Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[phil19034]

ETA: You know they are going to come back with the Augustine quote about believing the Gospel because of the authority of Rome, lol. However, it’s still missing immediate, supreme, full, ordinary, etc…

He was referring to the synod, not the Pope. Remember the pope called a synod to regarding the matter. The Pope didn’t single handily dictate. Popes usually use Councils to flush out ideas, theories, disagreements, etc. But the Pope does have final say as all councils are only valid if in communion with the See of Peter.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Pope was not ignored. Constantinople didn’t become a Patriarch until later (I will get you a quote and source later).

And he didn’t get that extra title until after the Schism.

Finally, I find it interesting that he was given all unchurched lands, but did nothing with them.

That’s simply not true. None of your points. Constantinople did become a patriarch, was moved to the second place in the diptychs and began using the title Ecumenical Patriarch. All you have to do is look at St Gregory’s scathing polemic agaisnt the idea of a “universal bishop” to see that. It was written in a letter to the Patriarch. As to not doing anything with the “unchurched” lands ever heard of these guys?

 

[Seraphim73]

He was referring to the synod, not the Pope. Remember the pope called a synod to regarding the matter. The Pope didn’t single handily dictate. Popes usually use Councils to flush out ideas, theories, disagreements, etc. But the Pope does have final say as all councils are only valid if in communion with the See of Peter.

The pope doesn’t have the final say in the Roman synod? Honestly I think that’s absurd. The synod did nothing without its head. Also why didn’t St Augustine say if the judges at Rome were at fault there still remained the pope instead of a council. If the pope could judge wouldn’t you expect him to judge his own synod?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So Randy kicked me out of his Royal Steward thread.

Now, it would be really helpful if you would state the resolution you plan on affirming.

Like in one sentence (or less ), what the heck is the point you’re trying to make?

I’ve been reading your posts for days, and I still have no real idea of what you’re driving at.

What are you trying to prove? One sentence.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is a very useful collection of information. I can see why Randy wants it nowhere near his “apologetics”.

Right. Because Catholic apologists have no interest in facts.

Or I don’t at the very least.

 

[josie_L]

But they went ahead and moved Constantinople to the second position anyway. And the title was used as well. I’m sorry but the fact that the pope was completely ignored doesn’t help your case.

That’s because they were putting their politics before their faith as per usual.

 

[josie_L]

The pope doesn’t have the final say in the Roman synod? Honestly I think that’s absurd. The synod did nothing without its head. Also why didn’t St Augustine say if the judges at Rome were at fault there still remained the pope instead of a council. If the pope could judge wouldn’t you expect him to judge his own synod?

Yes, the pope does have the final say in that without his affirmation (not that of the other patriarchs or bishops specifically), a council cannot be regarded as ecumenical. In other words, for a council to be regarded as ecumenical (universally accepted) it absolutely needs the ratification of the pope.

 

[Non_Serviam]

This is a very useful collection of information. I can see why Randy wants it nowhere near his “apologetics”.

Right. Because Catholic apologists have no interest in facts.
Or I don’t at the very least.

You exhibit a tendency to misrepresent the statements of others when it is to your rhetorical advantage (see blue above). This isn’t conducive to good apologetics. Facts are good, but only if arguments about them are fairly noted and addressed.

Given that Isaiah45_9’s posts are mostly citations of Catholic primary sources, rhetorical exercises are less effective in challenging them, hence my statement that they would play less to your strengths.

 

[Seraphim73]

That’s because they were putting their politics before their faith as per usual.

Again, secondary to the question. Either way I wouldn’t harp on that too much when you have a bishop claiming the temporal authority to crown and depose monarchs.

I suppose you could try to make the case that for 600 years the pope alone was virtuous and all of the eastern patriarchs and eastern bishops put politics first but that argument wouldn’t be very persuasive. Not to mention that argument would betray quite a bit of anti-Greek prejudice.

 

[Seraphim73]

Yes, the pope does have the final say in that without his affirmation (not that of the other patriarchs or bishops specifically), a council cannot be regarded as ecumenical. In other words, for a council to be regarded as ecumenical (universally accepted) it absolutely needs the ratification of the pope.

But canon 28 of Chalcedon went into full effect after papal rejection. That may be your teaching now but Church history doesn’t support it. Either way we were speaking about a quote from St Augustine:

“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 defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” - Letter 43

Phil was trying to argue that St Augustine was speaking about the Roman synod not the pope. I pointed out how that was impossible because the Roman synod couldn’t do anything without its head. There are also other issues with that interpretation, especially in light of what you say about ecumenical councils. How can you say an ecumenical council requires papal approval but a local synod in Rome does not? Either you are right and the synod did require papal approval, in which case St Augustine condemns modern Catholic teaching; or the local synod did not require approval of the pope which also condemns modern Catholic teaching. And even if we accepts Phil’s entire premise St Augustine still condemns the modern teaching because he would have said there was appeal to the pope, not to an plenary council.

 

[josie_L]

Again, secondary to the question. Either way I wouldn’t harp on that too much when you have a bishop claiming the temporal authority to crown and depose monarchs.

No, it is not secondary to the question, i.e., those who upheld Constantinople has being the second see were politically motivated because had they been motivated by faith alone they would not have violated the Nicene canons, which is why Pope Leo was adamantly against it. It is they that erred and not Pope St. Leo (it was never accepted or recognized by the West), moreover, their refusal to accept Pope St. Leo’s judgement on the matter does not disprove supremacy anymore than the existence of heretical churches denies the validity of the one true Church.

I suppose you could try to make the case that for 600 years the pope alone was virtuous and all of the eastern patriarchs and eastern bishops put politics first but that argument wouldn’t be very persuasive. Not to mention that argument would betray quite a bit of anti-Greek prejudice.

Many of them actually did, or do you deny this?

 

[josie_L]

But canon 28 of Chalcedon went into full effect after papal rejection. That may be your teaching now but Church history doesn’t support it.

Canon 28 was rejected by the West, i.e., the pope, as such it was not universally accepted by the Church. This is a matter of fact not my own reading of history.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You exhibit a tendency to misrepresent the statements of others when it is to your rhetorical advantage (see blue above). This isn’t conducive to good apologetics. Facts are good, but only if arguments about them are fairly noted and addressed.

Given that Isaiah45_9’s posts are mostly citations of Catholic primary sources, rhetorical exercises are less effective in challenging them, hence my statement that they would play less to your strengths.

Isaiah is right; I did ask him to take this material to his own thread because it actually has nothing to offer in proving or disproving my OP in another thread. But let’s be clear: that was not a challenge from me to “step outside” and sort it out.

I don’t plan to participate actively in this thread since councils and canons are not one of my strengths. I’ll follow along, but I won’t have much to contribute.

I’ll say this, though: thus far, it appears he (and others) wants to make much of Dictatus Papae a non-infallible document of dubious authorship.

My argument regarding the Royal Steward, which he has NOT addressed directly, is based upon the inspired scriptures whose author we are sure of.

It’s simple really. Either Jesus fully intended to re-establish the perpetual office of the Royal Steward or He didn’t.

If He did, then it really doesn’t matter how many councils anyone quotes. Peter is it.

If He didn’t, then scripture, logic and the unfurling of history STILL support the development of the strong papacy that we see today - even if it was not understood clearly in the early church. Peter is still it.

But after a month or so, no one has really offered a solid refutation of the facts that I have laid out in half a dozen or so posts on the Royal Steward.

I’m begining to believe that no one can.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Now, it would be really helpful if you would state the resolution you plan on affirming.

Like in one sentence (or less ), what the heck is the point you’re trying to make?

I’ve been reading your posts for days, and I still have no real idea of what you’re driving at.

What are you trying to prove? One sentence.

Thanks.

Here’s your one sentence (for the 6th time I think):

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

 

[Seraphim73]

No, it is not secondary to the question, i.e., those who upheld Constantinople has being the second see were politically motivated because had they been motivated by faith alone they would not have violated the Nicene canons, which is why Pope Leo was adamantly against it. It is they that erred and not Pope St. Leo (it was never accepted in the West so it could not be considered universally binding anyways), moreover, their refusal to accept Pope St. Leo’s judgement on the matter does not disprove supremacy anymore than the existence of heretical churches denies the validity of the one true Church.

So the fact that a very large majority of the Church didn’t view the popes the way they viewed themselves doesn’t prove anything? I suppose again you could argue that but it’s not going to be convincing. Six centuries of consistent practice among what constituted a very large majority of the Church is certainly indicative of what the Church’s belief was. At least it would be in any context but this one.

Many of them actually did, or do you deny this?

Many of who did what?

 

[Seraphim73]

Canon 28 was rejected by the West, i.e., the pope, as such it was not universally accepted by the Church. This is a matter of fact not my own reading of history.

And it’s a matter of history the other 4 patriarchs ignored him and put it into place anyway and it has stayed that way till the present day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here’s your one sentence (for the 6th time I think):

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

Yes, I have read that many times. I would have expected you to provide a positive statement that you wished to affirm. Such as:

Ecumenical councils cannot be overridden by the Pope.

And then you would make your case.

Instead, you have offered this question - which is the approach taken in the the Madrid v. White debate, “Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?” Madrid, the Catholic denied, while White affirmed. But I digress.

So, that helps me understand what you’re trying to achieve, sort of.

And who is taking the other side?

 

[josie_L]

So the fact that a very large majority of the Church didn’t view the popes the way they viewed themselves doesn’t prove anything?

Nope, in fact, the bishops who upheld canon 28 (about 150 out of the 660 bishops present at Chalcedon) do not constitute a very large majority, moreover, these very bishops requested the ratification of this canon by Pope St. Leo, but it was not (the bishops in question were all from areas surrounding Constantinople as stated by the Patriarch of Constantinople in his letter to the bishop of Rome). It was refused because it was not motivated by faith but by politics, as such it had no weight whatsoever in the West.

Many of who did what?

Many Eastern bishops/patriarchs of that time put their politics ahead of their faith as attested to by history, i.e., caesaropapism was not a Latin invention but Byzantine in nature.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And it’s a matter of history the other 4 patriarchs ignored him and put it into place anyway and it has stayed that way till the present day.

Of course they did. They had everything to lose.

 

[josie_L]

And it’s a matter of history the other 4 patriarchs ignored him and put it into place anyway and it has stayed that way till the present day.

Oh you mean, that Alexandria and Antioch were okay with being bumped, forgive me if I don’t believe you, moreover, I have already stated that in order for canon to be UNIVERSALLY BINDING the bishop of Rome, the head of the earthly church and only primate of the West had to affirm it. Canon 28 was never universally accepted in the Church, and since the Church consisted of both East and West, you can hardly state that it is.