Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Seraphim73]

Even if you don’t accept the argument, Randy has posed good questions that deserve and answer. Was Matthias a “second class” apostle?

There is no such thing as a “second class” Apostle just like there aren’t second class bishops. There is only one Apostolic authority just like there is only one episcopal authority.

Your defense is a strawman. No one has claimed that any Bishop or Patriarch has “personal infallibilty”.

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

I don’t know how else to say it. If he, alone can teach infallibly it is personal and not corporate.

 

[guanophore]

But if you do not believe me, then allow me to issue to you a challenge. Without anything but Scripture, I wish for you to demonstrate that the so-called ‘monoepiscopacy’ (having one bishop alone in one city, who controls all of the presbyters and deacons there) is an apostolic arrangement and not some later arrangement (as was argued by St. Jerome).

I can easily accept that the monoepiscopacy developed over time in response to the needs of the Church. But I do think we see some seeds in the NT. The Apostle Paul left Titus in Crete, directing him to appoint elders in every place, and to teach and rule with “all authority”. Surely as the Bishop installed by the Apostle, no one on Crete would act outside of the authority appointed.

**

Cavaradossi:
After all, this claim seems to me to be an unspoken assumption behind your royal steward claim, so I find it reasonable to ask that this assumption be proved.**

I don’t really see the connection here at all. How does the instruction\direction given to Titus change if Peter is the Royal Steward? Such a position does not invalidate any of the authority of the rest of the Apostles.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I would like to you see you show where St. Jerome said what you allege, Cavaradossi. I’m not sure he did.

 

[benjohnson]

I’m glad to hear you say this, but where have you been, Ben?

I posted an excerpt from Cardinal Newman explaining this in the Lutheran thread days ago!

It’s not stretch for Lutherans to notice that the Papal office has been developing - that’s what we see happening over the last 1000 years, and especially in the last 500.

The trouble is that we reject most development:

Since neither an individual nor the Church as a whole is permitted to develop or augment the Christian doctrine, but are rather ordered and commanded by God to continue in the doctrine of the apostles, 2 Thess. 2:15; Acts 2:42, open questions must remain open questions.

Of course, we define our own development as just a restatement of the Gospel. I’m sure Cahtolics can do the same for their development. So we’re at an impasse.

Not to be included in the number of open questions are the following: The doctrine of the Church and the Ministry, of Sunday, of Chiliasm, and of Antichrist, these doctrines being clearly defined in Scripture.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I would like to you see you show where St. Jerome said what you allege, Cavaradossi. I’m not sure he did.

newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

 

[Protestor]

Can an ecumenical council be overridden by part of the Church, ex post facto?

What is the verdict it took me so long to read the intro to this that I think I missed the answer to this question. Can anyone point my to the appropriate posts on this thread.

 

[josie_L]

I would suggest it would do better if you studied it in the patristic sense.

Yes, you should do that in connection with SCRIPTURE.

 

[josie_L]

They forced him to sign because the council needed his approval.
The Council appealed to Vigilius in order to uphold its own decisions

That is the historical reality and the fathers and church historians unanimously testify that no council has force without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.

When anyone is excommunicated, the church does not look to them for their signature on the decisions at church councils. They don’t give a hoot about the excommunicated party because they are outside the church. But here this council we see the fathers after “excommunicating” Vigilius, refusing to let him go back to Rome unless he signs and gives approval of the council. Why would they do this if he were truly excommunicated?

He was not excommunicated, moreover, what Seraphim fails to neglect is that Emperor Justinian could have called a council rather than hold Pope Vigilius for 10 years (and only after he affirmed or gave his assent was he released), in other words, his consent was absolutely necessary for the council to have ecumenical force and Emperor Justinian knew this (so did the council).

 

[josie_L]

Britannica, Wiki, New Advent. The usual suspects

I have a history degree and those sources are not “documentation”, i.e., primary sources, which is what you were asking me.

The rest of the paragraph.

Then we should not accept the 2 or 5th council as per your definition of “ecumenical” because they were entirely Eastern in demographics.

Where the monarch is Jesus, yes. A single Bishop, no.

A Constitutional monarchy does not entail A SINGLE BISHOP, and nor does the Catholic Church for that matter, but to put in historical context, even in the Sanhedrin there was a high priest (Caiaphas) that sat on the chair of Moses, i.e., he was at the pinnacle of the priestly order in the Sanhedrin.

My version? Which ones of the Councils and Canon Laws that I have presented do you deny?

Your interpretation of them, without the benefit of Scripture and Tradition is what is lacking, i.e., canon law can only be interpreted when the proper interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is applied.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Then we should not accept the 2 or 5th council as per your definition of “ecumenical” because they were entirely Eastern in demographics.

But they already are accepted.

A Constitutional monarchy does not entail A SINGLE BISHOP, and nor does the Catholic Church for that matter, but to put in historical context, even in the Sanhedrin there was a high priest (Caiaphas) that sat on the chair of Moses, i.e., he was at the pinnacle of the priestly order in the Sanhedrin.

Canon Law says otherwise.

Your interpretation of them, without the benefit of Scripture and Tradition is what is lacking, i.e., canon law can only be interpreted when the proper interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is applied.

You still have not pointed out where my interpretation is wrong. You just said I was wrong and then nothing followed

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What is the verdict it took me so long to read the intro to this that I think I missed the answer to this question. Can anyone point my to the appropriate posts on this thread.

No.

Some pro-Rome have not said yes, while Canon Law says otherwise.

Chalcedon says any Bishop can be deposed.

Canon Law says:

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

 

[rcwitness]

This is a good read. Sorry if its been brought up, I have’nt been able to devote as much time as I would like to this.

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

 

[josie_L]

He was speaking Latin. Few people understood what he was saying. Either way being haughty and arrogant is not heresy. Saying nice things about the Bishop of Rome is not heresy. There were equally hyperbolic statements made about the emperor and no one turned that into dogma. You can’t look at statements through the lens of modern papal dogmas. No one at Chalcedon could have imagined in their wildest dreams that the papacy would become what it is today. They would have no reason to oppose something that didn’t exist.

This is BS, sorry Seraphim, but everything that was spoken at the council could have and would have been translated, i.e., there is no way that the papal legate could have stated the things he said without it causing some kind of kerfuffle if in fact it were untrue, i.e., it was not haughtiness or arrogance that caused Philip to speak those words but truth itself (and this no less at an ecumenical council). In fact, we know there were translators at ecumenical councils because at Chalcedon, we have proof that translations from Latin to Greek were provided:

When this had been translated into Greek by Beronician, the devout secretary of the divine consistory, the most reverend bishops tried out: So we all believe, so we were baptized, so we baptize, so we have believed, so we now believe.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

How many languages do you speak?

I speak three (French, English and Italian), and I understand quite a bit of Spanish.

And the tome was not read and then accepted.

Right after it was read, they declared:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus * ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away. *

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

It was read then the council fathers took FIVE DAYS to study what he wrote. There is a reason the tome was studied for five days. The tome was accepted after comparing it to what Cyril wrote and determining Leo agreed with Cyril. It was not accepted because it was from the Pope. Were you not aware the council took five days to study Leo’s tome?

Yes, I was aware there was a delay of some sort, however, are you aware that prior to the council many bishops had already accepted the tome (this would include the patriarch of Constantinople), moreover, I never stated that the bishops should mindlessly accept Pope St. Leo’s tome because he held the primacy (not even Pope St. Leo had this opinion of himself as successor of Peter and head of the Church), i.e., they obviously agreed with its content because it was, in fact, orthodox, those that were uncertain of its theology (doesn’t state who these bishops were) were in the minority. Session Five of Chalcedon pretty much confirms this, in fact, what I find interesting is that the bishops of Illyria state:

The most blessed bishops of Illyria said:** Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome. **

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

So if Pope Francis were to excommunicate a bishop it’s possible that a council could revisit that decision?

Has that ever happened, i.e., that a bishop was excommunicated by the bishop of Rome without any (name removed by moderator)ut from other bishops??

Actually collegiality is a condemned heresy. Thankfully recent popes seem to be walking that back somewhat.

Definition of collegiality understood in the correct context:

Definition of COLLEGIALITY

: the cooperative relationship of colleagues; specifically : the participation of bishops in the government of the Roman Catholic Church in collaboration with the pope

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collegiality

Collegiality understood in its proper context is not heretical, it simply means that there is cooperation between the episcopate and the bishop of Rome, i.e., it is not the pope singlehandedly administering to the Church or espousing the faith, which is why I mentioned the 22 ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

But they already are accepted.

According to your definition of ecumenical they should not have been.

Canon Law says otherwise.

Are you a canon law expert??? Moreover, I hardly think you can interpret canon law without having a correct understanding of Scripture and Tradition first, i.e., if you misinterpret these you will misinterpret canon law. So it would be wise of you to first establish where we are wrong as per Scripture and Tradition before you move along to canon law.

You still have not pointed out where my interpretation is wrong. You just said I was wrong and then nothing followed

I have indeed pointed out you are wrong, in fact, every post I’ve written on this thread points to patristics, primary sources, scripture and canon law.

 

[josie_L]

Were they ok with it? I don’t know but they accepted it. And again, it’s not a question of what Rome accepted, it’s a matter of what the rest of the Church accepted. In fact it’s not at all surprising the popes wouldn’t accept it.

And it’s not surprising that the patriarch of Constantinople should accept it, although if you were to read Anatolius’s (patriarch of Constantinople) letter to Pope St. Leo you get the sense that canon 28 was not exactly “kosher” (note that the Church of Alexandria was now in the control of Constantinople as Dioscorus was excommunicated and all his adherents had schismed from the Catholic Church):

In response the Patriarch Anatolius wrote this letter

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo apologizing for Canon 28:

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.

freewebs.com/orthodoxcatholic/Canon28.html

Anatolius admits that it was reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople that were eager about it, i.e., it was they that concocted canon 28, even though according to canon law, Alexandria and Antioch could not be divested of their position in the Church (albeit they were at least cognizant of the fact that the “whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of your Blessedness”, which they never received).

 

[Seraphim73]

This is BS, sorry Seraphim, but everything that was spoken at the council could have and would have been translated, i.e., there is no way that the papal legate could have stated the things he said without it causing some kind of kerfuffle if in fact it were untrue, i.e., it was not haughtiness or arrogance that caused Philip to speak those words but truth itself (and this no less at an ecumenical council). In fact, we know there were translators at ecumenical councils because at Chalcedon, we have proof that translations from Latin to Greek were provided:

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

I speak three (French, English and Italian), and I understand quite a bit of Spanish.

Right after it was read, they declared:

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

Yes, I was aware there was a delay of some sort, however, are you aware that prior to the council many bishops had already accepted the tome (this would include the patriarch of Constantinople), moreover, I never stated that the bishops should mindlessly accept Pope St. Leo’s tome because he held the primacy (not even Pope St. Leo had this opinion of himself as successor of Peter and head of the Church), i.e., they obviously agreed with its content because it was, in fact, orthodox, those that were uncertain of its theology (doesn’t state who these bishops were) were in the minority. Session Five of Chalcedon pretty much confirms this, in fact, what I find interesting is that the bishops of Illyria state:

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

Has that ever happened, i.e., that a bishop was excommunicated by the bishop of Rome without any (name removed by moderator)ut from other bishops??

Definition of collegiality understood in the correct context:

Collegiality understood in its proper context is not heretical, it simply means that there is cooperation between the episcopate and the bishop of Rome, i.e., it is not the pope singlehandedly administering to the Church or espousing the faith, which is why I mentioned the 22 ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.

“It was not till the Renaissance that the age of convenient grammars and dictionaries arose. St. Gregory I (d. 1604) had been apocrisary at Constantinople, but he does not seem to have learned Greek; Pope Vigilius (540-55) spent eight unhappy years there and yet never knew the language. Photius was the profoundest scholar of his age, yet he knew no Latin. When Leo IX (1048-54) wrote in Latin to Peter III of Antioch, Peter had to send the letter to Constantinople to find out what it was about. Such cases occur continually and confuse all the relations between East and West. At councils the papal legates addressed the assembled fathers in Latin and no one understood them; the council deliberated in Greek and the legates wondered what was going on. So there arose suspicion on both sides. Interpreters had to be called in; could their versions be trusted?”

newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm

Either way haughtiness and arrogance are not heresy. It’s when you turn those into dogmatic definitions that the issues arise.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

According to your definition of ecumenical they should not have been.

I see, we are after discrediting the messenger in order to taint the message. Got it.

Neither one of us determines what Council is ecumenical or not. So my definition, or lack thereof is a moot point and a non-sequitur - other than furtherance of the above.

Are you a canon law expert??? Moreover, I hardly think you can interpret canon law without having a correct understanding of Scripture and Tradition first, i.e., if you misinterpret these you will misinterpret canon law. So it would be wise of you to first establish where we are wrong as per Scripture and Tradition before you move along to canon law.

Why would I need to be a canon law expert? Do you deny any of the Canon law I presented to mean anything other than what the letter presents?

And just an fyi, while not canon law - I did apply law (Local, State and Federal) and interpretation of law in RL (That is outside the virtual reality of the innernets) for over 20 years. Don’t let the informality of forum posting misinform you

Also, as a matter of fact - I referenced the three legged stool in my very first post on this thread. I have presented nothing - I mean NOTHING outside the living Tradition of the Whole Undivided Church. Not that I think, or I suspect. But plain facts. All I’ve gotten is that they don’t mean what they say. Like “any” doesn’t mean “any”, or arguments from silence.

I have presented where you are wrong. The Bishop of Rome in its present form did not arrive at said position with the Whole Church. There were no exceptions for ANY Bishop to be deposed. Except when Rome claimed said exception for Herself.

Seriously, Can you present any precedent to such a claim during those first 1,000+ years?

I have indeed pointed out you are wrong, in fact, every post I’ve written on this thread points to patristics, primary sources, scripture and canon law.

And yet, nothing you have presented proves anything wrong.

In fact, have you read the Vatican and USCCB documents I referenced? It’s like they have leprosy and no one wants to touch them.

 

[guanophore]

These are a couple of points of which the concepts have been coming to mind. If the EO wont come together in a “whole Council” then they are not eligable to say what the Council does determine.

I don’t think this is really fair. Although Protestants and Orthodox were invited to the Vat 2 council, they were invited as “observers” only. That hardly allows anyone to have a say, much less any part in determining anything.

I personally see the valid Traditions of these churches coming to a bind, and the Tradition which was established by Christ to overcome schism (namely the primacy/supremacy/immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome) became a stumbling block for the Eastern and Oriental churches.

Indeed it has, as well as the practice of developing doctrine. And most of this is related to how the office is exercised. I think, because it is the duty of the successor of Peter to lead the way around these stumbling blocks.

Everyones concerns here would be resolved by a Great Council, and it seems that the lack of “participation” from the Orthodox is disallowing this.

How would their participation as an “observer” resolve anything?

 

[guanophore]

Why is it every time a bishop resists Rome they are self aggrandizing and every time a pope claims authority for themselves it’s not?

Double standard?

 

[rcwitness]

Here’s a section of the article I posted regarding the Eastern schism:

The first cause of all was the gradual estrangement of East and West. To a great extent this estrangement was inevitable. The East and West grouped themselves around different centres — at any rate as immediate centres — used different rites and spoke different languages. **We must distinguish the position of the pope as visible head of all Christendom from his place as Patriarch of the West. **The position, sometimes now advanced by anti-papal controversialists, and that all bishops are equal in jurisdiction, was utterly unknown in the early Church. From the very beginning we find a graduated hierarchy of metropolitans, exarchs, and primates. We find, too, from the beginning the idea that a bishop inherits the dignity of the founder of his see, that, therefore, the successor of an Apostle has special rights and privileges. This graduated hierarchy is important as explaining the pope’s position. He was not the one immediate superior of each bishop; he was the chief of an elaborate organization, as it were the apex of a carefully graduated pyramid. The consciousness of the early Christian probably would have been that the heads of Christendom were the patriarchs; then further he knew quite well that the chief patriarch sat at Rome. However, the immediate head of each part of the Church was its patriarch. After Chalcedon (451) we must count five patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm