Primacy but not Supremacy?

[tiny_augustine]

Having only now read the responses of others, I think RyanBlack nailed it. Surpremacy would be exactly as he states. This reminded me of Catholic sources that I read (can’t remember if it was Vatican II documents, or something from the Catholic Enclyclopedia…anyway, it was reliable) wherein the Pope was said to be able to determine even the disciplines and Liturgies of other Churches, but surrenders these until he decides otherwise. The question is: is the Church (represented by all her bishops) infallible (obviously only in certain circumstances), thereby being “the pillar and foundation of truth” OR is only the Pope, who alone ratifies ecumenical councils (which, in the early Church, were considered to be infallible)? I think that while many aspects of supremacy and primacy eventually show them to be exactly the same thing, certain aspects do distinguish them, and Orthodoxy, according to these actual distinctions, would object to supremacy because of its impact on not just ecclesiology but the theology behind ecclesiology. I don’t know if that makes sense…my brain is fried…goodnight all!

 

[Vico]

Having only now read the responses of others, I think RyanBlack nailed it. Surpremacy would be exactly as he states. This reminded me of Catholic sources that I read (can’t remember if it was Vatican II documents, or something from the Catholic Enclyclopedia…anyway, it was reliable) wherein the Pope was said to be able to determine even the disciplines and Liturgies of other Churches, but surrenders these until he decides otherwise. The question is: is the Church (represented by all her bishops) infallible (obviously only in certain circumstances), thereby being “the pillar and foundation of truth” OR is only the Pope, who alone ratifies ecumenical councils (which, in the early Church, were considered to be infallible)? I think that while many aspects of supremacy and primacy eventually show them to be exactly the same thing, certain aspects do distinguish them, and Orthodoxy, according to these actual distinctions, would object to supremacy because of its impact on not just ecclesiology but the theology behind ecclesiology. I don’t know if that makes sense…my brain is fried…goodnight all!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7557234&postcount=123
Bishop Gasser (Vatican I) noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.
262
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7583935&postcount=262
In his relatio, Bishop Gasser answered the very question before the people here, in this way:

“It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”

Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).

The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55

 

[Lucretius]

Rome could speak on behalf of the other bishops, but not independent of them;

I agree.

Rome could not exercise jurisdiction outside of its own;

I disagree: there are examples of the Bishop of Rome acting outside of his jurisdiction to correct Eastern sees and even Eastern Patriarchs.

Rome could not speak infallibly on its own, etc.

“Did not” is different from “could not.”

Christi pax.