Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[josie_L]

That’s the Catholic position.

Of course in Jesus’ prayer show that His will is for all of us to be one. We have ALL contributed to the division, pointing fingers solves nothing.

Supreme, immediate, absolute and ordinary jurisdiction.

Yes, Rome expects this from anyone who wants to be in communion with Rome.

Non Sequitur in light of the above.

Supreme, immediate, absolute and ordinary jurisdiction. Which the Pope is free to exercise without any impediments.

But, hey. Maybe I’m wrong about this as well.

Sacred Tradition doesn’t matter.
Church history doesn’t matter.
Church Councils don’t matter.

All we need is Matt 16:18.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Cephas.

:sad_yes:

Of course, there are impediments, i.e., the pope is bound by the truth already revealed and/or defined by the Church, moreover, “freely” does not mean he can do whatever he wants, it means he cannot be “coerced”, moreover, his gifts/primacy

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.

1. 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 successor 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.

1. 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.

He does not have absolute authority, which is what you are suggesting, i.e., this is not nor ever has been the Catholic position on supremacy.

p.s. The part I quoted comes from a CAF member with a great knowledge in canon law (VICO).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course, there are impediments, i.e., the pope is bound by the truth already revealed and/or defined by the Church, moreover, “freely” does not mean he can do whatever he wants, it means he cannot be “coerced”, moreover, his gifts/primacy.

You make an important point.

Each pope is limited by what has been defined before him, and in one sense, this means that over time, popes are more constrained than were their predecessors since nothing each teaches may contradict an ever-expanding body of defined doctrine. (The guard rails for Pope Francis are more clearly present than they were for Peter or Linus for whom they were almost non-existent.)

In another sense, of course, it could be said that they actually enjoy greater freedom as a result of having those definitions firmly established.

Finally, it must be remembered at all times that infallibility prevents a pope from teaching anything that is not already bound or loosed in heaven - perhaps the greatest “impediment” of all.

 

[josie_L]

You make an important point.

Each pope is limited by what has been defined before him, and in one sense, this means that over time, popes are more constrained by those definitions than were their predecessors since nothing that each teaches may contradict defined doctrine.

In another sense, of course, it could be said that they actually enjoy greater freedom as a result of having those definitions firmly established.

Finally, it must be remembered at all times that infallibility prevents a pope from teaching anything that is not already bound or loosed in heaven - perhaps the greatest “impediment” of all.

Exactly!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Of course, there are impediments, i.e., the pope is bound by the truth already revealed and/or defined by the Church, moreover, “freely” does not mean he can do whatever he wants, it means he cannot be “coerced”, moreover, his gifts/primacy

Since he has been guaranteed infallibility, it would then be impossible for him to be coerced.

At which point, there will be a declaration that he really wasn’t a real Pope.

He does not have absolute authority, which is what you are suggesting, i.e., this is not nor ever has been the Catholic position on supremacy.

I have to emphasize on the feedback I’m getting:

1. 
   *]Any doesn’t really mean any.
   *]Freely doesn’t really mean freely.
   *]To recognize doesn’t really mean to recognize.
   *]Now: absolute doesn’t really mean absolute.
   
   Lumen Gentium (NOT ME) says and I quote:
   

   **In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.
   **

   The next step is that:
   
   Always doesn’t really mean always
   
   :banghead::banghead::banghead:
   
   And we give Protestants a hard time about Sola Scriptura being a hermeneutical principle…
   
   :nope:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Finally, it must be remembered at all times that infallibility prevents a pope from teaching anything that is not already bound or loosed in heaven - perhaps the greatest “impediment” of all.

And when he does, he’ll be declared an Anti-Pope…

So being a Pope doesn’t really mean being a Pope?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Of course, there are impediments, i.e., the pope is bound by the truth already revealed and/or defined by the Church, moreover, “freely” does not mean he can do whatever he wants, it means he cannot be “coerced”, moreover, his gifts/primacy

The Pope is above **all **the Bishops and the **entire **Church. ALL the Bishops and the ENTIRE Church are bound to him.

Is there an article of faith that says otherwise?

 

[rcwitness]

Of course in Jesus’ prayer show that His will is for all of us to be one. We have ALL contributed to the division, pointing fingers solves nothing.

Now this prayer and desire from Jesus is precisely where I see a “higher Tradition” of a Chief Bishop in Peter intended to maintain unity and universal Confirmation. The fact is, is that much lesser disputes over tradition caused jeleousy and resentment to overcome humility and lawfullness before the phrases “Supreme, immediate, absolute and ordinary jurisdiction” were defined in the West.

Supreme, immediate, absolute and ordinary jurisdiction.

Ultimately, yes. And this post explains, how this would be applied and respected in regards to Patriarchs.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12459859&postcount=338

 

[josie_L]

Since he has been guaranteed infallibility, it would then be impossible for him to be coerced.

Obviously, the pope cannot preach as dogma that which is not, however, you have taken to define “freely” (with respect to papal authority) as a license for the pope to do anything he wants within the Church, and I have already stated that that is not the case, that is, there are indeed impediments to what he is allowed to do, i.e., his authority is not absolute. Thus, if you keep insisting that “freely” means unrestricted authority than you are simply distorting CATHOLIC teaching, “freely” means exercising his papal authority without coercion.

I have to emphasize on the feedback I’m getting:

1. 
   Any doesn’t really mean any.
   *]Freely doesn’t really mean freely.
   *]To recognize doesn’t really mean to recognize.
   *]Now: absolute doesn’t really mean absolute.

1. 
   You expect me to believe that your interpretation of Vatican I, which contradicts Church teachings is the correct interpretation???
   

   And we give Protestants a hard time about Sola Scriptura being a hermeneutical principle…

   There is no such thing as “Sola Petros”, on the other hand Sola Scriptura does indeed exist.

 

[josie_L]

The Pope is above **all **the Bishops and the **entire **Church. ALL the Bishops and the ENTIRE Church are bound to him.

Is there an article of faith that says otherwise?

He is the chief bishop, but even the chief bishop is bound, and I repeat the word “bound” by the Church constitution (as defined by both Vatican I and II), and by the deposit of faith, i.e., that which has been revealed by Christ and exhorted by the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Of course, there are impediments, i.e., the pope is bound by the truth already revealed and/or defined by the Church, moreover, “freely” does not mean he can do whatever he wants, it means he cannot be “coerced”, moreover, his gifts/primacy

He does not have absolute authority, which is what you are suggesting, i.e., this is not nor ever has been the Catholic position on supremacy.

Perhaps it will help review the infallible document?

The Papal perogatives are part of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church defined solemnly at the [First] Vatican Council on July 18, 1870:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
2. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
3. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
4. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]
5. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
6. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
7. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
8. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

I agree with what you say, that the Pope is also subject to the Word of God, but these would not be considered “impediments” - more like parameters.

One of the purposes of defning what it meant to be unimpeded was to state that the Pope has the right to communicate across political/State lines and authorities. ie, it was not acceptable to prevent the Pope from directing members of the Church no matter where they lived.

 

[josie_L]

I agree with what you say, that the Pope is also subject to the Word of God, but these would not be considered “impediments” - more like parameters.

Yes, agreed, i.e., the pope is bound by the Word of God, as such it is not an impediment as much as it is setting parameters (which cannot be surpassed).

One of the purposes of defning what it meant to be unimpeded was to state that the Pope has the right to communicate across political/State lines and authorities. ie, it was not acceptable to prevent the Pope from directing members of the Church no matter where they lived.

Yes.

 

[Butzi]

It’s truly amazing to see how uninformed Roman Catholics are in respects to what Rome herself has taught about the extent of power of the Petrine office.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You expect me to believe that your interpretation

I have interpreted nothing at all.

I have presented Church documents and you and others are telling me that the words clearly expressed in those document - don’t really mean what they mean.

You and the others are in fact making interpretations. Not me.

The Pope is free to exercise supreme, absolute; immediate and ordinary power over any and all Bishops and the entire Church.

THAT IS CATHOLIC TEACHING.

I have asked numerous times for anyone to present a document or an article of faith that supports what you are presenting and / or contrary to the letter of the law/canon.

Other than accusing me of something I am not doing, there has been nothing to support what you are proposing.

 

[Butzi]

I have interpreted nothing at all.

I have presented Church documents and you and others are telling me that the words clearly expressed in those document - don’t really mean what they mean.

You and the others are in fact making interpretations. Not me.

The Pope is free to exercise supreme, absolute; immediate and ordinary power over any and all Bishops and the entire Church.

THAT IS CATHOLIC TEACHING.

I have asked numerous times for anyone to present a document or an article of faith that supports what you are presenting and / or contrary to the letter of the law/canon.

Other than accusing me of something I am not doing, there has been nothing to support what you are proposing.

Isaiah, the reason that they can’t/won’t respond (and I’m sure you know this already) is that it shows a change in Catholic ecclesiology. This of course would undermine the very foundation of the Roman claims of how papal infallibility applies to what it says about herself

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, **we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful **[52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council **as if **this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
2. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

Well, what do you know? This is exactly what the documents I’m posting say after all.

It will not be short when that anathema is ascribed as my interpretation of things…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is no such thing as “Sola Petros”, on the other hand Sola Scriptura does indeed exist.

Sola Cephas means that the Pope is the final authority whereas in like manner Scriptures is the final authority for Sola Scriptura.

The Successor of Peter is the final norm by which the Church, the Bishops, and all the faithful are judged.

From Vatican I:

On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff:

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53].

52 Pius VI, Letter Super soliditate dated 28 Nov. 1786.

53 From Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which was read out at the second Council of Lyons (D no. 466).

 

[Butzi]

Well, what do you know? This is exactly what the documents I’m posting say after all.

It will not be short when that anathema is ascribed as my interpretation of things…

You need not worry. Anathema ’ s are unecumenical and divisive…

 

[Randy_Carson]

You need not worry. Anathema ’ s are unecumenical and divisive…

You went from Catholic to JW and now, possibly, to Orthodoxy?

Why, pray tell, did you choose to leave the Catholic Church?

 

[Butzi]

You went from Catholic to JW and now, possibly, to Orthodoxy?

Why, pray tell, did you choose to leave the Catholic Church?

No, I was JW, converted to Catholicism, and am now discerning Orthodoxy.

I “left” because I no longer can accept papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, which of course places me outside communion with Rome. I converted to Catholicism because I never heard the East ’ s side of the story.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, I was JW, converted to Catholicism, and am now discerning Orthodoxy.

I “left” because I no longer can accept papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, which of course places me outside communion with Rome. I converted to Catholicism because I never heard the East ’ s side of the story.

Well, I am very happy for your break with the JW’s. That was huge.

Now, if you had to pick just one of those two concerns, which of them would be more significant?

Just one.