Papal Supremacy

[ThatOneGuy92]

I see the categories of “Low Petrine”, “High Petrine”, and “Absolutist Petrine” have surfaced yet again. But I think it was established, the last time around, that these 3 categories are of very recent origin and are even unknown except for Catholic Answers and a couple other websites.

It is true that the terms are relatively new and unknown, but that does not stop them from being useful distinguishing tools.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It is true that the terms are relatively new and unknown, but that does not stop them from being useful distinguishing tools.

They are of use as explained and defined.

Could have just as easily been described using other common terminology. Distinctions between orthodox (small “o”), conservative and reformed almost come to mind, as I live among many good Jewish friends. Or regular, plus and premium at the gas pump.

At any rate, consider in charity giving some credit for providing a framework for discussion that is thoughtful and derived from serious and detailed study of the related subject matter.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

They are of use as explained and defined.

Could have just as easily been described using other common terminology. Distinctions between orthodox (small “o”), conservative and reformed almost come to mind, as I live among many good Jewish friends. Or regular, plus and premium at the gas pump.

At any rate, consider in charity giving some credit for providing a framework for discussion that is thoughtful and derived from serious and detailed study of the related subject matter.

It took me a minute to understand what you were saying.

My apologies if I have in any way stated anything in an uncharitable manner. You are right- there are other terms that could be (and are) used to describe the distinctions of various view points. I suppose what I was trying to say (poorly, albeit) is that just because terminology is new and unknown does not automatically render it inferior. I said what I did perceiving a certain tone that was directed toward the whole Absolute/High/Low Petrine distinction. In all actuality, I probably misunderstood something and felt the need to jump the gun and come to the defense.

Again, my most sincerest and humblest apologies.

 

[Jacob50]

Jesus tells His apostles, one of them (Peter) will be greatest among the apostles.

Luke 22: Upper Room (all emphasis mine)

24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules(hegeomai) like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you(singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

Hegeomai(Jesus is referring to Simon)

definition

1. to lead
   a) to go before
   b) to be a leader
2. to rule, command
3. to have authority over
4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel,

Sterizo ( Simon is )

1. to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix the apostles
2. to strengthen, make firm the other apostles
3. to render constant, confirm, the apostles

That’s how Jesus ended their argument.

It goes with the keys Jesus gave Peter

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)”.

 

[Peter_J]

I suppose what I was trying to say (poorly, albeit) is that just because terminology is new and unknown does not automatically render it inferior.

I don’t disagree with that, but my point is that the rest of the world is unlikely to adopt that classification system even if it is promoted by an organization as large as Catholic Answers. So far it hasn’t been adopted even by other Catholic websites (e.g byzcath).

 

[Peter_J]

Is there some kind of saying to the effect that each person usually wants to be the one to set the terms of the debate?

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I don’t disagree with that, but my point is that the rest of the world is unlikely to adopt that classification system even if it is promoted by an organization as large as Catholic Answers. So far it hasn’t been adopted even by other Catholic websites (e.g byzcath).

Right. My apologies, Peter. I perceived a different tone than what you actually wished to communicated, and therefore responded as I did. My apologies for putting implications that you did not mean onto your words.

Is there some kind of saying to the effect that each person usually wants to be the one to set the terms of the debate?

Um… “setting the terms”? “Dictating the rules”? “I’ve got the power”?
(Okay, that last one may have been a tad bit facetious )

 

[Peter_J]

Right. My apologies, Peter. I perceived a different tone than what you actually wished to communicated, and therefore responded as I did. My apologies for putting implications that you did not mean onto your words.

Oh that alright. I’m just glad to know that you’re open-minded enough to see that not everyone thinks in terms of mardukm’s “Low Petrine / High Petrine / Absolutist Petrine” classification system.

Um… “setting the terms”? “Dictating the rules”? “I’ve got the power”?

Alright Jim Carey.

 

[Mickey]

I’m just glad to know that you’re open-minded enough to see that not everyone thinks in terms of mardukm’s “Low Petrine / High Petrine / Absolutist Petrine” classification system.

Besides…it’s an insult to the “intermediate petrines.”

 

[Nine_Two]

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)”.

I don’t have much time to respond right now, but I will make the following points:

1. Check the Greek on the word “love”
2. Christ was refering to himself as the shephard. He was appointing Peter as a caretaker.

 

[steve_b]

If the Pope truly wants union he has to negotiate with the Communion as a whole in order to be readmitted to Communion.

As for that question, yes, that would be a requirement of unity. Similarly the Western Church would have to accept such a view of the papacy.

If one Church at a time is okay with unity, you mean the rest of the Churches can overrule an individual Church decision for unity?

 

[Nine_Two]

If one Church at a time is okay with unity, you mean the rest of the Churches can overrule an individual Church decision for unity?

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.

 

[Jacob50]

Dear brother Jacob,

OFFICIALLY. However, it must be admitted that there are many who POPULARLY adhere to the Absolutist Petrine view. The High Petrine view is the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church according to the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 and the teaching of Vatican 2. The Absolutist Petrine view is a POPULAR INTERPRETATION of the Vatican 1 decrees. There is actually a historic name for the Absolutist Petrine view, NEO-ULTRAMONTANISM. It was first popularized by an English author only several decades before Vatican 1. It was officially repudiated at Vatican 1 by two additions to the original text of V1’s Pastor Aeternus: (1) paragraph 3 of Chapter 3 on the Primacy (“The power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means stands in the way of the ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction of the bishops…”) ; (2) the historic Proem of the section on Infallibility (which asserted that according to Sacred Tradition “papal infallibility” is only exercised as a response to the request of the episcopate, and that the Pope is himself bound by Sacred Tradition). However, as a result of the liturgical mess that ensued due to individualistic misinterpretations of the decrees of Vatican 2, and despite the clear collegial (i.e. High Petrine) teachings of Vatican 2, there was a resurgence of neo-ultramontanism within the Latin Catholic Church as the best hope of re-establishing liturgical order in the Church.

As noted, the Absolutist Petrine view is held by many Latin Catholics, and also the SSPX.

Blessings,
Marduk

As an aside, I think your “Low Petrine / High Petrine / Absolutist Petrine” classification system is pretty good. I know its something known probably only here in CAF, but nonetheless very useful. Because I do think it is necessary to distinguish the different views on the primacy of Peter.

God bless our Holy Father!

 

[Jacob50]

I don’t have much time to respond right now, but I will make the following points:

1. Check the Greek on the word “love”
2. Christ was refering to himself as the shephard. He was appointing Peter as a caretaker.

Those are good points. Alright ill check the Greek word for love. Sure, Christ made him Shepherd. And caretaker if you will…

But I wonder how you Orthodox look at this passage, because your views are certainly different from ours.

Or maybe I should start with these points:

1- Do you agree, that here (John 21:15-19) Christ made Peter the Shepherd of the whole Church?

2- Since Jesus, didn’t tell John, or James or any other apostle “Feed my sheep”,
Would you agree, that this was only said to Peter and not to any other apostle? And more importantly, Would you agree that here Christ is giving Peter a special Job or mission that he did not give or entrusted to any other apostle?

3- Would you agree, that what Christ did here with Peter, also applies to his successors?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

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.

Hope you can read this.

AFAIK, the official position of the Catholic Church is to treat reunion with the EOC’s as a body. When the Macedonian Orthodox Church sought reunion with Rome, HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory responded that they should fix their ecclesiastical issues with the EO communion first. The CC is not looking to have reunion with the EO “one Church at a time.” I don’t know where brother Steveb is getting his ideas.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

As an aside, I think your “Low Petrine / High Petrine / Absolutist Petrine” classification system is pretty good. I know its something known probably only here in CAF, but nonetheless very useful. Because I do think it is necessary to distinguish the different views on the primacy of Peter.

Thank you for the word of support, brother.

God bless our Holy Father!

AMEN!!!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by steve b
If one Church at a time is okay with unity, you mean the rest of the Churches can overrule an individual Church decision for unity?

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”.)

 

[Jacob50]

The questions are also for any other Orthodox brother not just Nine, to answer to these:

1- Do you agree, that here (John 21:15-19) Christ made Peter the Shepherd of the whole Church?

2- Since Jesus, didn’t tell John, or James or any other apostle “Feed my sheep”,
Would you agree, that this was only said to Peter and not to any other apostle? And more importantly, Would you agree that here Christ is giving Peter a special Job or mission that he did not give or entrusted to any other apostle?

3- Would you agree, that what Christ did here with Peter, also applies to his successors?

Just curious.

 

[Hesychios]

The questions are also for any other Orthodox brother not just Nine, to answer to these:

1- Do you agree, that here (John 21:15-19) Christ made Peter the Shepherd of the whole Church?

That is an amazing interpretation.

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

 

[Nine_Two]

1- Do you agree, that here (John 21:15-19) Christ made Peter the Shepherd of the whole Church?

He made Peter a caretaker, but Christ remained the shephard.

2- Since Jesus, didn’t tell John, or James or any other apostle “Feed my sheep”,
Would you agree, that this was only said to Peter and not to any other apostle? And more importantly, Would you agree that here Christ is giving Peter a special Job or mission that he did not give or entrusted to any other apostle?

Pastoral care was the responsibility of all the apostles. This particular message was for Peter, as shown by the fact that he took Peter aside to give it to him. I would see it in the light of Peter’s earlier denial as well as his failure in response to Christ’s “Do you love me?” question. It was a penance so that he might truly love Christ.

3- Would you agree, that what Christ did here with Peter, also applies to his successors?

No.

As I’ve said many times on this forum, I agree there is such a thing as Papal Primacy.

I just wouldn’t use that verse to back it up.