not clear, but it’s thought Clement was asked. Because he wrote that he couldn’t respond as quickly as he desired because of the persecutions of the Church going on in Rome. But that could also mean, someone told him what was going on in Corinth and he got involved ASAP. Either way, the letter from Clement was read in their masses at Corinth as if his letter was part of the scriptures.

He was asked… but why didn’t they ask… etc.

I’ve already stated the Orthodox perspective, which you are saying Catholic tradition agrees with, is that the Bishop has to be asked to mediate.

It still leads to the question again, that you didn’t answer. St John is still alive and living less than 200 miles away from Corinth.

Why didn’t

• Corinth seek a living apostle for help?

I think it’s already known that Rome handles this. Ignatius and Irenaeus validate that, which tells me St John taught them that.

Here’s a question, when you have a dispute with a friend, why don’t you ask the Prince of Monaco to help you out?

Just because he holds a high position doesn’t mean that falls under his juristiction. You’re creating a strawman that no one has argued. St. John was NOT supreme over the Church. Ever. Nor was he a mediator of all the disputes that arose in the Church. He had his own mission within the Church.

I think you miss the point. I gave you Churches around Corinth… Valid Churches with valid bishops, just as valid as Corinth. St John is living less than 200 miles away. Yet already the East West distinction we hear the East claim was in place from the beginning, doesn’t appear to be an issue here when it comes to the chair of Peter…true?

And I’ve already answered, none of them were as prominent as Rome. You seem to have trouble with the concept that we believe Rome was a prominent See.

Are you saying Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch were minor and insignificant? Even much later in history, Byzantium which became Constantinople, which became Istanbul, was that minor and unimportant too? It’s true that Christianity today, 2000 years later, is a very minor presence in those locations. What point are you going to make about that?

Are you saying many means all?

And yes, Byzantion was rather insignificant at the time in question.

My point is attached to my previous point - that mention in the bible doesn’t mean anything when it comes to prominence.

But as you can see, Rome, the chair of Peter 2000 years later, is still a major presence in the world. On many levels. Don’t you find that providential?

No. Especially since it wasn’t a major presence for that full 2,000 years.
I’d also suggest it isn’t a major presence in the world today. Most people look at the pope the same way the English speaking world looks at the Queen of England.

 

[dcointin]

I would say that it is both the responsibility of all Christians to care for one another, and also the special responsibility of bishops of major sees, in particular the Bishop of Rome.

 

[steve_b]

Your first assertion remains unproven.

It’s proven.
N:

He was asked… but why didn’t they ask… etc.

If he was asked, .

It means

• the East and West weren’t mutually exclusive to each other as the EO want to argue.
• It means Corinth knew that by their action of asking Clement for help
• all bishops aren’t equal, or Corinth could/would have asked all the sees I mentioned that surround Corinth to help them. But they didn’t. They asked Rome
• the chair of Peter exercising jurisdiction over other sees in other countries, isn’t some new development as late commers want to argue. It was already happening DURING apostolic times.
• And Corinth proved it.

N:

I’ve already stated the Orthodox perspective, which you are saying Catholic tradition agrees with, is that the Bishop has to be asked to mediate.

You’re pretending the elephant in the room doesn’t exist.

Clement was a Catholic, Ignatius was a Catholic, as was Polycarp, as was Irenaeus. And as Irenaeus stated in “Against Heresies”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7942419&postcount=35

as you can see, these discussions play over and over again.
N:

Here’s a question, when you have a dispute with a friend, why don’t *you ask the Prince of Monaco to help *you out? Just because he holds a high position doesn’t mean that falls under his juristiction. You’re creating a strawman that no one has argued.

I see you’ve run out of gas.
N:

St. John was NOT supreme over the Church. Ever. Nor was he a mediator of all the disputes that arose in the Church. He had his own mission within the Church.

huh? Is this how you dismiss John?

I’m actually stunned at your statement.
N:

And I’ve already answered, none of them were as prominent as Rome. You seem to have trouble with the concept that we believe Rome was a prominent See.

Are you saying many means all?

And yes, Byzantion was rather insignificant at the time in question.

My point is attached to my previous point - that mention in the bible doesn’t mean anything when it comes to prominence.

No. Especially since it wasn’t a major presence for that full 2,000 years.
I’d also suggest it isn’t a major presence in the world today. Most people look at the pope the same way the English speaking world looks at the Queen of England.

sheesh.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Didache was also read by many as local scripture, as were many of the writings of the generation of Fathers who immediately followed the apostles. I don’t think your argument that the epistle of Clement was read as scripture holds much water. If this were a good criterion for showing that Peter and his successors held ultimate authority, then why is it that the epistle of Clement never made it into the New Testament, while the epistles of Paul and the Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark did? Why is there no scripture written by Linus or Clement?

 

[steve_b]

The Didache was also read by many as local scripture, as were many of the writings of the generation of Fathers who immediately followed the apostles. I don’t think your argument that the epistle of Clement was read as scripture holds much water. If this were a good criterion for showing that Peter and his successors held ultimate authority, then why is it that the epistle of Clement never made it into the New Testament, while the epistles of Paul and the Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark did? Why is there no scripture written by Linus or Clement?

I never said Clements letter was considered scripture. Go back and look at what I wrote. Obviously corinth highly valued Clement’s letter, and the end of sedition in Corinth.

Some of the things found to support this letter being read at mass

Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, who, acknowledging another letter written from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth by their then bp. Soter, states that their former letter written by Clement was still read from time to time in their Sunday assemblies. Eusebius (H. E. iii, 16) speaks of this public reading of Clement’s epistle as the ancient custom of very many churches down to his own time. In the same place (and in H. E. iv. 22) he reports that Hegesippus, whose historical work was written in the episcopate next after Soter’s, and who had previously visited both Rome and Corinth, gives particulars concerning the epistle of Clement, and concerning the dissensions in the Corinthian church which had given rise to it. The epistle is cited as Clement’s by Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 3), several times by Clement of Alex., who in one place gives his namesake the title of Apostle (Strom. i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, vi. 8); by Origen (de Princip. ii. 3, in Ezech. 8, in Joan. i. 29); and in fact on this subject the testimony of antiquity is unanimous. A letter which did not bear Clement’s name, and which merely purported to come from the church of Rome, could scarcely have been generally known as Clement’s, if Clement had not been known at the time as holding the chief position in the church of Rome. …

Btw, do you agree with how Nine, completely dismissed St John?

 

[Nine_Two]

If he was asked, .
It means

• the East and West weren’t mutually exclusive to each other as the EO want to argue.
• It means Corinth knew that by their action of asking Clement for help
• all bishops aren’t equal, or Corinth could/would have asked all the sees I mentioned that surround Corinth to help them. But they didn’t. They asked Rome
• the chair of Peter exercising jurisdiction over other sees in other countries, isn’t some new development as late commers want to argue. It was already happening DURING apostolic times.
• And Corinth proved it.

This is why I think that either you have no idea what you’re arguing against, or what you are actually arguing for. None of those things are something we disagree with. Your first list item is a strawman… The East/West divide is certainly something that came about later on, and it was a divide that was nearly completely based on linguistics, as multiligualism became less important, communication between the two divides became more difficult. In the early Church there was most certainly NOT an East/West divide, and I’ve never heard anyone in the Orthodox Church argue that there was or that this is something that was set in stone.
Your next point (which is divided into two items on your list for some reason), is exactly what I’ve been arguing. THAT is why Rome was Consulted, and not Athens. THAT is exactly what I’ve been saying. Not all Sees are equal.
Your final point, however, is exactly what the issue is, and what I’ve been arguing about. Though the Bishop of Rome (Peter had three sees, even according to the Roman reconing) was involved in other juristictions, it has not been shown that this is anything like the immediate juristiction believed by the modern Catholic Church.
Any Bishop could intervene in any other see, and Rome, as the highest in honour, was the one who was asked in the bulk (if not all) major cases. But that doesn’t mean the Bishop of Rome had the right to interfere.

You’re pretending the elephant in the room doesn’t exist.

Clement was a Catholic, Ignatius was a Catholic, as was Polycarp, as was Irenaeus. And as Irenaeus stated in “Against Heresies”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7942419&postcount=35

as you can see, these discussions play over and over again.

They were all Catholic, as am I. They were also all Orthodox, as am I. I’m not sure what your point is with labels.

huh? Is this how you dismiss John?

I’m actually stunned at your statement.

You mean by saying he wasn’t a micromanager in charge of every aspect of the Church? How dare I! That’s blasphemy, or something.

I’m a bit stunned that you’re the one dismissing him as less important than the Roman Bishop, and then you accuse me of dismissing him when I said he didn’t arbitrate over every dispute because he had other things he was doing.

sheesh.

Explain to me why I was watching two prominent communing Catholics on TV during my lunch hour (Colbert and Pelosi) basically saying the Bishops (and therefore the Pope) was wrong on this whole contraception thing?
And those are Catholics. The non-Catholic world view doesn’t even pay lip service to him.

The view of the pope is certainly equivalent to the Anglo view of the Monarchy. You have some people who really care, but most don’t.

As for the prominence of Rome. Study your history. It was a cesspool for much of its history, it was abandoned for Avignon for a significant period of the Middle Ages, when Byzantium retook Southern Italy (Including Rome), they made the capital Ravanna.
Like most major cities, the influence of Rome has waxed and waned throughout the years.

 

[steve_b]

Corinth is closer to Rome than it is to Antioch or Alexandria.

693 mi Athens to Antioch
653 mi Athens to Rome

---

40 miles

That’s cutting it close