Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Arbitration? That negates universal primacy? If the Bishop of Rome has NEVER possessed any universal jurisdiction as many of you claim and only of honor;then why would any bishop outside of his own diocese even be compellled or even remotely fathom it? Why not settle the matter in-house? If are all bishops are equals,then why travel many miles to take serious matters to Rome? Those bishops who went to Rome would have no need to go because they would know the Bishop of Rome held no authority to decide their issues.

Because Rome was one of the most orthodox sees - often removed from the disputes of the east. The decisions of Rome were not, however, infallible

.

Your statement in shape or from rebukes primacy. If those eastern bishops were taking serious matters (heresies,doctrinal disputes) to Rome and it is based merely on “honor” then why in the heck go there in the first place? Second, if Rome’s decisions on heresies were not infallible,then again why even bother to ask or go there? Case in point:

St. Augustine:

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

So explain why a grave matter as the above not be infallible, as you stated:

decisions of Rome were not, however, infallible If Rome’s decision matters not or is not infallible on grave issues,again why get Rome involved?

St. Augustine wrote :

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.”

Okay but was that statement written in opposition to primacy? The above has nothing to disproving primacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Care to show one ECF from the early church and from the east who OPPOSED (as you do) ,REJECTED,CONDEMNED,etc papal primacy? Let us see if it is a historical reality as you claim?

No, because papal primacy was a reality. Papal supremacy was not.

I have said “primacy” not supremacy. I have not mentioned supremacy at all.

St. Cyprian writes to Pope Stephen :

“No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein."

Again,was Cyprian rebuking the primacy here or was he making another reference?

And yet St. Cyprian says about the See of Peter:

*“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the **principal church **[at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]). *

Pretty obvious what he is referring to here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So if it is an opinion of the pope,no one should question it? Do you just condemned someone without hearing their case or argument? What does Pilate tell the Jewish leaders in the Passion of Christ: Do you punish your people without hearing them?

I am not saying he would not be questioned. I am merely doubting that he would be openly opposed without consequence.

Really? So if the pope is teaching contrary to doctrine,Tradition and Scripture,no one would oppose him merely because he is the pope?

 

[mardukm]

Dear Mark of Ephesus,

And Pope Benedict no doubtably believes this. The point I am trying to reinforce is this : The pope believes that the current function of the papacy is a result of doctrinal development. He likewise believes that the Orthodox adhere to the early Church practice.

That is great because St. Augustine never said that. Let’s look at the actual quote :

"…jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est" (Already two councils on this question have been sent to the apostolic see; and replies have also come from there. The case is closed).

Rome was arbiter in the dispute. If you take quotes out of context, it is easy to develop false conclusions. Interestingly enough, St. Augustine also writes :

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed”.

I actually agree with many of your posts. I have utilized the same rhetoric against Absolutist Petrine advocates. It might interest you to know that this quote from St. Augustine was originally included in the first draft of Pastor Aeternus. But during the debates, it became obvious that the quote does not in fact directly support the papal dogmas, so it was removed from the text.

If you (or anyone else) are interested, here is a current thread that features a debate between the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine views in the Eastern Catholicism Forum: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=580188

In any case, though the High Petrine view might seem more amenable to many EO, there is still a conflict with the Low Petrine idea that Primacy consists of mere honor. I have met EO who hold a High Petrine view, and understand that Primacy (on any level) possesses actual potestas (authority), and is not merely one of honor. I would like a clarification. Is it your position that Primacy is one of mere honor, or do you personally understand Primacy to have (at least some) inherent potestas - I’m not talking about mere administrative prerogatives.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[copperblade]

Any kind of future union with Orthodoxy (if it’s even possible, and I’m skeptical), I’m sure the Pope recognize he would have to reduce some of his jurisdictional power.

To an even greater extent than to Eastern Catholic rites? Or to an equivalent extent?

 

[Cavaradossi]

To an even greater extent than to Eastern Catholic rites? Or to an equivalent extent?

I would say that it would have to be to an even greater extent (FabiusMaximus may or may not agree). There’s no way, for example, that the Orthodox would have union with Rome if the ordination of new bishops would require assent from the Pope (as current Eastern Catholic ordinations of bishops require).

 

[copperblade]

I would say that it would have to be to an even greater extent (FabiusMaximus may or may not agree). There’s no way, for example, that the Orthodox would have union with Rome if the ordination of new bishops would require assent from the Pope (as current Eastern Catholic ordinations of bishops require).

That’s an interesting example. Could the Pope just give “automatic assent” based on a certain criteria in this case? I’m just wonder if there are ways around it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s an interesting example. Could the Pope just give “automatic assent” based on a certain criteria in this case? I’m just wonder if there are ways around it.

But the question that then gets raised is why they need the Pope’s assent in the first place. I don’t think they would even be happy with that.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

. Your statement in shape or from rebukes primacy. If those eastern bishops were taking serious matters (heresies,doctrinal disputes) to Rome and it is based merely on “honor” then why in the heck go there in the first place? Second, if Rome’s decisions on heresies were not infallible,then again why even bother to ask or go there? Case in point:

I already answered that. Rome was one of the most Orthodox sees (less bishops of Rome fell into heresy than most other sees). The canons of the Church permit one to appeal to other bishops in the case of dispute. Not only was Rome not the only church to which appeals were sometimes directed (a fair portion of appeals were sent to other patriarchates), but appealing to Rome was actually prohibited in some places. The Council of Cartage (419) :

“Presbyters, deacons, or clerics,* who shall think good to carry appeals in their causes across the water shall not at all be admitted to communion**.
It also seemed good that presbyters, deacons, and others of the inferior clergy in the causes which they had, if they were dissatisfied with the judgments of their bishops, let the neighbouring bishops with the consent of their own bishop hear them, and let the bishops who have been called in judge between them: but if they think they have cause of appeal from these, they shall not betake themselves to judgments from beyond seas, but to the primates of their own provinces, or else to an universal council, as has also been decreed concerning bishops.** But whoso shall think good to carry an appeal across the water shall be received to communion by no one within the boundaries of Africa**.*”

Yep, sounds like Roman supremacy to me.

St. Augustine:

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

So explain why a grave matter as the above not be infallible, as you stated:

decisions of Rome were not, however, infallible If Rome’s decision matters not or is not infallible on grave issues,again why get Rome involved?

Why would it be infallible? People appealed to Constantinople, does that make its decisions infallible? People appealed to Alexandria, does that make its decisions infallible? Under what premise do you believe Rome’s decision to be infallible when St. Augustine himself proclaims that Rome can be wrong. I repost a previous quote :

“Well, let us suppose that* those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges**; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed*.”

If you interpret St. Augustine’s words to mean that Rome is the final voice in every dispute, you have wrongly read his writings. He was referencing a particular case, not making a general statement concerning ecclesiastical truth.

I have said “primacy” not supremacy. I have not mentioned supremacy at all.

Supremacy is all you have been talking about. Were you arguing alone for Roman primacy, we would be in agreement.

Again,was Cyprian rebuking the primacy here or was he making another reference?

No, St. Cyprian was criticizing the pope for claiming his bishopric was superior and thus had authority over other bishops. Because this was contrary to the tradition of the Church, St. Cyprian rebuked Pope Stephen who consequently broke communion with the saint of Carthage.

And yet St. Cyprian says about the See of Peter:

*“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the **principal church ***[at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Pretty obvious what he is referring to here.

No one is contesting the Roman primacy. The quote you provide doesn’t contradict anything I am saying. What I am critical of is you version of history where the pope reigned as a monarch.

Really? So if the pope is teaching contrary to doctrine,Tradition and Scripture,no one would oppose him merely because he is the pope?

People are more likely to stand up to equals than superiors.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And yet St. Cyprian says about the See of Peter:

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Pretty obvious what he is referring to here.

No one is contesting the Roman primacy. The quote you provide doesn’t contradict anything I am saying. What I am critical of is you version of history where the pope reigned as a monarch.

If you interpret St. Augustine’s words to mean that Rome is the final voice in every dispute, you have wrongly read his writings. He was referencing a particular case, not making a general statement concerning ecclesiastical truth.

On the contrary,you have mis-read them. That is right,every dispute involving Rome. Augustine more than once says Rome is the final voice,unless you care to show me where he says another See has the final primacy over Rome?



Whoa…whoa…my friend. Now I know where the misunderstanding stems from. First of all, my brother in Christ, when I defend the primacy, I never say supreme,at least I do not. Second, if you are interpretating it in such a fashion,then I am sorry to say you have misunderstood me or others. Third, it is not “MY” version of history,because this existed long before I was born. I do not give my version of anything,simply parrot what history has to say. Finally,this is where your entire error is evident:

where the pope reigned as a monarch

I am not defending a monarch here. Do you truly believe the papacy from the beginning was set up as a monarchy in the strictest sense? Is that what you believe that I and others are saying and defending a monarchy? Truly? Sorry,but you are way off target my friend…no offense.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

On the contrary,you have mis-read them. That is right,every dispute involving Rome. Augustine more than once says Rome is the final voice,unless you care to show me where he says another See has the final primacy over Rome?

I will post the quote for a third time seeing as you have yet to address it. St. Augustine clearly condemns the idea that Rome has the final say :

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake,* their decisions might be reversed***.”

Whoa…whoa…my friend. Now I know where the misunderstanding stems from. First of all, my brother in Christ, when I defend the primacy, I never say supreme,at least I do not. Second, if you are interpretating it in such a fashion,then I am sorry to say you have misunderstood me or others. Third, it is not “MY” version of history,because this existed long before I was born. I do not give my version of anything,simply parrot what history has to say. Finally,this is where your entire error is evident:

Regardless of whether or not you use the term “supreme”, it is the system you advocate. Would you agree the pope has authority over the other bishoprics? Would you argue the pope has the final say on a matter? If so, you are advocating supremacy.

where the pope reigned as a monarch

I am not defending a monarch here. Do you truly believe the papacy from the beginning was set up as a monarchy in the strictest sense? Is that what you believe that I and others are saying and defending a monarchy? Truly? Sorry,but you are way off target my friend…no offense.

No, the papacy was not a monarchy from the beginning, but it gradually developed into one. I am not critiquing the secular monarchical powers of the papacy (though I very well could), rather, I am attacking the idea that one bishop has absolute authority over the entire Church.

 

[byeveryword]

Come on,you know exactly what I mean. Is his field strictly church history or theology?

I beg your pardon? When and where did I directly state the pope’s words were hogwash? Go back and read to what I was referring to.Second,the pope like all humans is entitled to his opinion and I in no shape or form need to agree.

Ridiculous? What is more ridiculous are those who reject history and turn the blind for their novelties. If the Roman Bishop had no primacy or universal jurisdiction over others,then perhaps I should post case after case where eastern bishops took their unsolved matters to…Rome. Care to read them or is it to ridiculous?

So one sole matter debunks papal primacy? Does that seem like adequate proof to debunk papal primacy? Sorry,you’ll have to go a lot further than that to debunk papal primacy.

Well first tell me why he would not be given a seat?

If the bishop of Rome had universal jurisidiction over others, then Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons would not have rebuked Bishop Victor of Rome for his attempt at excommunicating the bishops of Asia who were following an Easter tradition from the apostle John that was contrary to the Easter tradition of the church of Rome.

 

[rinnie]

Any kind of future union with Orthodoxy (if it’s even possible, and I’m skeptical), I’m sure the Pope recognize he would have to reduce some of his jurisdictional power.

That’s never going to happen. The Pope has the keys to the kingdom passed down to him from Christ.

Christ made it that way, and it will continue that way until Christ comes again in glory.

YOU are Peter and to YOU I give the keys to the Kingdom. What YOU bound is bound and what YOU loose is loose. Christ said he and he meant it.

While we reconginze all of the Bishops have the power of the Holy Spirit only the Pope holds the keys to the kingdom. The authoirty to open and close. ANd he does too.

 

[Hesychios]

If the bishop of Rome had universal jurisidiction over others, then Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons would not have rebuked Bishop Victor of Rome for his attempt at excommunicating the bishops of Asia who were following an Easter tradition from the apostle John that was contrary to the Easter tradition of the church of Rome.

This is true. There are other examples as well. In those days there was no fear of dialog and disagreement on these very public church issues. Part of the reason was that most bishops in the west were not dependent upon a ‘central authority’ in Rome for their appointments as they are today.

Even the attempt to excommunicate the Asian churches probably would not have removed the Asian churches from the Catholic/Orthodox communion, because it was clear the rest of the church (even bishops in the west) would not go along with it. Probably what would have happened would be an uneasy situation where some churches would have been in communion with both the Asian churches and the church of Rome (with those two not in communion with each other). This has happened at other times in church history, no one likes it.

As an historical fact, eventually the Easter controversy was resolved, 130 years later, but not by Papal fiat. It was resolved in a Council in which the Asian bishops participated and the bishop of Rome did not.

Many Roman Catholic sources have revisionist history which has become published widely and thus we get some of the outrageous clams one will see here about universal jurisdiction in the early days. It is telescoping history, trying to project a modern papacy back into early times. It requires a powerful imagination.

 

[Nicea325]

If the bishop of Rome had universal jurisidiction over others, then Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons would not have rebuked Bishop Victor of Rome for his attempt at excommunicating the bishops of Asia who were following an Easter tradition from the apostle John that was contrary to the Easter tradition of the church of Rome.

Wrong! Irenaeus was not rebuking papal jurisdiction.Rebuking someone is not a sign someone does not have jurisdiction. So if I tell my boss he is wrong regarding a particular issue,that undermines his/her power?

 

[rinnie]

Wrong! Irenaeus was not rebuking papal jurisdiction.Rebuking someone is not a sign someone does not have jurisdiction. So if I tell my boss he is wrong regarding a particular issue,that undermines his/her power?

Next thing you know they are going to say the same about St Paul and Peter

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
On the contrary,you have mis-read them. That is right,every dispute involving Rome. Augustine more than once says Rome is the final voice,unless you care to show me where he says another See has the final primacy over Rome?

I will post the quote for a third time seeing as you have yet to address it. St. Augustine clearly condemns the idea that Rome has the final say :

Well can you provide one sentence by Augustine saying Rome is NOT the primacy over all others? Wrong! Go ahead and post a million times,you are still misunderstanding Augustine.Second,you are dead wrong Augustine condemns that Rome has the final. I can provide plenty of words from Augustine cleary rebuking your position. NO WHERE does he condemn Rome’s jurisdiction,on the contrary he says the opposite.

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.”

Hint: Augustine says: Let us suppose…It is hypothetical.He is not stating a fact against primacy or denying there exist no councils.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325

Whoa…whoa…my friend. Now I know where the misunderstanding stems from. First of all, my brother in Christ, when I defend the primacy, I never say supreme,at least I do not. Second, if you are interpretating it in such a fashion,then I am sorry to say you have misunderstood me or others. Third, it is not “MY” version of history,because this existed long before I was born. I do not give my version of anything,simply parrot what history has to say. Finally,this is where your entire error is evident:

Regardless of whether or not you use the term “supreme”, it is the system you advocate. Would you agree the pope has authority over the other bishoprics? Would you argue the pope has the final say on a matter? If so, you are advocating supremacy.

Again,I am not advocating anything on my part,this is ALL ancient history. Tell me what it is you do not comprehend from history? It is who is arguing AGAINST many ECF’s had to say about the Bishop of Rome. Go and read the very words of many men who lived long before you and I did. It is you alone who is advocating a different system. Are you truly going to seat here and DENY everything written in support of Roman primacy? Seriously? If so,then you are in denial and a revisionist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
where the pope reigned as a monarch

I am not defending a monarch here. Do you truly believe the papacy from the beginning was set up as a monarchy in the strictest sense? Is that what you believe that I and others are saying and defending a monarchy? Truly? Sorry,but you are way off target my friend…no offense.

No, the papacy was not a monarchy from the beginning, but it gradually developed into one.

Based on what facts?

I am not critiquing the secular monarchical powers of the papacy (though I very well could), rather, I am attacking the idea that one bishop has absolute authority over the entire Church.

Hhhmmm? Did Jesus found a democractic church? Did he preach and teach about a democratic Heaven? Does Heaven have ONE in absolute authority? Does Hell? Go back and read the NT and it is very open who was the HEAD Apostle. Now,if you continue to reject it and wish to believe what you argue,by all means,it is your choice. You are not going to change my beliefs and vice versa,so why bother to continue?

 

[Nicea325]

Next thing you know they are going to say the same about St Paul and Peter

They already do…Peter. This is the obvious I cannot comprehend:

50 New Testament verses which show the ‘primacy’ of St. Peter. Here are just a few.

• Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times
  (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).
  John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

** Matthew 16:19: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” The “power” of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; Gen 43:19;44:4; 1 King 4:6;16:9;18:3; 2 King 10:5;15:5;18:18; Isa 22:15,
Isa 20-21).

• Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him “the first” (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
• Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
  Mt 16:18).
• Peter is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
• Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith fail not” (Lk 22:32).
• Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
• Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
• Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
• Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
• Christ teaches from Peter’s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11) perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (Mt 4:19).
• Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).
• Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
• Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
• Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
• Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
  (Acts 1:15-22).
• Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
• Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the Gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
• Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
• Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
  (Acts 5:2-11).
• Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
• Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
• Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).
• Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
• Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
• Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age
  (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
• The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter “without ceasing” when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
• Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
• Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles
  (1 Cor 15:4-5).
• Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29;
  1 Cor 9:5).
• Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
  (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).
• Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).
• Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
• Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” - an example of “binding and loosing.”
• Peter was the first “charismatic,” having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
• Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
• Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).
• Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Act 10:44-48).
• Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
• Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Well can you provide one sentence by Augustine saying Rome is NOT the primacy over all others?

How many times do I have to say it :** I am not contesting Roman primacy**, nor are any of my brothers in the faith.

Wrong! Go ahead and post a million times,you are still misunderstanding Augustine.Second,you are dead wrong Augustine condemns that Rome has the final.

Please explain to me what St. Augustine really meant. I am curious as to your interpretation of his words.

I can provide plenty of words from Augustine cleary rebuking your position. NO WHERE does he condemn Rome’s jurisdiction,on the contrary he says the opposite.

Ok, then post them. So far, you have only informed me of my error, but provided no evidence.

Hint: Augustine says: Let us suppose…It is hypothetical.He is not stating a fact against primacy or denying there exist no councils.

St. Augustine is not even speaking on primacy. His words condemn the idea that Rome has the final say on a matter. Why? Because Rome** can be** wrong.

Again,I am not advocating anything on my part,this is ALL ancient history. Tell me what it is you do not comprehend from history? It is who is arguing AGAINST many ECF’s had to say about the Bishop of Rome. Go and read the very words of many men who lived long before you and I did. It is you alone who is advocating a different system.

Then to quote Jerry Maguire, “Show me the money”. If a Roman Catholic is to be historically honest, they would adopt Pope Benedict’s position, i.e. that the Orthodox view is true to the early Church. You are trying to force your doctrinal developed views into a history that supports no such thing. Go ahead, direct me to the fathers who believed in Roman supremacy.

Hhhmmm? Did Jesus found a democractic church? Did he preach and teach about a democratic Heaven? Does Heaven have ONE in absolute authority? Does Hell? Go back and read the NT and it is very open who was the HEAD Apostle. Now,if you continue to reject it and wish to believe what you argue,by all means,it is your choice. You are not going to change my beliefs and vice versa,so why bother to continue?

The real audience is the lurkers, not the participants. I don’t expect to convince you of anything, but the readers have seen time after time that you can present no evidence of papal supremacy in the early Church. The fathers and the councils are against you, as is your pontiff.

 

[copperblade]

Wrong! Irenaeus was not rebuking papal jurisdiction.Rebuking someone is not a sign someone does not have jurisdiction. So if I tell my boss he is wrong regarding a particular issue,that undermines his/her power?

It can. It minimally shows you question his judgement. What bishops today rebuke the pope for any reason? Not a chance.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the statement, ‘Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium’ because it subtly implies that Rome has been in error for the last millenium.

 

[dzheremi]

Because Rome has been in error on various issues for the past millennium at least, I am incredibly uncomfortable with any statement that implies, subtly or otherwise, that the Orthodox should have to follow her lead.