Primacy but not Supremacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
I’m not starting this thread to argue this topic with anyone. Instead, I want to listen to others give detailed answers to two questions:


  1. *]What exactly is the distinction between primacy and supremacy specifically as those terms are applied or denied with regard to the Bishop of Rome?

    *]Based upon Sacred Scripture alone, why, specifically, would Peter be said to have primacy but NOT supremacy?

    (We can discuss the writings of the ECF’s at another time.)

    Thanks in advance.
 
Randy_Carson said:
I’m not starting this thread to argue this topic with anyone. Instead, I want to listen to others give detailed answers to two questions:


  1. *]What exactly is the distinction between primacy and supremacy specifically as those terms are applied or denied with regard to the Bishop of Rome?

    *]Based upon Sacred Scripture alone, why, specifically, would Peter be said to have primacy but NOT supremacy?

    (We can discuss the writings of the ECF’s at another time.)

    Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

  1. In my view, since the Pope is subject to the teachings of the Magesterium, it would be erroneous to say he is supreme. The doctrine and dogma is supreme. The pope is prime in the magesterium which gives him the ability when called upon by the church to definitively decide something or to gather the bishops of the Magesterium and ratify their findings.

    Going to Matt 18, in settling disputes, the final arbiter is the Pope. The pope may call the Magesterium to solve the dispute, but should that gridlock in some way, he can definitively decide the matter. Other matters may be so cut and dry he just declares it, as was done with the Marian dogmas.

    I would imagine, both Acts 15 and John 20 can support this. In Acts 15, Peter demonstrates a primacy, but the idea came from another apostle James. In John 20 all the apostles receive the same gift of authority from Christ and then Jesus goes on to tell Peter alone to feed his sheep. This shows that Peter had a prime role but not necessarily a supreme roll.

    Sometimes this may seem like semantics, but I guess depends on context and definitions.
 
Randy_Carson said:
I’m not starting this thread to argue this topic with anyone. Instead, I want to listen to others give detailed answers to two questions:


  1. *]What exactly is the distinction between primacy and supremacy specifically as those terms are applied or denied with regard to the Bishop of Rome?

    *]Based upon Sacred Scripture alone, why, specifically, would Peter be said to have primacy but NOT supremacy?

    (We can discuss the writings of the ECF’s at another time.)

    Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

  1. Using scripture alone, I’ve used this passage as an argument in the past for primacy and supremacy… although I don’t use this passage alone to make those points 😉

    The following links are operational

    Lk 22 24 A dispute φιλονεικία also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest . 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader ἡγούμενος as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.
    28 “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you 30 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, behold, Satan demanded to have you,d] that he might sift youe] like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen στήρισον your brethren.”

    Looking at those Greek words

    1. *]φιλονεικία people DO love to argue about authority :rolleyes:
      *]ἡγούμενος and one of THEM is the leader.

      Looking at the meaning behind the word leader, # 2 Leader = hegeomai
      1. to lead,
        a. to go before;
        b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: a (royal) governor, viceroy, chief, controlling in counsel, the overseer or leader of Christian churches: official who leads") carries important responsibility and hence “casts a heavy vote” (influence) – and hence deserve cooperation by those who are led
        So who is it that holds this position over THEM? The only one Jesus refers to and prays for.
        SIMON :cool:
      And who backs Simon up through this so he doesn’t fail? JESUS.

      And with all this authority that Jesus gives Peter, what does Jesus also ask of Peter?

      στήρισον strengthen his brothers. stērízō (from stēringks, “a support that fixes, plants down”; akin to 2476 /hístēmi, “to stand,” having a duplication of the primitive Gk root*/sta*, “to make stand”) – properly, set fast (fix); give* support to secure* (firmly establish); solidly plant (which eliminates vacillation).

      Adding all this up, looking at all the definitions behind the terms , it Sure looks like Jesus is establishing the papacy. 🙂

      And because as leader, part of the definition(s) (above) is Peter deserves cooperation by those who are led by him, that makes his office, one of primacy and supremacy.
 
*Defintion: magisterium (Modern Catholic Dictionary)
*
*The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church. (Etym. Latin magister, master.) *
*

Supreme magisterium, supreme shepherd and teacher:

Vatican I - Lumen Gentium 25 25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)
 
personally – i found the following info – reveiling becasue th author was not trying to promote a particular “world view”

Ancient Church Fathers: What the Disciples of the Apostles Taught

The Ancient Church Fathers reveals the disciples of the twelve apostles, and what they taught, from their own writings.

It documents that the same doctrine was faithfully transmitted to their descendants in the first few centuries.

It also describes where, when, and by whom, the doctrines began to change.

The ancient church fathers make it very easy to know for sure what the complete teachings of Jesus and the twelve apostles were.

You will learn, from their own writings, what the first century disciples taught about the various doctrines that divide our church today.

You will learn what was discussed at the Seven General Councils and why.

You will learn about the cults and cult leaders who began to change doctrine and spread their heresy.

And you will learn how those heresies became the standard teaching in the medieval church.

A partial list of doctrines the ancient church discussed are:

Abortion Animals sacrifices Antichrist Arminianism Bible or tradition Calvinism Circumcision Deity of Jesus Christ Demons Euthanasia Evolution False gospels False prophets Foreknowledge Free will Gnostic cults Homosexuality Idolatry Islam Israel’s return Jewish food laws

Mary’s virginity Mary’s assumption

Meditation The Nicolaitans Paganism Predestination premillennialism

Purgatory

Psychology Reincarnation Replacement theology

Roman Catholicism

The Sabbath Salvation Schism of Nepos Sin / Salvation The soul Spiritual gifts Transubstantiation Yoga Women in ministry

This book is brought to you by Biblefacts Ministries, Biblefacts.org

As an avid history buff, this book is so satisfying as it gets as close to eyewittnesses as possible. It should be used in any apologetics course taught or studied

in , my opinion, for that very reason. But more astonding than the clear and concise tracing of each father and topic

, truth and error, is a short couple of pages on an ancient document that is said to be a written response by Christ.

This,in fact. would be the only one!! Getting to read the circumstances and actual note was so very thrilling!! Why aren’t more scholars sharing that with others?

The author seems to go to great lengths to explain the steps he takes to uncover the origin of both the truth and error of our Christian faith.

The book is very clear in thought and very balanced in approach. The material speaks volumes as to how far our various churches may have strayed from the original teaching of our Lord. It is a great check up. It will definitely open eyes to many myths, traditions, and flase teachings that have crept into the church.

It is worth getting for anyone who believes it is better to study history by studying it from eyewittness accounts or close sources!
 
Instead of bringing very important and very complex questions like this to biased forums, why don’t you ask these questions to professional theologians who have thoroughly studied these issues? All asking such questions here will do is reinforce the beliefs you already have. If you are honestly seeking the truth it is always best to consider the strongest arguments all sides have to offer. You likely won’t find the best arguments for an Orthodox Christian position on a Roman Catholic website.

I recommend the following. Both are relatively easy to get through:
  1. The Primacy of Peter
  2. You Are Peter
 
truthseeker32 said:
Instead of bringing very important and very complex questions like this to biased forums, why don’t you ask these questions to professional theologians who have thoroughly studied these issues? All asking such questions here will do is reinforce the beliefs you already have. If you are honestly seeking the truth it is always best to consider the strongest arguments all sides have to offer. You likely won’t find the best arguments for an Orthodox Christian position on a Roman Catholic website.

I recommend the following. Both are relatively easy to get through:
  1. The Primacy of Peter
  2. You Are Peter
Click to expand...
Gee, I had hoped that some Orthodox would contribute to my understanding.

But thanks for the recommendations.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Gee, I had hoped that some Orthodox would contribute to my understanding.

But thanks for the recommendations.
Click to expand...
We might on the Other-Religions forum. 🙂

I figured you were looking for the Eastern Catholic view so I wasn’t gonna jump in.
 
Thank you sir. Although I fail sometimes I try to be respectful. 👍
 
Also curious to here the distinction between primacy and supremacy, and how Peter only excercised primacy, yet never supremacy.

The Scripture referenced I would be most interested in addressing would be Acts 1:16-22 particularly his command to appoint a replacement for Judas’ vacancy, and if this could be challenged.

Another would be Acts 10: 44-48. Here Peter acts as a sole initiator, without the consulting of a Council’s authority. Men did criticize him and he graciously explained his vision and testimony to what the Spirit revealed. They were silenced then, just as everyone was at the Council regarding the same issue.

Personally, I see some of the legitimate concern for the excercise of the Bishop of Rome’s power seemingly increased after the first few Councils, but im not convinced the end result is against the highest Tradition we have, which is Scripture.

What seems to be more of an issue in all of this is the churches which do come from Sacred Tradition and yet are not all unified under one Faith. This is why I felt that the (non salvific) matter of the celebration date of Pascha to be very interesting in the early Church. To me, it seemed to be a genuine effort of two popes to unify the Church stronger, but unfortunately resulted in degrading the organic (as in the Way of Christ naturally working) essence of the Papacy. But this is not to ignore the fact that popes have also been responsible for degrading the organic relationship and respect towards all or particular Bishops at times.

But, I really hope to hear some direct answers to questions #1 and #2 from the OP. It seems really important for the Apostolic Churches to reconcile these things. God willing, we may see this reconciliation.
 
Seraphim73 said:
We might on the Other-Religions forum. 🙂

I figured you were looking for the Eastern Catholic view so I wasn’t gonna jump in.
Click to expand...
No, it’s okay. I know that a lot of EO prefer this forum to some of the others…at least that the way it has been in the past.

Additionally, I thought that Eastern Catholics might provide a sort of bridge since they might have more familiarity with Orthodox thinking.

Now that Isaiah has started his own thread on the topic, perhaps these two should be merged over there. I’ll ask the mod.
 
rcwitness said:
Also curious to here the distinction between primacy and supremacy, and how Peter only excercised primacy, yet never supremacy.
Click to expand...
Precisely. It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Which is why I only want to listen to folks explain that.

I have no plans to present a view here.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Precisely. It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Which is why I only want to listen to folks explain that.

I have no plans to present a view here.
Click to expand...
When Orthodox Christians object to the Supremacy of Rome they have in mind the current powers Roman Catholicism ascribes to the Pope. Rome was seen as a court of appeals in the early Church; Rome could speak on behalf of the other bishops, but not independent of them; Rome could not exercise jurisdiction outside of its own; Rome could not speak infallibly on its own, etc. With this in mind I think the distinction between Primacy and Supremacy. Rome was the first among fellow bishops who were his peers, not the bishop of bishops like a king over lesser nobles.

I would turn your question back in your direction and ask where in the Bible it proves Peter was supreme in the sense that Roman Catholics understand Papal Supremacy.
 
Randy_Carson said:
No, it’s okay. I know that a lot of EO prefer this forum to some of the others…at least that the way it has been in the past.

Additionally, I thought that Eastern Catholics might provide a sort of bridge since they might have more familiarity with Orthodox thinking.

Now that Isaiah has started his own thread on the topic, perhaps these two should be merged over there. I’ll ask the mod.
Click to expand...
What he means is, we Orthodox are (technically) not allowed to debate in this subforum, but we can in the Non-Catholic Religions subforum. So if you want a Catholic/Orthodox dialogue that has less of a chance of getting locked, remake the thread over there.
 
wynd said:
What he means is, we Orthodox are (technically) not allowed to debate in this subforum, but we can in the Non-Catholic Religions subforum. So if you want a Catholic/Orthodox dialogue that has less of a chance of getting locked, remake the thread over there.
Click to expand...
No debate. Just looking for working definitions that would make the distinction between the two terms clear.

We Catholics are not allowed to debate here, either. Believe me, I know…
 
Randy_Carson said:
No debate. Just looking for working definitions that would make the distinction between the two terms clear.

We Catholics are not allowed to debate here, either. Believe me, I know…
Click to expand...
The way I understand the distinction made by some Orthodox is that primacy involves a place of honor. Also, primacy involves the prerogative to call and preside over councils. Finally, primacy would involve some sort of role as an arbiter of disputes among other bishops. Supremacy involves things such as universal ordinary jurisdiction and infallibility.
 
RyanBlack said:
The way I understand the distinction made by some Orthodox is that primacy involves a place of honor. Also, primacy involves the prerogative to call and preside over councils. Finally, primacy would involve some sort of role as an arbiter of disputes among other bishops. Supremacy involves things such as universal ordinary jurisdiction and infallibility.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Ryan.

That is helpful.
 
steve_b said:
Using scripture alone, I’ve used this passage as an argument in the past for primacy and supremacy… although I don’t use this passage alone to make those points 😉

The following links are operational

Lk 22 24 A dispute φιλονεικία also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest . 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader ἡγούμενος as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.
28 “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you 30 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, behold, Satan demanded to have you,d] that he might sift youe] like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen στήρισον your brethren.”

Looking at those Greek words

  1. *]φιλονεικία people DO love to argue about authority :rolleyes:
    *]ἡγούμενος and one of THEM is the leader.

    Looking at the meaning behind the word leader, # 2 Leader = hegeomai
    1. to lead,
      a. to go before;
      b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: a (royal) governor, viceroy, chief, controlling in counsel, the overseer or leader of Christian churches: official who leads") carries important responsibility and hence “casts a heavy vote” (influence) – and hence deserve cooperation by those who are led
      So who is it that holds this position over THEM? The only one Jesus refers to and prays for.
      SIMON :cool:
    And who backs Simon up through this so he doesn’t fail? JESUS.

    And with all this authority that Jesus gives Peter, what does Jesus also ask of Peter?

    στήρισον strengthen his brothers. stērízō (from stēringks, “a support that fixes, plants down”; akin to 2476 /hístēmi, “to stand,” having a duplication of the primitive Gk root*/sta*, “to make stand”) – properly, set fast (fix); give* support to secure* (firmly establish); solidly plant (which eliminates vacillation).

    Adding all this up, looking at all the definitions behind the terms , it Sure looks like Jesus is establishing the papacy. 🙂

    And because as leader, part of the definition(s) (above) is Peter deserves cooperation by those who are led by him, that makes his office, one of primacy and supremacy.
Click to expand...

  1. Hi steve,

    Good job in presenting case. As you know it is an old dialogue . Others have studied and have case for their views also.

    No one denies that Peter was a “leader” of the twelve. The Orthodox say it nicely, “first amongst equals”. Even your definition of leader gives many types , many functions. You assume many of them(beyond “leader” or “go before”) to develop papacy. You also assume that in Luke 22 Jesus was referring to Peter soley for the role, because he prayed for him alone. Never the less not denying that Peter did stabilize , make stand , the twelve. Just that Paul is said to have done exact same thing(same greek word) for the Roman church and the Thessalonian church etc. A simple search also reveals that the same Greek word you primarily attach to Peter is the exact term used for Barnabas and Paul and really all elders,bishops ,even a council (Acts 14, Hebrews 13).

    Understand any reference to be in line with Peter, as a literal and symbolic unity in spirit and truth. Just do not see the current papacy in all of this, nor the succession part. Folks have to admit the unique and crucial aspect of the beginning and establishing of the church. The trajectory is given, "we have lift off’ and the booster rocket has done its job. Of course leadership is always needed, but it was shown to be shared (bishops, elders) , and councils resolved matters when needed.

    We all know for sure Jesus gave us the twelve apostles , and Peter as leader. Can not say that Jesus gave us any pope thereafter. Certainly not all of them. But He does give us a “man for all seasons” , as times and trials may call for. Just do not want to strictly institutionalize God’s appointments as the CC does.

    Blessings
 
  1. From what I know, primacy (First among equals) as applied to the Pope would mean that when there is so great a conflict among the parts of the Church that even certain Patriarchs are at odds, he can settle the dispute, ONLY THEN offering a supreme decision that must be followed to preserve unity and doctrine. Outside of such circumstances, the Pope would be equal to every other patriarch, being the Patriarch of the West. In these situations, he would work as a brother Patriarch with the others. If an ecumenical council was called, he would be a voice among many for the truth of the Faith to be preserved and clarified.
Supremacy would be a top-down approach, meaning that the Pope decides any matter, obviously taking into consideration the imput of other patriarchs, but deciding and authorizing a position regardless of them. In terms of an ecumenical council, it would only be truly ecumenical because he authorized the conclusions it provides.
  1. Peter’s reception of the Keys is based upon the Old Testament (Isaiah 22). The Tradition was, back then, when the Davidic King was to go away for a period of time he would charge the Prime Minister of his 12 Ministers to rule on his behalf. From what I learned from Scott Hahn, paraphrased, “if the Ministers were divided on an issue, say, the Minister of Finance wanted to go to war with a neighbouring gentile nation, but the Minister of Tourism opposed this, the Prime Minister would step in and make an authoritative decision of whether or not to go to war.”
That’s all I know on the matter concerning the Davidic Prime Minister. But, based on what I see so far, Peter would be said to have primacy instead of supremacy because that’s what seems to fit the picture best. Why have Twelve Ministers if you really only need one? Why not have Peter alone as the Apostle, and a bunch of bishops underneath him? All the Apostles had “binding and loosing power” (Matthew 18), but only Peter had the Keys. Why give the others this power? Also, Peter while Peter does explain what the Spirit was doing with the gentiles in Acts 15, the first bishop of Jerusalem, James the brother of the Lord pretty much ratifies the decisions of the council. The context of Acts 15 definitely shows disagreement in the beginning with the party of the Pharisees in the Church. In verse 19, it clearly says that James makes a “judgment.” Within verse 25, it, however, says that everyone (the Apostles and elders) “came to one accord.” Therefore, there is a tension in this passage in regards to both positions (primacy or supremacy). Acts 15 could have shown the need for Peter’s primacy or supremacy, but everyone, somehow reached a consensus. It can also be argued that James had a role of supremacy and not Peter, or even that he had primacy. Finally, it could also show that the words of the Holy Spirit in the prophets had either the role of primacy or supremacy. Really ambiguous. Jesus is the one with the Keys, although this sort of different, in Revelation. However, technically, we can say that Apostles are like “sacraments” of the Trinity’s Will.

That’s why we would also either need to know more about Jewish Tradition in regards to the Prime Minister vs. the other Ministers, or would also have to consult the history of the early Church outside of the Bible on the matter. Furthermore, With Jewish Tradition and the Old Testament, another important question needs to be asked: since the Old Testament prophets and Second Temple Judaism apocalyptic writers, often, eschatologized (making what was not good enough in the Old better in their typological anticipations OR making what was not universal more universal) earlier Old Testament passages in their typology to understand the coming of the Messiah (consider, for example, when Isaiah says that in the Latter Days, eunuchs and even gentiles shall be priests!), shouldn’t we do the same when making a link between the Old and the New? Or should we just throw the Old, as it is with its limitations, on top of the New, which is an exceedingly better covenant?

The more you think of it, one person may see supremacy at work in the role of the Pope while another person may see primacy, at least when there’s division in the Church and order needs to be restored. Either way, he resolves it. I think the Orthodox would object to him declaring dogmas without an ecumenical council, such as when he declared the Assumption of the Virgin and her Immaculate Conception to be dogmas (though they would actually agree with the Assumption).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top